Democracy without Disagreement?

It is needless to mention that dissent, disagreement and disapproval have been the unavoidable parts of societies that have not been able to solve the paradox of democracy. Demo­cracy as a principle guarantees equality, freedom, and justice, but in its actual practice entails hierarchies, unfreedom, and different structures of suppression. The paradox naturally leads to differences and discontent among those who are at the ­receiving end of such an everyday experience of suppression.

Ideally, both people and members of the ruling dispensation are supposed to reason out or sort out mutual disagreement in light of the argumentative direction that is available in the constitutional framework. Disagreement that forms a part of scepticism, which is articulated in the popular saying such as “agree to disagree,” acquires some strategic value, particularly in the context of stubborn disapproval by the ruling dispensation and its supporters.