Faculty Book Argues Social Equality is Essential for Democracy
Assistant Professor of Government Hari Ramesh opens his new book Harnessing the State: Oppressed Groups and the Pursuit of Radical Democracy (Harvard University Press) with an intriguing example. He tells the story of a group of Dalit (formerly “untouchable”) women in the southern India state of Tamil Nadu. According to research by Indian scholar S. Anandhi, in recent years, these women used, or harnessed, two government programs—one that provides loans to self-help groups and another that guarantees paid labor to rural citizens—to improve their circumstances.
These seemingly small acts allowed them to leverage state resources to better their lives as women from a lower caste community. “What these women were doing, in fact, was creatively using these programs in order to undo the conditions of their own subordination,” said Ramesh. Extra income and more dignified work, he explained, “changed their bargaining position vis-à-vis upper-caste landowners, encouraged them to speak out against discrimination in public spaces, and even improved their status within their own families.”
That’s one significant way in which members of oppressed groups such as Dalits can begin to create the conditions for greater social equality, which Ramesh argues is essential for democracy. His book explores the relationship between social equality, political action, and what he calls radical democracy. “We have to think about social oppression today—not just caste and race-based oppression, but along many dimensions,” he said. “We should consider the ways in which it stands in the way of democracy, and how oppressed groups can use the tools of government to do something about this problem.”
Lessons from History
Ramesh’s exploration of inequality led him to a deep dive into the work of Indian thinker B. R. Ambedkar, who explored the relationship between caste hierarchy and democracy. In his writings, Ambedkar drew extensively from an American philosopher, John Dewey, whom he had studied with at Columbia University in the early 20th century. At about the same time, prominent American thinkers made comparisons between caste in India and race in the United States. They included the authors of an important brief that was drafted by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund during the famous Brown v. Board of Education case.
Though the brief was about whether the 14th Amendment required desegregation in American schools, it echoed Ambedkar’s arguments. “You have this argument that deeply entrenched inequality, in this case, racial oppression, undermines true democracy,” said Ramesh, “and this insistence that the government can be used in creative ways to undo those inequalities and pave the way for democratic relations between citizens.”
Ramesh traced the throughline from Dewey to Ambedkar to Brown to the writings of W.E.B. Du Bois. “In my view, the legal brief, as well as Du Bois' work on the same period, tried to see the democratic promise of the Reconstruction years that followed the Civil War,” he said. “Interracial democracy was made possible because of the powerful ways Black Americans had opportunities to harness the state.” While Reconstruction-era steps toward equality and democracy were ultimately undermined, it is important to recognize their significance. “Du Bois called Reconstruction a ‘lost promise’ for a reason,” said Ramesh.
Insights for Today
One goal of Ramesh’s work was to clarify this history and apply it to the present moment of democratic backsliding. “I knew I had come across this interesting history of how ideas moved back and forth between the United States and India. But I wanted to go further and make an argument about today,” he said.
His book offers three strategies for oppressed groups—whether they be racial or ethnic minorities, LGBTQ communities, or the poor—to harness the levers of the state to create more egalitarian societies. Those strategies are agenda setting, legislation, and administration.
In South Africa, an example of agenda setting is the public hearings on poverty that took place in the 1990s. “Something like this could be done far more widely. We can imagine state-funded hearings in which poor people discuss the impediments that they face in their daily life, their understanding of what lies in the way of them living economically secure lives, and the solutions they think would work,” he said. “They could play a central role in steering policy.”
Also in the South African context, there is a constitutional obligation that legislatures consult with the public before passing laws. There are good reasons, Ramesh says, to be even more specific and mandate that legislatures consult with oppressed groups who will be highly affected by prospective legislation. In the United States, “we’re familiar with lobbying firms and other ways the wealthy and powerful can shape legislation. A step like this would help even the playing field of democracy,” he said.
In terms of administration, Ramesh cites examples in which vulnerable citizens participate in the enforcement of laws designed to protect them. These range from the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, where Dalit laborers conduct audits to ensure that a rural employment guarantee program is fairly administered, to Texas, where low-income workers collaborate with local police to investigate and punish wage theft.
While the state can seem like an impenetrable entity that is closed off from oppressed groups, in truth, it’s not, said Ramesh. “What my historical sources thought and what you find today is that there are promising hooks and levers in government that vulnerable citizens can use,” he said, “and in moments of political opportunity, you can multiply and deepen some of those hooks and levers.”
Harnessing the State identifies and defends an underappreciated form of political action that oppressed groups can take up. “Political organizing doesn’t have to stop at getting out the vote,” said Ramesh. “Oppressed groups can build solidarity with the goal of creatively using the state to combat their disadvantage and thereby creating a more robust democracy.”
