Daily Times

In his book, “Democracy,” Charles Tilly describes the application process and compatibility of democratic processes with optimistic criterion. He notes, “Democracy works better, and democratization is more likely to occur, when political processes reduce translation of everyday categorical inequalities into public politics.”

Democracy, in no way, is a sort of adaption. You can’t mould your state into a decent state of affairs, and label it “Democracy.” There’s more to it. The amount of work that goes into the maintenance of a basic outline of democratic features, is something that may overlap wars and economic regressions over time. And that brings us to the biggest misconception about Democracy: Inevitability.

Inevitability. A simple word. Precedential, but predictable. Democracy isn’t an instant imposition of events. A delicate word; democracy is a revelation upon revolutionary stances. A leader or nation can’t wake up in the morning and say, “Let’s become a Democracy!” It’s just not sustainable.

We, the people. The people of persistence, the people of hope. Since 1776, the union, formed in honour, and the name of peace, has seen itself divided by fear. Fear of extinction, fear of deprivation, but most importantly, fear of irrelevance. Fear that the union, formed in the name of God and Democracy, saw itself oppose its own values. Why we fought it, through thick and thin. Rivers of blood, and banks of deceit-for years, they have stood silently, in anticipation of a rebuttal.

The liberty to assemble as a family of a nation is the first step to Democracy. It’s that baby step, of a leap, taken across the barbed wire.

Now, the freedom to assemble isn’t the formation of a crowd. Anyone can gather like a flock of birds. It’s the willingness and ability to stand up, and stand up together. More than anything, assemble for a cause; on a universally agreeable cause, regardless of any minimal existing opposition.

A study by Isabel Ortez, published by Palgrave, charted scenarios for protests around the world, between the years 2006 and 2020. It noted that a total of 2809 protests were held, out of which Europe and Central Asia, accounted for the highest numbers, at about 806. This goes to show, the dissent, in this respective region but also notes the freedom of dissent in the region. It shows that European and Central Asian Democracies allow the liberty to gather and protest against a cause, whether justified or not.

But what does it say about the opposite? The region accounting for the minimal level was South Asia, at 101. 101 protests in 14 years, seems rather insignificant. It just goes to the extent to which the freedom to assemble is practised. The “rebellion”outlook of protesting in South Asia is no stranger to the tone of analysts and common folk alike.

The Black Lives Matter movement was an accurate representation of the fusion of events that shaped democratic harm to the social cause. Millions took to the street to protest. Some were prosecuted against, succeeding their inability to stay peaceful, but others were allowed to carry the light forward. And surrounding that Million Movement, the action was taken. From the George Floyd Justice in Policing act to others, which focused on the mainstream social agenda, North America has seen a steady rise in its dissenter rate. But it is this flow of energy, that helps societal causes grow. Like a chimney, it vents through the noise of its whistle-cover it up, and it’ll blow up, louder than an angry bustle of clouds.

The second pillar would be the freedom of speech. To say whatever you want, whenever you want, as long as it does not surpass precedent, or incite violence amongst fellow citizens.

Freedom of speech is the right to act, the right to demand, through the power of words. Freedom of speech is not always in form of insurgencies. It is a simple cry for help or comment on the overall system.

Ortez, along with her co-authors, notes the dire circumstance for collective voicing. The top challenge was no doubt, these very causes. However, the strive for patriotism came in a dying second place. The latter never seems to prevail, with below 30 per cent of sources, according to another study, claiming to be dissenting against the dissenter’s dissent. Confusing as it may be, it signifies an important outlook on how political atmospheres shape public opinion.

She says, “In the first populist wave, when anti-authoritarianism and economic populism was in the ascendant, there were significantly fewer instances of protests to deny rights.”

As the pace of change moved forward, these demands changed, and for the better, too.

Another important aspect is the free electoral system of a union. The right to choose is essential in one’s atmosphere. In the study, as prescribed earlier, there was susceptibility to the South Asian region. Not our words, it’s the words of common people, who chose between their lives, and their livelihoods, to get their lives into the grave, without having turbulence midst this deceitful journey. Everyone understands, that every ballot of every vote, bases itself upon the idea of a good system, but not a fair one.

Whether rigged or not, each election in the region has the same political outcry, that spills over into public opinion. But this too is predisposed to change.

Democracy doesn’t end here. There are journeys ahead, avenues yet to explore, for the full extent of equality and serenity. Now, more than ever, the world needs to centralize itself upon this idea. Today, there are a total of 21 ‘complete democracies’ on the planet. The rest include 30 “hybrid regimes,” which claim to be democratic.

Hybrid regimes have been for long, a stand-still, at democratic practices. Crises, have no doubt emerged from their “diverse selves,” as some put it. The darkness of this mystical array can light a sky, or light a matchstick. It is the people’s right to choose. As the Washington Post, puts it, “Democracy Dies In Darkness.”

Juan Abbas is a columnist and writer. Maryam Batool is a Chartered Accountant.