Our wonderful quotocracy
Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Posted online: Monday , Mar 15, 2010 at 0217 hrs
There is a constitutional revolution underway. It has long been in the
making. But its full logic is unfolding now. This new type of regime
it will beget defies classification. It cannot be captured by the
categories bequeathed by those who understood different regime types:
Plato or Polybius, Aristotle or Kautilya, Montesquieu or Madison. This
new regime is not a monarchy, aristocracy, republic or a democracy. It
has its distinct identity, values and institutional frame. Behold all,
the rise of Quotocracy! Experience the bliss that is this new dawn.
The principles behind quotocracy need to be carefully understood. It
arises out of a democracy and often gets confused with it. But make no
mistake. Quotocracy is distinct. A democracy values choice. Voters are
free to elect whoever they wish. In a quotocracy, voters by turn are
obliged to vote for someone with particular ascriptive
characteristics. In a democracy, a general will is possible. In
principle people can reason in terms that take all relevant reasons
into consideration and are good for all. In a quotocracy, by
definition there are only particular reasons and interests: men for
men, women for women, caste for caste. A general will is a conceptual
Montesquieu said each regime has a principle that sustains its best
form. In despotism it is fear, in aristocracy it is honour, in
republics it is virtue. Quotocracy has its own principle: victimhood.
No quotocracy can be sustained without it. The currency of new claims
is the narrative of hurt. The axis of competition is also victimhood:
those who do not get that status are left most aggrieved. The
identification of each new victim group escalates the race for
identifying the next.
Democracies occasionally make exceptions to redress gross injustice.
In a quotocracy, the exception is the norm. OBCs want quotas for
themselves, but not for women. Women want for themselves, but not for
OBCs. And no one wants for Muslims. Some say, "Why do women need
quotas? Why don't parties give tickets?" But in a quotocracy this
question is not legitimate. However, those who deny the legitimacy of
this question use this same argument when the demand for sub-quotas is
made. "Why not give OBC women tickets under the quota?" But don't
confuse this with hypocrisy. Hypocrisy can exist only in a democracy,
when ideals do not match reality. In a quotocracy, exception is the
Democracies have ideological contention: between left and right,
liberty and equality, secular and religious. Quotocracy has consensus:
all divisions between left, right and centre are dissolved by quota.
And those who oppose quotas are accused of treason. In a way there is
justice to this charge. After all, in quotocracy, opposing quota is
like subverting a regime. Quotocracy creates a new distinction between
public and private. Privately you may oppose quota, but you
politically act on that belief at your own peril.
Quotocracy has its own conception of justice. It is not equality, or
capability or fitness or fairness. It is simple arithmetic: 33 here,
22 there, 50 for the rest. And since arithmetic can be complicated
there is no point doing fractions and subdivisions. Simple quota is
just what justice is. In a democracy, where you came from should
matter less than where you are going. It seeks to make de jure rights
and privileges we have less and less dependent upon our identity. A
quotocracy is the reverse. It makes de jure rights dependent upon
identity. A democracy prizes individuality (not to be confused with
its bad cousin, individualism). Quotocracy prizes group think. You are
your group. Democracy values self-identification. You should be
whatever you wish to or choose to be or name yourself. Quotocracy is
premised upon ascription. You are what the state certificate says you
are: SC/ ST or OBC. You can be this and no other. Democracy is
suspicious giving the state power to construct identities. Quotocracy
creates new identities by using state power to create incentives.
A quotocracy has a new separation of powers. OBCs get reservation in
jobs and education but don't deserve it in politics. Women can get it
in Lok Sabha but not Rajya Sabha. Women get reservation in politics
but don't get it in jobs. In a quotocracy, legislation and
administration are also confused. Panchayats are equated with supreme
law making bodies forgetting that they have different functions.
Quotocracy also has its own logic of mystification. Tocqueville said
that in a democracy the myth of formal equality can disguise
substantive inequality. In a quotocracy, the fact that select
individuals from some communities are empowered is considered as
empowering the community. And this mystification is justified as a
compensation for democracy's mystification. Since in a democracy there
is a gap between formal and substantive equality, in a quotocracy we
can empower elites within communities with impunity and call it
empowerment for all.
Democracy strives for deliberation. For quotocracy getting numbers
right is paramount. Democracy is bound by constitutionalism. It is
hemmed in by a diversity of values. Quotocracy makes constitutionalism
subordinate to itself. So what if some states exceed 50 per cent and
the courts for fear are unable to pronounce a verdict. Quotocracy
redefines the scale of values: excellence is a ruse for domination,
self-reliance a tactic for injustice and so forth.
Democracy thrives on historical traditions associated with its
founding. A quotocracy thrives on historical amnesia. The British used
two tactics: divide and rule. And they said that we were infants
because we could not think outside of caste and community. We were
incapable of self-government. Quotocracy likes divide and rule. And it
also thinks we are incapable of self-government. Our identities need
to be boxed. Our founders worked hard to combat ascriptive identities.
They rejected two-nation theories, separate electorates, narcissism of
partial groups, communal representation, caste censuses. The logic of
quotocracy is to bring them back. Democracy seeks to unite despite
differences. Quotocracy seeks to divide despite commonalities.
But democracy and quotocracy have this in common: they are never
complete. They are always a work in progress. Democracy has to
continually dissolve hierarchy. Quotocracy has to continually create
new quotas. In a democracy, all animals are equal but some more equal
than others. In a quotocracy, some deprived groups will get their
deprivations recognised more than others.
Quotocracy is truly revolutionary. Make no mistake about it. It is
deeper than most revolutions because it needs a new moral vocabulary.
And it needs a new political science to understand it. Prepare for the
Age of Quotocracy.
The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMediafirstname.lastname@example.org, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to email@example.com
TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCastefirstname.lastname@example.org OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/
Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: