International meeting discusses democracy in India and in Brazil
The differences in the democratic consolidation processes of India and Brazil and the similarities between the current realities of both countries, marked by the challenge of overcoming social inequalities, were the main issues discussed at the international meeting High Density Democracies: India and Brazil, organized by IEA on June 26, with the participation of Indian historians and researchers from USP and University of Campinas (Unicamp).
The first table discussed historical aspects pertaining to the institution of democracy in both countries. Mridula Mukherjee, a historian from the Center for Historical Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), talked about how the movement for India's independence, driven by a largely illiterate and religious population, culminated in a democratic, sovereign and secular government. She said that this was possible because of the dissemination of nationalist values and the inclusion of all people in the process.
Pedro Paulo Funari, director of Unicamp's Center for Advanced Studies (CEAv), set forth the Brazilian case. He distinguished two peculiarities in Brazil's political trajectory: the absence of effective popular involvement in achieving independence, and the democratic discontinuity (democracy consolidation came belatedly in 1989). According to him, together these characteristics prevented a rupture with values inherited from the colonial period, such as patronage and pork barrel politics. For this reason, promoting social justice in the country has always been difficult.
CONTEMPORARY ASPECTS
The second table addressed contemporary aspects of Indian and Brazilian democracies. Mukherjee Aditya, director of JNU's Institute of Advanced Studies Jawaharlal Nehru, argued that India's economic development does not stem from its colonial experience. According to him, development actually ensued from breaking away from the colonial past, as promoted by Jawaharlal Nehru, leader of the movement for independence and the country's prime minister from 1947 to 1964. Although he emphasized the success of Indian democracy, he noted that there is still much to be done: "The challenge for India is the same as for Brazil: ensuring equality and social justice. Though the economy presents high growth rates, 40% of India's children are malnourished."
The last speaker was Renato Janine Ribeiro, a USP professor and IEA adviser, who pointed out the differences between republic and democracy. According to him, the republican system relies on the rational discourse of the rule of law, and requires the sacrifice of private interests to further the common good; the democratic system, on the other hand, implies a government characterized by an affective discourse and aimed at meeting people's wishes. Janine brought the discussion to the current context of Brazilian politics by associating the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB) with republican values and the Worker's Party (PT) with democratic values.
DEBATE
Following the presentations, Ana Lydia Sawaya, researcher from Federal University of São Paulo (Unifesp) and IEA, and Laura Patricia Izarra, researcher from USP, invigorated the debate. Mridula Muckherjee's comment stood out for encompassing some of the ideas explored by the speakers. She stressed that communication with the Indian people had been essential in the fight for independence and the consolidation of democracy.
According to her, both Nehru and Gandhi, the movement's two major leaders, could speak about sophisticated ideas to uneducated people. "The most important thing was to take anti-imperialist ideals to the people. Gandhi knew how to defend democracy without dismissing tradition. He gave a new meaning to Hindu symbols and used ancient images to symbolize the democratic ideal."