The value of dissent

Harnessing dissent can help us develop faster and better

Exit, Voice and Loyalty by Albert Hirschman is considered one of the most influential books in the social sciences. The book’s subheading, Responses to Decline in Firms, Organisations, and States, tells you what it is about. A decrease of quality or benefit can be met either by the exit option (one stops buying the product, or pulls a child out from the school, or emigrates from the country) or the voice option. Voice comes in two forms, vertical voice (a direct complaint or protest) and horizontal voice (the murmuring of the people — in our time, “murmuring” is a very quiet way of describing the chatter on WhatsApp groups). Horizontal voice comes before vertical voice — complaining and discussion among people precede the actual complaint or protest to the authorities. Horizontal voice can also provide some security that there is wider backing for a direct complaint.  Whether one chooses exit or voice depends on loyalty — if one is loyal to the organisation, instead of deserting it, one would choose voice, and even attempt to “save” the organisation. The choice also depends on wealth. The poor often have less of a voice and less ability to exit a poorly performing public institution or state.

Let us now say we represent the government, and wish that our institutions keep striving to perform better and improve. A vibrant institution is one where both voice and exit are used to drive improvement.  Loyal citizens are encouraged to mutter and complain.  If the state and institutions hear them and respond, a protest may never be necessary. But if they miss the muttering, a protest can get their attention. If they then respond, we are still fine. If, instead, an authoritarian regime chooses to restrict voice by suppressing actual protests, and drowning out horizontal voices of dissent (by using social media trolls, for example), that makes decline more likely. Exit may then be the only option. If states repress both voice and exit, then, Hirschman tells us, “passivity, acquiescence, inaction, withdrawal, and resignation” hold sway. And instead of improving, the institution or state declines further.

Illustration: Binay Sinha

If one seeks voice over exit as the signalling mechanism for quality, and if voice depends on loyalty, how do we foster more loyalty? Hirschman says “the presence of trust … will help to enlist the voice of the organisation’s members in the tasks of recovery and reform.” How do we build trust in each other and in our institutions? And do all groups trust institutions equally? India is not unique in struggling with such questions. The Black Lives Matter movement in the US was the culmination of years of mistrust of the impartiality of the police by the black community.  Muslims have the same view of the police in India, and our current climate of communal polarisation only makes things worse. Building trust in institutions is a long haul, it happens step by step over years, if not decades. Not only should people be equal before the law, but they should perceive that they are.

Trust makes a difference: Do we trust strangers? That question is at the heart of the concept of social capital. Economic historians have long argued that countries which grew rapidly enough to catch up with the rich world had high social capital.   Political scientist Robert Putnam identifies two kinds of social capital, bonding capital (which bonds similar people together) and bridging capital (which bridges the gap between dissimilar groups). When both are strong, we end up with a high trust society, with many attendant benefits. What is important is that one must not strengthen at the expense of the other. Appealing to majoritarian instincts may strengthen bonding capital within a group, but if it simultaneously weakens bridging capital, it weakens social trust.

Levels of social trust will be inherently challenged by India’s size and high diversity. We may need decades of fair, effective and efficient contract enforcement to build trust over time. That depends on the institutions of law enforcement — the police and judiciary. Both suffer from a deep lack of trust in India; when we improve their functioning for all Indians we will simultaneously build trust in society and wider government functioning.  

Consider the benefits of trust — at a very small scale. I belong to the tiny Parsi community. Parsis have a reputation for being both fastidious and trustworthy, affecting everything from business to looking after the things we own. This is best typified by the highest premium someone selling a used car can claim — “single Parsi owner”.

Dissent and noise as assets: The media plays an essential role in holding power accountable. But it also gives voice to people. A wise government would be one that encourages a free and independent media, encourages dissenting opinion, picks up currents of discontent, and responds. An independent media would give voice to all groups, regardless of their affinity to the government.  But the media is often not independent, either from choice and ideology or because it is dependent on advertising revenue from a friendly government. 

An essential component of building a culture of development is to build social capital. That means building trust. In a very diverse society such as ours, trust will have to be built step by step, with a government and institutions that must palpably represent the interests of all society, and especially its weakest members. We can use voice and dissent as a prompt to respond. Sometimes simply hearing people out patiently builds understanding. Useful initiatives such as the farm laws, or Agnipath, or our labour reforms, could perhaps proceed forward more smoothly if we heard and understood opposing views. Understanding does not necessarily mean agreement, but it does mean respect.

Criticism is patriotism: I have always believed in the importance of criticism. I would much rather focus on improvement, on what we must and can do better, than on what we are already doing well. I have always approached our own company in this self-critical manner. In the same way, I am more critical of India than of any other country. I am critical of anything I really care about. Criticism is at the heart of Hirschman’s voice. A country concerned about its success would be receptive to more voices of dissent. Yes, one would always prefer those voices to be constructive and positive, as I aspire to be, but we have to be open to all. We must constantly seek a better solution, more educated polity, and more statesmanlike politician.  Dissent is the foundation of improvement.

The last word, as so often in my recent book The Struggle and the Promise, must go to the great cartoonist R K Laxman. His 2003 cartoon shows a minister pointing at an obviously poor villager: “What’s the matter with these people? I give them all the good news … the Sensex is soaring, and we’ve won against Australia. But he’s still grumbling and complaining”.

ndforbes@forbesmarshall.com. The writer is co-chairman of Forbes Marshall, past president of the CII, and chairman of the Centre for Technology Innovation and Economic Research and Ananta Aspen Centre. His book The Struggle and the Promise was recently published by HarperCollins