Democracy has, today, become a buzzword not only in the discourse of political science but also in day to day life. Yet, there is no precise definition of democracy due to numerous types of democracy (such as Athenian democracy, Direct Democracy, Deliberative Democracy, Constitutional Democracy, Consociational Democracy, Liberal Democracy, Participatory Democracy, Demarchy etc.) existing side by side that are either contradictory or complementary. The origin of democracy itself is quite notorious; on one hand many traces it back to the ancient Greek, on the other hand it is traced back to primitive tribal community, which would imply that every community was in one way or the other democratic. Yet democracy as we know today is the result of improvisation of the very idea of democracy that underwent serious critical changes.
Gillin in his article ‘The Origin of Democracy’ (1919), has summarized the origin of democracy. He has largely dealt with the primitive society and tracing the roots of democracy to the tribal society, with more emphasis on the workings of democracy and his utopian dream about democracy. He has tried to show the origins of democracy from the works of Morgan as well as from the bible. Whereas Graham Maddox in his book ‘Religion and the rise of Democracy’ (2001), argues that the foundations for democratic theory was laid by religion-Christianity. Of course his analysis depended largely on dated secondary datas. Nevertheless he tries to substantiate his argument by broadly sketching ‘institutional’, ‘popular’ and ‘personal’ history of Christianity to the development of modern democracy. Maddox uses the idea of prophetic challenges in ancient Israel down to Christian participation in democratic movement in England, America, South Africa etc. Maddox identifies different aspects of religion that are responsible for the birth of democratic thought which led to the emergence of democratic government. “Its aspects include: individualism; freedom; equality; community; covenant and contract; limited government; political opposition; reform and reconstruction; the force of outside direction; secularization and the constitutionalism of two kingdoms.”(2001:7)
Having briefly examined the origin of democracy I would like to state that democracy should not be simply limited to political setup or of electing government; rather the idea of democracy should be understood as a process required not only in decision making regarding everyday concerns and issues, but also in facilitating healthy discussions and deliberations which are inclusive and unbiased. Hence the notion of democracy should transcend political and social as well and include even cultural democracy. “Cultural democracy (…) is the ultimate extension of the idea of democracy: that each one of us, each community, and each cultural minority has rights that deserve respect, and that each must have a voice in the vital decisions that affect the quality of our lives.”
We should not limit our understanding of democracy to only one of its component i.e. a procedural right only for electing the government (or) representatives. There should be a clear distinction and understanding in terms of democracy as a fundamental right in every aspects of daily life and democracy as a procedural right in electing government(s) or representatives. In fact the concept and practice of democracy should be seen as a fundamental right. I cannot find a better summarization than that of Yves Schemeil when he states, “[w]hat is of most importance for democracy is not a final vote but a set of intelligible justifications for each decision. Such rationalizations constitutes a stock of precedents which enable discussions to recur from one session to the next, providing for likely improvements in decisions and consequently enhancing their support.” (Yves Schemeil 2000)
Coming to the concept of development, first and foremost development will have to be contextualized regardless of the criticism surrounding such idea. Gilbert Rist in ‘The History Of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith’ (2008) argues that such ideas of contextualizing development will only lead to conclusion that the concept of development exist nowhere and probably never will. However one has to take the risk of totally disproving the non-existence of development because at the end of the day we are concerned about the people and not the definition of development per se.
We are in an era where studies and observation has shown us that development is relative and that true development takes place only from within, i.e. until and unless the people concerned decide and define what development means to them and how the very process of development will cater to their needs according to their needs, development will be reduced to the whims of the dictator or few elites. The peculiarity of such process is visible when every individual is given the freedom to share his/her idea in the deliberation at the public sphere for deciding the best possible path for development that will benefit one and all.
The failure of mainstream development to deliver what it promised and the subsequent crisis in development theory/concept has led to the disillusionment in the overall attitude towards mainstream development. Moreover the concept of mainstream development’s fixation with growth ignoring other aspects and deliberately using it to generalize the wellbeing of the society is the reason why it failed miserably to withstand the criticism. “It is now widely accepted that development is not simply a matter of GDP growth, and human development is a more appropriate goal and measure of development.” (Jan Nederveen Pieterse, 2010, p.84). As far as the nature of generalization is concerned this is where the idea of development lost its appeal i.e. the moment it was replicated and imposed. Time and again the very nature of generating policy based on one successful programme and implementing it across communities has turned out to be a failure.
