Enter passive subject, exit active citizen

Something new seems to be happening in India. A decade ago, democracy was flourishing. Those less interested in politics increasingly felt the need to be more vocal in the public domain. Remember the first decade of the 21st century? The Congress-led coalition government was forced by activists to give everyone the right to information and education, and to launch the MGNREGA, or Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee. Nirbhaya’s brutal rape and murder turned thousands of young women and men into political activists. Citizen journalists emerged to capture the acts of injustice and channel them to TV channels that regularly bring the government to a standstill. And who can forget the anti-corruption movement that almost paralyzed the then government by bringing to power not only the Bharatiya Janata Party but also the newly born Aam Aadmi Party?

In 2013, when we seemed to be on the verge of a democratic revolution, the future of the active citizen was bright. Young men and women quit lucrative jobs to join the movement for a new political future for India. They hoped to launch new parties that were accountable to the people, committed to providing them with what they really needed.

Yet, the political climate in the country seems to have changed in a jiffy. The active citizen is now seen as a villain, which is derogatory to ‘ agitator, Those who were the epitome of active citizenship then, those in power today, appear to be closing the door on it. Not only active citizenship, but the very idea of ​​citizenship itself is in danger. Rightly or wrongly, some are ready to even relinquish their rights as passive citizens, willing to accept or tolerate political subjugation. Since subjects are powerless people who live passively under the jurisdiction of their ruler, I am inclined to view this present moment as the birth of a new political subject.

active and passive citizens

It is important to understand what this means. Bringing out the difference between the three key words can help us do this. Take active citizenship first. By definition, here’s to citizenship. An active citizen is able to (a) vote (b) publicly discuss and use legally available means to influence public policy and legislation and, if necessary, criticize (c) able to run for public office, amend, even repeal them.

This is in stark contrast to the passive citizens who rarely work in the public sector. They are either unable or unwilling to vote. They can neither be bothered nor harassed to take a stand on public issues. Standing for public office is the last thing they imagine or want. They’re mostly satisfied with getting things out of state – that’s exactly why they’re idle. Citizenship is defined here as what a person gets, not what he does, regardless of whether the condition is compelled or chosen by him.

But why are they still called citizens? On the basis of two qualities – first, they still belong to a political community. They continue to be card-carrying members of the state that gives them an official identity. Second, they have some basic rights – the right to protection from violence and to those who need it, the right to a minimum package of subsistence goods. Furthermore, while they make some demands of their own, they may complain when they fail to deliver on the promises of the state. Passive citizens are close to existence but political subjects are not.

loyal subject

At least two features distinguish political subjects from passive citizens. First, passive subjects have no authority. They live by the grace of the ruler and get protection and other benefits by being loyal to him. This surrender does not mean that the subjects surrender themselves only to further the personal interests of the rulers. So long as defined by the ruler, they can easily be subject to the project of the common good. Second, the citizens never compare the state with the present rulers. No democratic ruler can claim the state as his own. However, political subjects identify the state with the ruler, as does it himself. To belong to the state means to be a subject of the ruler.

Unlike a democratic body of equal citizens, the relationship between the subject and the ruler is unquestionably hierarchical. Although the subject’s position is a mixture of subjugation and servitude, he gratefully accepts it because of the protection provided by the ruler. He interprets the ruler’s wishes as orders and has no appetite for rebellion. Gratitude on the part of the subjects is matched by the immense generosity of the ruler. When a subject receives a small, insignificant portion of the state treasury, he or she believes it to be a donation flowing directly from the ruler’s personal generosity. Overwhelmed by him, the subject cannot be respectful to the ruler. To disobey would be a shameful betrayal.

editorial | In conjunction: on the development of a democratic society

I suspect that a large part of our political climate is now what I described above. That’s why I see the rise of a new political category beneficiary As a reincarnation of the political theme. beneficiary The passive recipient of meager resources is the beneficiary of the generosity of the ruler. laberthis, no longer rights-holders, the exact opposite of the always demanding, rights-conscious active citizens. In the recently held elections, the Prime Minister went to her with the hope that he would vote for her. Hardly unusual in this environment. He knew instinctively that those who ‘ate’ him salty‘ (Salt) cannot deceive him. Faithful don’t change easily Salt Haramso, are they? Political subjugation, nowhere on the horizon in 2013, is now back with a vengeance.

civic subject

I might have given the impression that today’s political world is neatly divided between rulers and their passive, loyal subjects. I do not intend to portray this crude. There exists a very large group of people who are neither rulers nor passive subjects. I would classify them as a hybrid called civic-subjects, because they are a mix of passive citizens and active subjects – active because they surrender aspects of citizenship and embrace the subjugation of their will.

They are citizens because they consider themselves to belong to a state that is somewhat independent of the ruler. But what matters most to them is a private life of consumption for which they are not dependent on the state. Even their lives and personal property are guarded by paid security guards. Since they make certain demands on the state, active citizenship is of no importance to them. Such people are happy to be passive citizens. They may even be indifferent to who the ruler is. This sets them apart from the benefactors, always grateful subjects whose survival depends on the generosity of a particular ruler.

Yet, they depend on this ruler/state to protect them from external invaders and perceived internal enemies. For this purpose, they renounce their identity as citizens and choose to become political subjects – willing, unquestioning and loyal supporters of the ruler and his pet common projects. Here, depending on the state beneficiary And state-independent consumers converge. The two share a world in which some of their common benefits come from the ruler’s generosity and public displays of loyalty to him.

Alas, when the passive subject came to be seen as a relic of the past, it made a surprising comeback. And upon re-entering our political world, it has seriously compromised our democracy and made citizenship almost redundant.

Rajeev Bhargava is a political philosopher and author of ‘What is Political Theory and Why Do We Need It’.