Dilip Gaonkar⁠ is Professor of Rhetoric and Public Culture and the Director of Center for Global Culture and Communication at Northwestern University. This conversation takes cue from the book, Degenerations of Democracy (2022), that he co-authored with Charles Taylor and Craig Calhoun.

Sound Production: Khalid Siraj

Image Credit: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM)

Highlights:

All national formations have, inherent in them, some form of cultural majoritarianism or hegemony. Our present condition is marked by the transformation of such cultural majoritarianisms into political majoritarianisms, making use of democratic systems like elections and universal adult franchise. In other words, this has led to majority rule becoming majoritarian rule degenerating democracy from within.

Political communities oscillate between phases of cosmopolitan and ethno-religious conceptions of nationhood. However, a lot of factors need to fall in place for this particular political conjuncture to emerge. There is immense ideological labor that goes into the construction of an ethno-religious unity like this that overrides many other forms of economic and cultural differences. New fictional identities that enable majoritarian mobilization need to be created. It is not very clear as to whether majoritarian cultural politics comes from the top layer of society (as many tend to believe) or from the common people at the bottom. Further, politics is conjunctural and contingent enabling numerous possibilities. The question we need to ask is how this has come about in the present?

Those who devised the representative system as a means to operationalize democracy and popular sovereignty saw it also as a means to filter out the many (the poor demos) from wielding state power directly. However, they never foresaw that the system would also eventually facilitate and sustain ethno-religious majoritarian rule.

Majoritarianism is fueled by different kinds of desires and temporalities. Unlike the West, the postcolonial states of the Global South did not have a slow and staggered evolution over decades and centuries into a democratic system. They started off as mass democracies where all adults received franchise and political equality at one go, facilitated through well-crafted constitutions like in India. As a result, the two have broadly different democratic temporalities. This also means that the nature of the democratic institutions was also different. Moreover, the postcolonies had much more of a raw diversity in their populations, compared to Europe. The second temporal difference is that of a particular form of capitalist transformation that the West went through. More than cultural differences, countries like India had to address the more pressing question of poverty. As a result, such states became massive. Whereas in America, for instance, the primary concern was with limiting state power.