By: Amit Jain
First published: 4 June 04, TODAY

India's recent elections have been hailed by democrats and liberals around the world. Watching 650 million voters choose a government of their own free will is a sight to make the eyes of even the most critical observer water.

No wonder the world media, that trusted old champion of freedom, has been so generous in heaping praise on Indian democracy. But the celebrations stop here.

The unexpected rejection of a government that presided over a remarkable economic boom has set back India's arrival in the league of leading nations by several years.

New Delhi's credit ratings have fallen since the election put an alliance of reform-averse, left-of-centre parties back in power and the markets have been depressed.

Now, the liberals who carried the flag of democracy and freedom just weeks ago are asking if there is something incompatible between free markets and free societies.

Give people a stake in the political process and they will demand a better economic future. Arguably, that is not what India's election verdict said.

Prosperity is a very tangible commodity. It is also a measure of relative wealth. It is true that life in the poorest parts of India is comparable to that in the worst parts of sub-Saharan Africa but poverty levels have fallen impressively in the last decade (26 per cent of Indians were described as poor in 2000 as compared to 36 per cent in 1993).

And yet, many Indians don't see free economic policies making their lives better. They watch with envy as the educated middle class makes the most of the opportunities that come with better economic management. So, they booted out a government that championed the cause of prosperity.

At some level, the election result may be a manifestation of the pent-up frustration that has come with the democratic process. Time and again, elections have proved useless in delivering India from violence, corruption, waste and mismanagement. Nor have they put an end to violent insurgency.

If anything, participatory democracy has split loyalties on religious, caste and communal lines. It is an error to believe that large complex nations need democratic institutions to bring about socio-economic improvements. Most authoritarian regimes have had better success at overcoming such problems.

Indonesia was reportedly in much better shape under President Suharto than it is today. Multi-party democracy has brought new freedoms but has not made the lives of the common people any better.

China and Russia have demonstrated that the connection between socio-economic well-being and liberal democracy is not entirely conclusive. Each outscores India on almost every count. Even military-ruled Myanmar has fared better at making peace with its ethnic militias than North-east India has - where separatism continues to fester.

A recent report in the Wall Street Journal showed how democracy has rapidly lost its appeal for Russians. A United Nations study said that a majority of Latin Americans believe economic development is more important than the joy of casting votes. If a similar poll was taken in India the result would probably be similar.

Reverence for local strongmen, caste chieftains or old satraps among many voters reveals a hidden desire for authoritarian leadership. Combine this with the appalling apathy that the rich young urbanites now show towards politics and you get a vivid picture of disillusionment with democracy.

Democracy has a meaning only if it improves people's lives. It works best under conditions of relative wealth and education - although, as the death of Yugoslavia shows, even this is no guarantee.

Some analysts question giving the illiterate and the poor the power of the ballot as it can impede a nation's socio-economic progress. They feel the process rewards politics and punishes the economy.

There is no doubt that India will ultimately overcome everything that keeps it from joining the ranks of the world's more developed nations, but it will take much longer than necessary.

At some point, the sheer power of numbers that is now in the hands of the rural majority, will shift decisively in favour of the largely urban middle class whose epic rise has been matched only by its ambition.

The danger is that given the poor record of the Indian system of elected governance in delivering its promises, that middle-class disillusionment may create conditions where democracy itself is swept away.