Development when left to the people concerned to be deliberated and defined should be instrumental, i.e. what is the purpose of development? In what way should development promote a better environment for a comfortable living? and so on. It is also expected that the definition(s) emerging from such process be normative, it should help people to engage on the issues that concerns them and allow them to set certain goal(s) or aim(s), identify the resources and work towards the achievement of their goal(s)/ aim(s). In this context the idea of development leans towards what in popular discourse would term as an ‘alternative development’.
“Alternative development can be viewed as a roving critique of mainstream development, shifting in position as mainstream development shifts, as a series of alternative proposals and methodologies that are loosely interconnected; or it can be viewed as an alternative development paradigm, implying a definite theoretical break with mainstream development. It can be viewed as concerned with local development, with alternative practices on the ground, or as an overall challenge to the mainstream, and part of a global alternative.” (Pieterse 2010: pp. 84-85)
Going further Pieterse points out that the alternative referred to is not in relation to the ‘general discourse of developmentalism’ rather it is in relation to ‘state and market’ (p.86). This has to be understood as the idea of alternative development emerged to question the failure of the state as well as market in taking a central role in development, and it is more focussed to community development i.e. development from below. Of course he warns us about the failure of alternative development, i.e. “to develop a clear perspective on micro–macro relations, an alternative macro approach, and a coherent theoretical position, although it is often claimed that there is an alternative development paradigm” (p.84). He also identifies the loopholes of alternative development such as ‘suggesting more than it can deliver’, ‘lack of clear distinction between what is alternative and what is not’, ‘sustains the overall rhetoric of development while suggesting the ability to deliver something really different within its general aura’ which according to him will attract hostile criticism (p.88).
Moving on, in this context alternative development is in no way in tune with the global movement or green upsurge of the 1980s whereby they see alternative development as a tool for de-modernization or anti-development. Instead alternative in a sense that people consciously rejects, if the development as envisaged in mainstream development discourse is not suitable, incompatible and exclusive, and, they, subsequently work towards achieving their own development which will be inclusive, according to their needs and so on. Likewise if people consciously scrutinize the mainstream development discourse and if they find that it will help them achieve their goal, deliver them their needs and take everyone on an equal footing i.e. everyone benefits then they can choose to go along the lines of development path as envisaged in mainstream development discourse.
It is alternative because people have a choice, an alternative to the given understanding of mainstream (or) imposed development. That the concerned people consciously deliberate, discuss and formulate their own idea of development, work out their objectives and identify resources to achieve their goal. That the state instead of simply imposing development projects or policies, that instead of deciding for the people concerned, give people the freedom to decide whether they want the already defined and designed set of development or that they want to pursue their own and come up with their own design and aspirations.
In Nagaland too the idea of development for one village will differ from another village, from tribe to tribe and district to district, as such the idea of development, process of development, and achieving development should be given to the people concerned to decide. Of course the idea of development when stated that it will be different, I am not talking about infrastructural development such as roads, heath care systems, education etc. these are some of the basic pillars of development and is assumed that it will be taken care of. But what I am concerned is on the next step. What next? Should communities keep depending on the state or central government to decide for them? Should they be excluded in the process development? Should they have no voice or choice regarding the development that is taking place or will take place?
Another point is that when I talk of alternative development I am in no way undermining the importance of academicians, intellectuals, experts, bureaucrats and so on. In fact alternative development means that people identify their needs, deliberate and discuss their needs and prioritize them, come up with a strategy to achieve their goal(s). This is where the role of intellectuals, academicians, bureaucrats etc. comes into picture. That their role is to live with the people, work with them and guide and facilitate such process. That they should stop thinking, deciding and formulating policies, programmes etc. for a community whom they don’t even know. The practice of sitting in A/C rooms or some conference hall far away from the community and theorising, deliberating and deciding development for the community is unethical and will not yield any positive outcome. Instead it will have a debilitating effect not only to the community but also to the overall attitude and perception towards development.
The ideals of democracy along with critical and active participation from the community concerned will bring about a development that will benefit the people according to their need(s) and goal. Democracy is needed for a society in order for the citizen to be free from any subordination, oppression and suppression, in any form. It is only when a community is free from such harmful practices that active participation from the individual(s) and group(s) will take place. This will further lead to a vigorous discussions and deliberations fostering healthy cohesion and solidarity. The ability and opportunity for individuals to share his/her views, question, deliberate and contribute to a larger public discussion without any inhibition and/ or fear of reprisal from the authority [state, religion, dominant group(s)/majority] is the first step towards a healthy democracy which is not limited to only political but overall process of decision making for any issue that directly or indirectly affect the citizens. To reiterate, democracy, critical thinking, participation, and inclusion are prerequisites of development and sequentially such development will promote and sustain the democratic ideals of a society.
