Reimagining governance in secular heterogeneous societies

Hans India

6 hours ago

Moderndemocracies face significant challenges in preserving civilisational identities of majority communities within diverse societies. While democracy emphasises equality, representation, and accountability, critics argue that its short-term focus and secular framework often undermine the cultural, religious, and civilisational continuity of native populations. In heterogeneous societies like India and Europe, universalist approach can disadvantage majority communities, potentially leading to cultural erosion.
This column examines the limitations of secular democracy, explores the historical role of monarchies as cultural stabilisers, and proposes extending electoral cycles to 25 years as a practical reform to balance democratic principles with long-term civilisational goals.
Challenges of secular electoral democracy:
Secular democracies, designed to maintain neutrality, often struggle to preserve the cultural identities of majority communities in diverse societies. The short-term focus of electoral cycles, typically lasting fur to five years, drives political governments to prioritise populist policies over long-term objectives such as cultural preservation or demographic stability. This creates a governance model that often neglects the deeper needs of sustaining a nation's foundational identity.
In democracies, political parties frequently rely on divisive electoral strategies to secure votes, fragmenting society along lines of religion, caste, region, language, gender, or age. This approach weakens societal cohesion, undermines collective national identity, and exacerbates tensions in heterogeneous societies, where unity is already fragile.
In diverse societies, cohesive minority voting blocs disproportionately influence electoral outcomes. For instance, in India, Hindu votes are often fragmented across multiple parties, diluting their impact, while Christian and Muslim communities vote strategically, shaping policies that favor their interests. This dynamic skews representation and policy outcomes.
The secular framework of democracy often contributes to cultural erosion by neglecting majority traditions. In India, constitutional provisions like Articles 25 to 30 favour Muslims and Christians, contributing to a decline in the Hindu demographic share and the loss of Hindu-majority regions. Similarly, in Europe, secular policies coincide with a diminishing Christian identity amid immigration and cultural shifts, raising concerns about the transformation of Christian Europe into what some critics term 'Islamic Eurabia.' These challenges highlight how secular democracy, while equitable in theory, can undermine the civilisational foundations of majority communities.
Democracy's self-destructive tendencies:
The cumulative effect of these limitations erodes the cultural identity of majority communities, which often serves as the cornerstone of national identity. In India, policies favoring minorities and unchecked religious conversions have accelerated the decline of Hindu cultural and demographic dominance, negating centuries of resistance to external influences.
Fears persist that large parts of India could become extensions of neighbouring Islamic countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and that certain other regions could become part of the Christophere, undermining 1,300 years of sacrifices by crores of Hindus to protect Hindu civilisation.
In Europe, Christian populations and cultural landmarks are similarly diminishing, with secular governance prioritising inclusivity over the preservation of civilisational heritage. This failure to prioritise the majority's cultural identity renders democracy potentially self-destructive in heterogeneous contexts.
Monarchy as a historical stabiliser:
Historically, monarchies have served as effective stabilisers of civilisational identities by aligning governance with cultural and religious priorities. In Europe, Christian monarchies supported the Church, arts, and traditions, fostering cultural continuity and unifying Christian states under a shared identity, as seen in the Roman Empire.
In India, Hindu kingdoms protected dharma, resisted Islamic invasions, and fostered cultural renaissances. Unlike democracies, monarchs were unbound by electoral pressures, enabling them to pursue long-term visions. Their rule was often tempered by customary and religious constraints, such as dharma in India or Islamic frameworks in modern Islamic monarchies, which limited arbitrary governance. However, reviving governing monarchies today is impractical due to public skepticism and the entrenched nature of democratic institutions.
Proposal-Extending electoral cycles to 25 years:
A practical alternative to monarchy is extending democratic electoral cycles to 25 years, retaining democratic principles while addressing the short-termism that undermines cultural preservation. Longer cycles would allow governments to prioritise civilisational goals, such as cultural preservation, demographic stability, and educational reforms rooted in native traditions, fostering a governance model focused on long-term national interests.
Extended electoral cycles could significantly reduce the divisive tendencies of democracy. Frequent elections often exacerbate societal fragmentation as political parties compete for votes by exploiting or creating divisions. A 25-year cycle would minimise these pressures, promoting policies that unify rather than divide society.
Longer cycles would also discourage the accumulation of wealth for frequent elections, reducing corruption. Leaders, freed from the constant need to campaign, could focus on governance rather than on short-term populist measures.
By discouraging pandering to cohesive minority voting blocs, extended cycles would encourage policies that appeal to broader national interests, balancing representation in diverse societies and ensuring that majority cultural identities are not sidelined.
This reform is feasible and could be implemented through constitutional amendments and public consensus. In India, it could align with initiatives like One Nation One Election, while in Europe, it could support policies to preserve Christian heritage and address demographic challenges, making it adaptable to different contexts.
Critics may argue that longer electoral cycles reduce accountability and risk authoritarianism. However, these concerns can be addressed through robust safeguards. If monarchies provided relative stability, prosperity, and peace for centuries, a 25-year democratically elected term could achieve similar outcomes with proper checks. Independent oversight bodies could conduct transparent performance audits, and citizens could remove underperforming leaders through judicially supervised processes. Lifetime judicial appointments would further protect constitutional integrity, ensuring accountability while enabling long-term governance.
Case studies-India and Europe:
Despite Hindus forming the majority in India, secular democracy is often perceived as hostile to Hindu interests due to constitutional inequalities and minority-focused policies. Strategic minority voting has further eroded Hindu cultural and demographic dominance. A 25-year electoral cycle could enable sustained policies to address these biases, aligning governance with India's democratic framework while preserving its civilisational identity. In Europe, secular policies and immigration have eroded Christian heritage, with critics warning of a cultural shift toward 'Eurabia.' Extending electoral cycles could prioritise policies to preserve Christian identity and address demographic challenges, ensuring that governance reflects the region's historical and cultural foundations.
Lessons from non-democratic Islamic states:
Islamic states, often non-democratic or nominally democratic, offer a contrast to secular democracies by prioritising cultural identity. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation actively advances Islamic interests, including through migration strategies aimed at expanding influence in non-Muslim countries. These models demonstrate that governance prioritising cultural continuity can outperform secular democracy in preserving identity in heterogeneous contexts.
Conclusion:
Secular electoral democracy struggles to preserve majority civilisational identities in diverse societies due to its short-term focus, vulnerability to strategic voting, and secular neutrality. While monarchies historically provided cultural stability, their revival is impractical.
Extending electoral cycles to 25 years offers a balanced solution, combining democratic accountability with long-term vision. This reform should be implemented with robust checks, including mid-term reviews, recall mechanisms, and an independent judiciary to ensure accountability.
In India, it could be framed within initiatives like One Nation One Election to reverse anti-Hindu biases and preserve civilisational identity. In Europe, extended cycles could protect Christian heritage and address demographic challenges.
This approach strengthens democracy by prioritising sustainable, cohesive governance that safeguards national heritage, offering a model for other heterogeneous societies.
(The author is a retired IPS officer and former Director, CBI. Views are personal)