MUGGING OF DEMOCRACY IN DEMOCRATIC WORLD
The enactment of emergency laws in some democratic countries after Septmeber 11, including our own POTA, brings to the fore certain important issues about the shrinkage of democratic space available to citizens in the democratic world.
A few decades ago, one felt quite optimistic about the consolidation of democratic polity and culture in different parts of the world. The end of the cold war blocks, collapse of certain totalitarian, military and repressive regimes and transition to democracies in some countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, the spread of human rights philosophy and institutions, the strengthening of the NGO movement and rapid growth of economy in some parts of the democratic world gave rise to confidence in the efficacy of democratic polity to solve peoples’ problems.
This optimism has been belied. Amongst the factors responsible for decline in public faith, two have been prominent. One has been the failure of the criminal justice system to control crime in a fair, just and effective manner and the other has been the failure on the economic front to alleviate poverty and inequalities.
There is an increasing feeling that the democratic system has failed to provide a feeling of security to the common man. The establishment of a feeling of security is extremely important because without it, one can not enjoy one’s basic needs and rights. As the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in 1995 said: “To feel safe from crime is as important to a person as access to food, shelter, education and health.”
A large number of people are of the view that democracy as a system of governance is weak and fails to control crime effectively. This feeling is supported by the fact that crime rate in almost all the democratic countries is definitely very high and is continuously rising. The State is failing to prevent crime and in some cases also to deal promptly, justly and effectively with those who commit it. When a large number of people, after committing crimes, are allowed to get away and justice is not meted out to victims, or criminal cases in courts of law are allowed to drag on for umpteen number of years, it results in eroding the faith and confidence of the public in the effectiveness not merely of the criminal justice administration but of the whole system of democratic polity and governance.
A democratic system is associated with the rule of law. Loss of faith is all the greater and widespread when the rule of law is not enforced. The way the system has worked in some countries, it has given rise to an impression in the public mind that some persons i.e. those who are rich, influential and politically powerful, commit crimes with impunity and manage to remain above the law of the land and it is only those who belong to the poor and underprivileged sections of society who are put behind the prison walls for committing even minor infractions of law. The system also shows bias and discrimination on the basis of race, colour and caste. This leads to alienation of a large section of people who are victims of discrimination and injustice. It fuels the seeds of discontent, protest and violence.
The citizens expect the State to provide them freedom from crime and violence. The State’s failure to do so gives rise to public fear of crime and criminals. Fear of crime feeds on itself and always grows at a rate faster than crime. It reduces the quality of life enjoyed by citizens in many ways. It is such public fear and perceptions, which provide a license to the police to ignore the law and deal with crime and criminals by using rough and illegal methods. Police deviance always increases whenever the fear of crime whips up the rhetoric of ‘war against crime and criminals’. Citizens’ vigilantism, which poses another threat to the rule of law, is also known to increase when citizens lose faith in the ability of the state to control crime. Public vigilantism has emerged as a big threat to the consolidation of rule of law in South Africa and some other democratic countries of that region and Latin America.
The State always uses the opportunity provided by the accelerating fear of crime to arm itself with repressive powers. Fear of crime provides an opportunity to the governments to introduce black laws; enhance powers of the police; overlook use of third degree methods by state agencies and curtail citizens’ rights. Instead of rule of law, rule of fear reigns supreme. In the final analysis, it is the democracy, which really gets mugged. This is what has happened in large parts of the democratic world after the September 11 incidents.
In such an environment where popular opinion supports authoritarian responses to crime and violence, the human rights movement suffers a set back. It faces an erosion of political support because the human rights groups are accused of coddling the criminals and ignoring the rights and needs of the citizens to live in a climate of peace and stability. There is also a feeling that the human rights organisations are always ready to denounce the police abuse, but hardly have any specific suggestions to improve their performance.
The other factor responsible for erosion of public faith is an economic one. There is considerable evidence to prove that poverty and income disparities in most democratic countries are increasing. In its Millennium Report on Human Rights and Poverty Eradication prepared for presentation at the next CHOGM meeting, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, an independent NGO based at New Delhi, has brought out some interesting facts about the incidence of poverty in the commonwealth countries. According to the report on “Human Rights and Poverty Eradication” (2001), in a commonwealth of 2000 million people, nearly 700 million live on less than US $ 1 a day. Over 40 % of population in Lesotho, India, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Zambia, Tanzania, Uganda, Gambia and Sierra Leone live below the national poverty line or below an income of less than one $ a day. The share of the word’s poorest 20% in global income is only 1.11%, down from 2.3% in 1960. Today, the richest 20% earn 78 times more than the poorest 20%, while in 1960, the disparity was only 30 times as much. Even in developed democratic world, there are pockets of poverty. In the UK and Australia, over 13 % of the population live below the poverty line, while in Canada, the population living in poverty is 17.6%
One of the reasons for increasing poverty and deepening disparities is the failure of democratic regimes to control corruption in public life. Corruption is nothing but a tax on the poor. As the CHRI report says: “Corruption negates the rights of the poor, depriving them of their right to participation and denying them access to economic and social welfare. The result is a sense of hopelessness among people and general cynicism and selfishness in society.”
Consolidation of democratic space is thus dependent mainly on the ability of the democratic regimes to deal with the forces of crime and disorder effectively but justly, without violating human rights and to ensure that the fruits of development are distributed equitably. A rights based approach to the problems of crime and poverty is the need of the hour.
(Original Version of the Article published in the Statesman dated March 22, 2002)