Gillin in his article ‘The Origin of Democracy’ (1919), has summarized the origin of democracy. He has largely dealt with the primitive society and tracing the roots of democracy to the tribal society, with more emphasis on the workings of democracy and his utopian dream about democracy. He has tried to show the origins of democracy from the works of Morgan as well as from the bible. Whereas Graham Maddox in his book ‘Religion and the rise of Democracy’ (2001), argues that the foundations for democratic theory was laid by religion-Christianity. Of course his analysis depended largely on dated secondary datas. Nevertheless he tries to substantiate his argument by broadly sketching ‘institutional’, ‘popular’ and ‘personal’ history of Christianity to the development of modern democracy. Maddox uses the idea of prophetic challenges in ancient Israel down to Christian participation in democratic movement in England, America, South Africa etc. Maddox identifies different aspects of religion that are responsible for the birth of democratic thought which led to the emergence of democratic government. “Its aspects include: individualism; freedom; equality; community; covenant and contract; limited government; political opposition; reform and reconstruction; the force of outside direction; secularization and the constitutionalism of two kingdoms.”(2001:7)
Having briefly examined the origin of democracy I would like to state that democracy should not be simply limited to political setup or of electing government; rather the idea of democracy should be understood as a process required not only in decision making regarding everyday concerns and issues, but also in facilitating healthy discussions and deliberations which are inclusive and unbiased. Hence the notion of democracy should transcend political and social as well and include even cultural democracy. “Cultural democracy (…) is the ultimate extension of the idea of democracy: that each one of us, each community, and each cultural minority has rights that deserve respect, and that each must have a voice in the vital decisions that affect the quality of our lives.”
We should not limit our understanding of democracy to only one of its component i.e. a procedural right only for electing the government (or) representatives. There should be a clear distinction and understanding in terms of democracy as a fundamental right in every aspects of daily life and democracy as a procedural right in electing government(s) or representatives. In fact the concept and practice of democracy should be seen as a fundamental right. I cannot find a better summarization than that of Yves Schemeil when he states, “[w]hat is of most importance for democracy is not a final vote but a set of intelligible justifications for each decision. Such rationalizations constitutes a stock of precedents which enable discussions to recur from one session to the next, providing for likely improvements in decisions and consequently enhancing their support.” (Yves Schemeil 2000)
Coming to the concept of development, first and foremost development will have to be contextualized regardless of the criticism surrounding such idea. Gilbert Rist in ‘The History Of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith’ (2008) argues that such ideas of contextualizing development will only lead to conclusion that the concept of development exist nowhere and probably never will. However one has to take the risk of totally disproving the non-existence of development because at the end of the day we are concerned about the people and not the definition of development per se.
We are in an era where studies and observation has shown us that development is relative and that true development takes place only from within, i.e. until and unless the people concerned decide and define what development means to them and how the very process of development will cater to their needs according to their needs, development will be reduced to the whims of the dictator or few elites. The peculiarity of such process is visible when every individual is given the freedom to share his/her idea in the deliberation at the public sphere for deciding the best possible path for development that will benefit one and all.
The failure of mainstream development to deliver what it promised and the subsequent crisis in development theory/concept has led to the disillusionment in the overall attitude towards mainstream development. Moreover the concept of mainstream development’s fixation with growth ignoring other aspects and deliberately using it to generalize the wellbeing of the society is the reason why it failed miserably to withstand the criticism. “It is now widely accepted that development is not simply a matter of GDP growth, and human development is a more appropriate goal and measure of development.” (Jan Nederveen Pieterse, 2010, p.84). As far as the nature of generalization is concerned this is where the idea of development lost its appeal i.e. the moment it was replicated and imposed. Time and again the very nature of generating policy based on one successful programme and implementing it across communities has turned out to be a failure.
Development when left to the people concerned to be deliberated and defined should be instrumental, i.e. what is the purpose of development? In what way should development promote a better environment for a comfortable living? and so on. It is also expected that the definition(s) emerging from such process be normative, it should help people to engage on the issues that concerns them and allow them to set certain goal(s) or aim(s), identify the resources and work towards the achievement of their goal(s)/ aim(s). In this context the idea of development leans towards what in popular discourse would term as an ‘alternative development’.
