An autocracy survives when there is no alternative. In a well functioning democracy, this is usually not a problem as a vacuum seldom occurs
Aspersions are being cast in the media that democracy is on decline. Those ignorant of history can only say so. Today, Europe is prima facie democratic; at least to the extent of holding elections. Before WWII, there were mostly autocracies, for example, Germany, Italy and Spain. For most of the 19th century and earlier, democracy was an Anglo-Saxon monopoly. It was inaugurated by England in 1215 with the signing of the Magna Carta or Great Charter by King John at Runnymede in Surrey. All citizens obtained concessions and this was the beginning of the rule of law. Most of the noblemen were present at the signing at Runnymede in the county of Surrey. It began the tradition of the enforcement of the rule of law, which became a big pillar of democracy. All are equal before the law and all are to be treated justly.
The English noblemen had virtually forced the Magna Carta for King John to sign or else his endeavour would have to avoid his signature. Who is normally willing to give up power? Had the noblemen not been gradual and tactful, the King would probably not have signed the carta and there could have been a civil war. Simple measures like the Church shall have full freedom, London city will be free to levy the taxes it used to earlier. All merchants could leave and return to England without harassment or taxation. Mild and acceptable measures were the beginning of modern democracy.
From the early centuries to the end of World War II was a long era of autocracy in most parts of the universe. In Europe, religion usually provided the ideology and monarchs came and went. China was a centralised empire for 22 centuries uninterrupted. India had Muslim monarchs, emperors or otherwise, Europe was dominated by Holy Roman Emperor backed by the Roman Catholic Church based in the Vatican; the Eastern Church was at the back of the Russian Czars. Africa was waking up while South America was an island with a local king until Spain and Portugal conquered them. Where was democracy? In England and later Great Britain with Canada, Australia and other colonies followed suit when they became independent. So did the USA after 1776.
England, its culture and leaders usually thought about what is fair. Whereas other good cultures were guided by what is right as prescribed by their religion. Yet others were conveniently guided by what is possible, by might or right. Had it been otherwise, King Henry VIII would not have survived on the throne after leaving the Vatican Church merely for annulling his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and marrying Anne Boleyn. The independent Church of England has thereafter followed what suited the interests of England not the presumed wishes of God.
Germany tried democracy called the Weimar Republic between 1920 and 1931 but failed. By May 1945, Adolf Hitler’s regime was roundly defeated. Thereafter, Konrad Adenauer came to power with his Christian Democratic Party; a democratic Government has ruled thereafter. France was ruled by Napoleon III until 1870 when he was defeated by Germany, led by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Italy was not a democratic country until after 1945. Eastwards onwards, there was a variety of autocracies.
India has performed admirably, especially because we started in 1947 with a low rate of literacy. Incidentally, Nehru was a democrat, moreover, he kept winning all the elections until he lived. So did Indira Gandhi in 1972 and 1980 and Rajiv Gandhi in 1985. Except for two years between 1977 and 1979, the dynasty ruled India. The great advantage of democracy is the synergy it produces. Freedom lands enthusiasm to people and the work willing. Compulsion, which often results from autocracy, semi-paralyses. As Prime Minister Modi said that India was able to achieve 100 crore vaccinations within some months because it was everybody’s effort, the results of synergy are amazing.
Another reason for the success of democracy is the very size of the country where a takeover by civilians or by soldiers would find it extremely difficult to capture power and hold it. Additionally, the country is so diverse in the language and culture of the people that a unity amongst people to capture and retain power is difficult.
An autocracy usually survives when there is no alternative. In a reasonably well functioning democracy, this is usually not a problem as a vacuum seldom occurs. The nature and temperament of the people is important. Here, the credit must go to the Hindu faith which makes people believe in their Karma. To an extent, this makes the people individualistic who seldom want to unite to knock out another group. This is unlike Islam which prefers rule by jamhuriyat or consensus under a monarch. The contrast between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh tells the story of different temperaments. The contrast between Islamic countries and the rest of the world is interesting. Wherever there is monarchy the people are happy if they are Muslim. The concept begins with the Caliph who is supposed to be the spiritual and temporal head of Sunni Islam. The world of Muslims is meant to be one or pan-Islamic.
The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal.)
