Talking democracy in Latin America

For the last five years in a row, the Election Commission of Mexico has taken an initiative unique in the world of electoral management bodies. It has successfully assembled from right across Latin America, some of its statesmen and former presidents, as well as eminent academics, writers, politicians, journalists and social scientists, to debate over 3 days the quality of electoral democracy in Latin America.

The principal theme is to analyse the path travelled in the last three decades or so, all the while reflecting on inequalities that still persist. For the third year in succession, I was struck by the clarity and openness of the discourse.

This year’s list of participants was long and impressive. It included Laura Chinchilla, President of Costa Rica (2010-14); Fredrico Heroles the eminent Mexican writer; the Chilean scholar Francisco Zapata; Carlos Mesa, President of Bolivia (2003-2005); the hugely impressive Chilean journalist Monica Gonazalez (who was imprisoned and tortured during the Pinochet regime); Lorenzo Cordova, President of the Election Commission of Mexico and its moving spirit, the remarkable Manuel Carillo, its international secretary.

Discourse

The mainstay of the conference lay in its continuing quest to consolidate democratic structures, for Latin America’s emergence to democratic governance was often shadowed by authoritarian rule. Elections, with the right to vote and the right to elect, were now recognised only as starting points. The aim of the truly democratic impulses lay in political pluralism and social inclusion. The speakers spoke of the need to confront poverty and social marginalisation. Some spoke of the continuing need for affirmative action to achieve true equality for women as well for the indigenous peoples. The argument put forward by many went something like this: where patronage and corruption structures exist, where vote buying can still take place, where organised crime and violence persist in some parts, can all these be reconciled with the concept of democracy? And yet, while Carlos Mesa was to reflect that there can now be no turning back from democracy, Laura Chinchilla’s presidential experience led her to say that no one should assume that there were no regressions in democracy.

Monica Gonzales spoke passionately of a Latin America where 160 million women lived second class lives and where their voting choices were often determined by men. She spoke of the politics of exclusion and questioned whether democracy could be coupled with hunger, poverty and unemployment. Most others underlined the need to recognise the power of the internet and the need to open new ways of participation for comparatively younger voices through social media. Social scientists and academics present said that democracy must surely also mean an absence of vote buying and vote coercion, and the constant and transparent striving by governments towards higher levels of well being.

Resonance

I found that much of what was spoken in the conference found resonance within our own polity and social structure. It is true that we are the largest democracy in the world. We have an election commission of which our people are justifiably proud. We hold elections on time. Several participants in Mexico City expressed their awe regarding the apparent ease and expertise with which the Election Commission of India could conduct a general election involving 816 million voters, and deliver credible results within a few hours of counting. For while we take it for granted that elections always lead to an orderly transfer of power, a number of countries do not readily accept their election results, which has oftentimes led to prolonged periods of protest and civil strife.

Participation

Unlike Mexico and a host of participating countries which enjoy per capita incomes of close to US$ 15,000, India has a per capita one tenth of that. The recent Human Development Report places India at the 135th position out of a total of 186 countries. Some of our well known economists have sought to define Below Poverty Levels at the equivalence of US dollars one and a half dollars a day. But whether by this definition we choose to estimate the figures of our abject poor to be about 200 million or more, the harsh reality is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of our people go to sleep hungry or under nourished. They remain deprived of adequate medical care, employment and any security net.

The Index also places us dismally in terms of gender inequality, (127 out of 148). Women in India are still far from claiming one third, let alone one half, of seats in Parliament and state legislatures. Clearly, on the democratic scale, the position of women is, for the most part, is subservient to men. In 67 years, we have failed to create adequate delivery mechanisms to ensure that the implementation of our welfare schemes are not mired in inefficiencies, leakages and corruption.

Yes, we have much to be thankful for. We are the world’s largest democracy. We enjoy vital freedoms denied to people in many countries. Each vote is equal and enjoys the power to retain or change a government. Affirmative laws and actions have resulted in the traditionally backward getting a share of power. Women have reached the highest constitutional heights. But just as our daily newspapers bring us quiet stories of triumph and equality, they also carry grim reminders of deprivation and inequalities. Which is why those enlightened debates on another continent are constant reminders of the vast distance we have yet to cover.