“Alternative development can be viewed as a roving critique of mainstream development, shifting in position as mainstream development shifts, as a series of alternative proposals and methodologies that are loosely interconnected; or it can be viewed as an alternative development paradigm, implying a definite theoretical break with mainstream development. It can be viewed as concerned with local development, with alternative practices on the ground, or as an overall challenge to the mainstream, and part of a global alternative.” (Pieterse 2010: pp. 84-85)
Going further Pieterse points out that the alternative referred to is not in relation to the ‘general discourse of developmentalism’ rather it is in relation to ‘state and market’ (p.86). This has to be understood as the idea of alternative development emerged to question the failure of the state as well as market in taking a central role in development, and it is more focussed to community development i.e. development from below. Of course he warns us about the failure of alternative development, i.e. “to develop a clear perspective on micro–macro relations, an alternative macro approach, and a coherent theoretical position, although it is often claimed that there is an alternative development paradigm” (p.84). He also identifies the loopholes of alternative development such as ‘suggesting more than it can deliver’, ‘lack of clear distinction between what is alternative and what is not’, ‘sustains the overall rhetoric of development while suggesting the ability to deliver something really different within its general aura’ which according to him will attract hostile criticism (p.88).
Moving on, in this context alternative development is in no way in tune with the global movement or green upsurge of the 1980s whereby they see alternative development as a tool for de-modernization or anti-development. Instead alternative in a sense that people consciously rejects, if the development as envisaged in mainstream development discourse is not suitable, incompatible and exclusive, and, they, subsequently work towards achieving their own development which will be inclusive, according to their needs and so on. Likewise if people consciously scrutinize the mainstream development discourse and if they find that it will help them achieve their goal, deliver them their needs and take everyone on an equal footing i.e. everyone benefits then they can choose to go along the lines of development path as envisaged in mainstream development discourse.
It is alternative because people have a choice, an alternative to the given understanding of mainstream (or) imposed development. That the concerned people consciously deliberate, discuss and formulate their own idea of development, work out their objectives and identify resources to achieve their goal. That the state instead of simply imposing development projects or policies, that instead of deciding for the people concerned, give people the freedom to decide whether they want the already defined and designed set of development or that they want to pursue their own and come up with their own design and aspirations.
In Nagaland too the idea of development for one village will differ from another village, from tribe to tribe and district to district, as such the idea of development, process of development, and achieving development should be given to the people concerned to decide. Of course the idea of development when stated that it will be different, I am not talking about infrastructural development such as roads, heath care systems, education etc. these are some of the basic pillars of development and is assumed that it will be taken care of. But what I am concerned is on the next step. What next? Should communities keep depending on the state or central government to decide for them? Should they be excluded in the process development? Should they have no voice or choice regarding the development that is taking place or will take place?
Another point is that when I talk of alternative development I am in no way undermining the importance of academicians, intellectuals, experts, bureaucrats and so on. In fact alternative development means that people identify their needs, deliberate and discuss their needs and prioritize them, come up with a strategy to achieve their goal(s). This is where the role of intellectuals, academicians, bureaucrats etc. comes into picture. That their role is to live with the people, work with them and guide and facilitate such process. That they should stop thinking, deciding and formulating policies, programmes etc. for a community whom they don’t even know. The practice of sitting in A/C rooms or some conference hall far away from the community and theorising, deliberating and deciding development for the community is unethical and will not yield any positive outcome. Instead it will have a debilitating effect not only to the community but also to the overall attitude and perception towards development.
The ideals of democracy along with critical and active participation from the community concerned will bring about a development that will benefit the people according to their need(s) and goal. Democracy is needed for a society in order for the citizen to be free from any subordination, oppression and suppression, in any form. It is only when a community is free from such harmful practices that active participation from the individual(s) and group(s) will take place. This will further lead to a vigorous discussions and deliberations fostering healthy cohesion and solidarity. The ability and opportunity for individuals to share his/her views, question, deliberate and contribute to a larger public discussion without any inhibition and/ or fear of reprisal from the authority [state, religion, dominant group(s)/majority] is the first step towards a healthy democracy which is not limited to only political but overall process of decision making for any issue that directly or indirectly affect the citizens. To reiterate, democracy, critical thinking, participation, and inclusion are prerequisites of development and sequentially such development will promote and sustain the democratic ideals of a society.
