Thread by @vakibs

In one month, there will be national elections in India. They will be the largest process of democracy on earth, the greatest ever in history.

But is it the best we can have for democracy? In this thread, I will discuss my ideals for democracy, and where we are falling short.

To judge the quality of a democratic process, we need to judge two things.

1) The quality of the people: are they being the best version of themselves? Or are they mentally agitated?

2) The quality of language being used, to arrive at a democratic decision.

The procedure for voting, its safeguards, the restrictions on campaigning, the privacy of citizens while they deliberate: all of these, I consider part of 2 i.e, the language being used.

This is a computational way of looking at the process of democracy.

In the Sāmkhya philosophical perspective, the language being used refers to Prakriti, which composes of computational transformations.

The people themselves, who are participating in a democracy, are understood as manifestations of Purusha (the irreducible conscious experience).

If we take an extreme reductionist perspective on consciousness, that it is an “emergent phenomenon” which arises out of some computation, then democracy is not required !

It is only the inadequacy of our computational tools, that require us to use a process like voting.

This is why any religion that considers the human conscious experience in such reductionist terms doesn’t have a democratic tradition. It considers the optimal human behavior to be written down in a holy book. The only thing needed is a qualified interpreter (i.e a computation).

But there are religions that do require a democratic process. For example, the Buddha referred to the democratic procedures of the Vaishali republic as a model for his “Sangha”.

These democratic processes are an ancient tradition, which stem from the discourse of Rishis (sages).

The understanding of the irreducible element in consciousness, that which cannot be captured by language (or equivalently, computation), is essential for this discourse, which is known as Samvāda.

https://twitter.com/vakibs/status/778593102781186048?s=20

In this tradition of Samvāda, the democratic discourse is not only tolerated, but also necessary with the end goal of capturing the truly essential element that is shared by all the people, although it is inexpressible in language. It is “Purusha” that which is truly real “Sat”.

This indeed is what is referred to in the Vedic verse.

“Ekam Sat, viprāh bahudhā vadanti”

The “Sat” is one, learned sages call it by multiple names.

From this verse, it is clear that this ideal of democratic debate (Samvāda) can only be practiced by sages.

To conduct Samvāda, the people should be well-verses in grammar (vyākarana) that exposes intricate anatomy of language and how the meaning of words is derived (not from a rote lookup like in a dictionary). They also need to be experts in logic (Nyāya).

The participants need to be aware of multiple perspectives on the topic being discussed. Indeed, they are required to present the argument from the opponent’s point of view to the degree to which he is satisfied! This is the Pūrva Paksha, a necessary component of a debate.

This level of competence will not come overnight. People need to be regularly trained in debate, and need to be at the sharp end of their game. Even more importantly, they need to be in control of their own mind and sense organs. “Indriya dama” is the first step in preparation.

The language being used affects the mind. The daily habits of exercise, cultural activities, and even the food that one eats need to be controlled.

Most importantly, the participants need to meditate regularly. Then they know clearly how each word is coming out of their mouths.

So in a truly functional democracy, the task of voting is inseparable from the democratic training of the citizens.

There has to be regular debates, that are conducted in a refined atmosphere where the participants express the opponent’s point of view by Pūrva Paksha.

In fact, until very recently, every Indian village used to have this trade of Sabha (Panchayat), typically around a Banyan tree at the centre of the village. Such regular debates have all but disappeared now, as most people consume opinion on mass media, through middlemen.

Just like people don’t know how exactly the food is produced when they eat at a fast food restaurant, they have no idea how the opinions are manufactured in a mass-media network.

This corresponds to a severe corruption in the language of democracy.

A honest appraisal of situation will let us understand that what we have today is a game of competitive corruption by multiple strategic interests, all very short-sighted. Nobody is interested in refining the language of the debate, since nobody knows about the unknown unknowns.

The game is fueled of course by money. It is a valid game, some form of entertainment.

But let us ask: is it the best that democracy can be?

No. At its best, democracy can elevate us to Swarga Mandapa, the Sabha of Indra.

(Picture at the start of the thread: Kopeshwar temple)

This is because, at its best, democracy is nothing but Yajña, or voluntary sharing. And at our own best, we are nothing but Dēvas.

“Yajñena yajñam ajayanta dēvāh”.

The Dēvas perform Yajña, which is both the process and the goal.

(End of thread)