Democratic Principles Will Ensure No Single Leader Has His Way

The very principle of democracy, with its checks and balances will ensure that Trump doesn’t have everything his way

In the age of Donald Trump, it has become commonplace to hear what a divisive figure he is and how he has done little to ‘unify’ Americans in the aftermath of his once improbable rise to the Presidency.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, the complaint is voiced most loudly by liberals. But surely, in a pluralistic democracy – an ideal for liberals of all hues – division, disagreement and contest are good things. In fact, it would be a tad dangerous if everyone subscribed to the same view of the world, whether in the US or India. It is, therefore, unrealistic, probably even undesirable for any one politician to ‘unify’ the electorate.

Politics and Politicians Don’t Unify Citizens

Divided is the way the electorates usually are in all democracies, including the US. Trump’s aesthetics and aversion to political correctness may not appeal to everyone (and may magnify his apparent ability to offend) but Barack Obama, George W Bush and Bill Clinton, his three most recent predecessors presided over an equally divided (in terms of opinion and political partisanship) country.

In democracies all politics is partisan. It isn’t politics and politicians that unify citizens. There is a more important instrument for that, namely the constitution. All citizens and their leaders, no matter their political and policy leanings, pledge allegiance to the constitution which governs their democracy.

And all such constitutions have the necessary safeguards to ensure that democracy doesn’t become a free-for-all, or majoritarian or discriminatory against any group of citizens.

Majority Decides the Agenda

Somethings are not up for debate, whether in the US, or India or any other democracy – those that guarantee the basic human rights of all citizens including the right to life, freedom of expression, equality of opportunity, etc and the sovereignty of the nation. The constitution unifies on these most fundamental issues. Everything else, all matters of domestic and foreign policy are up for debate and will necessarily be viewed through different prisms.

Of course, once elected, a leader becomes the President or Prime Minister of all citizens and not just those who voted for him or her. However, in a democracy, majority, not unanimity, rules. Any leader must work to implement the agenda he or she promised in the run-up to the election, even if a significant minority continues to oppose it.

I may strongly disagree with Trump’s strong anti-trade and anti-immigration agenda (some have called it radical) but he has been voted to office on those planks. He cannot abandon them to pursue “big tent” policies which please all or please none.

Checks and Balances in a Democracy

It’s a different matter that he may not always have his way. The difference between democracies and authoritarian regimes is that no matter how powerful an individual at the apex may be, he or she will constantly be subject to checks and balances. In the US, the system is particularly strong. Most of Trump’s decisions as President will be subject to approval by the two houses of the US Congress.

The Representatives and Senators, even if they are Republican and in the majority at this time, may not be elected by the same coalition as Trump. Those who disagree with Trump’s policies will find a voice through some Representatives and Senators. Ultimately, decision-making is a negotiation between different interests and views.

Debate on Policies

Even in a parliamentary system like India where the prime minister is the leader of the majority party/coalition in the Parliament, it isn’t always easy to just ram policies through. To begin with, there are two houses of Parliament, and the ruling party/coalition may not have a majority in the upper house as is the case now.

Also, there is an elaborate system of Parliamentary Committees which vets and refines legislation. Some policy changes, like the GST for instance, require even bigger majorities to pass and ratification from state legislatures.

The closest politics comes to consensus is via negotiation because of extensive checks and balances. Interestingly, if there is one issue on which often there is consensus even without negotiation in some democracies, notably India, it is national security. This is because of the perception of politicians that the electorate would be of the same united view on the subject.

Indeed, that might be the case because citizens are unified by the notion of sovereignty enshrined in the constitution. Still, politicians should debate and disagree on issues of national security more often because there may be alternative strategies and tactics in ensuring a common end goal.

Disagreement is Not a Negative Virtue

Division and disagreement, as long as they are within constitutional parameters, should never be viewed as negatives in a democracy. Policy formation will always have a partisan bend as long as people hold multiple views of the world. Those in power must strive to implement what they promised. Those on the other side must oppose, vociferously. The two may nor may not meet. But an intense contest of ideas and worldviews is the entire point of democracy.

(The author is Officer on Special Duty and Head, Economics, Finance & Commerce, NITI Aayog. He can be reached @nayyardhiraj. Views are personal and do not reflect the views of NITI Aayog. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)

Also Read: For Trump, Destroying Pakistani Terror Networks Should Be Priority