cIn classic sense, democracy means the rule of the people, either directly or through elected representatives. Cleon, the Athenian politician and general who was killed during the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) defined democracy as ‘that shall be democratic which shall be of the people, by the people, for the people.’4 This was the definition, which Lincoln used in his Gettysburg speech on 19 November 1863. For the Greeks and the Athenians in particular, democracy was rule by the majority as compared with the few elites ruling as oligarchy. In this meaning, democracy is taken not only as rule of the majority but also involving the spirit of equality. Subsequently, even representative form of democracy also recognises the principle of equality. However, this equality is mainly confined to political equality where equal voting right and right to hold public offices are treated relevant. In this sense, people are treated as the source of legitimate power. Democracy as the rule of the people can be direct/participatory or indirect/representative.
Democracy is also widely described as a process of selecting governments. This implies free and fair elections under open, multi-party electoral competition and based on universal adult suffrage. A government selected as such is treated as democratic government. Samuel P. Huntington, a political theorist who is known for his Clash of Civilizations thesis, says that ‘elections, open, free and fair, are essence of democracy.’5 In this democracy is about open, fair, free and competitive election process for selecting government. However, in this sense, it is confined to producing leaders and it has nothing to do if this democratically elected government becomes irresponsible, work against public interests is corrupt and is run for selfish motives of the small clique or elite minority.
A third meaning given to democracy combines both the notions mentioned above. It is treated as a form of government. Democracy as a form of government implies two aspects: (i) who share power in government, and (ii) how are those who govern and legislate, acquire their office? In this sense, democracy conceives that people, either directly or through their representatives, shares power in government. The representatives exercise legitimate power on behalf of the people. Secondly, those who actually govern and legislate acquire their office through popularly held open, free and fair competitive elections based on universal adult suffrage.
J. S. Mill in his Considerations on Representative Government (1861) has mentioned two different aspects that go in the name of democracy. He defines ‘pure idea of democracy’ as ‘the government of the whole people by the whole people, equally represented’. Mills contrasts this idea of pure democracy with commonly conceived and practised idea of democracy as ‘the government of the whole people by a mere majority of the people, exclusively represented.’6 While the former means equality of all citizens, the latter though confounded with the first, is government of the privileged, in favour of numerical majority. According to Mill, in pure democracy, everyone shares in power by equal representation. In the other sense, democracy as a form of government though called government of the whole people is only government of the majority. This majority actually elects representatives. Mill’s contention is that in representative democracy since representatives are elected on the basis of majority vote, they cannot by definition represent the minority. Lincoln’s definition of democracy as ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ explains the aspects involved in democracy as form of government. Government of the people means people directly or indirectly ruling; government by the people means direct rule of the people and government for the people means government in favour of and in the interest of the people whether the people are ruling directly or through representatives.
The notion that democracy is a form government is widely held and has been supported by a host of writers. They include, amongst others, Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America, 1835–40 & The Old Regime and the French Revolution, 1856), J. R. Seeley (Introduction to Political Science, 1896), A. V. Dicey (Law and Opinion in England, 1905), James Bryce (Modern Democracies, 1921) and A. B. Hall (Popular Government, 1921). A. V. Dicey treats democracy as a form of government in which ‘the governing body is comparatively large fraction of the entire nation’. James Bryce in his Modern Democracies (1921) has compared what he says, ‘Six Democratic Governments’, namely Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United States with other forms of government, namely Monarchy and Oligarchy.7 For Bryce, democracy is ‘that form of government in which the ruling power of a state is largely vested, not in any particular class or classes, but in the members of the community as a whole.’8 Lowell says democracy is an ‘experiment in government’ and for Seeley it is ‘a government in which everyone has a share’. Hall defines popular government as ‘that form of political organization in which public opinion has control.’9
All the definitions cited above make it clear that generally a majority of the people, shares power and influences government policy and legislation. However, some of the definitions, for example, by Seeley points towards a pure form of democracy in which every person has a share. Such a definition is exclusive definition and is not based on practical cases, as there has been no such government where everybody has share. The essence of Seeley’s definition could be to point towards such an arrangement of democracy as a form of government, where even minority could share power. In fact, this is what exactly Mill says. Mill seeks to remove the defect of democracy resulting from majority principle and suggests both plural and proportional representation to deal with this weakness.
Alexis de Tocqueville treated democracy both as a ‘form of government’ and a ‘type of society’.10 He describes democracy as a form of government by designating it as a regime in which ‘the people more or less participate in their government’. On the other hand, he used democracy to describe ‘democratic institutions’ or ‘democratic way of life’. He mentioned about passion for social equality in development of democratic societies. Tocqueville was of the view that all major revolutions have their purpose destruction of inequality. Democracy based on the principle of social equality is immune from revolutionary disturbances and serves as a training school for citizenship. However, he cautioned that passion for equality might be inimical to individual liberty. This way of understanding democracy as helpful to citizenry in educating and uplifting their intelligence was also the main argument of J. S. Mill. Mill felt that democratic participation and free and open discussion help people elevate their character and political intelligence. C. B. Macpherson (The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy) and David Held (Models of Democracy) have analysed Mill’s justification of developmental democracy in which development of personal qualities, moral and intellectual standards of the people become possible. Democracy is seen as having an intrinsic or value in itself; value is the opportunity that it gives for personal, moral and intellectual development.
James Russell Lowell (Democracy and Other Essays) considers democracy as a social system or a ‘form of society’ as Tocqueville thought. It is a form of society in which ‘every man (should include woman) has a chance and knows he (she) has it.’ Lowell conceives democracy in the same tradition as Tocqueville did where equal chance is available to all.
According to Andrew Vincent, Benjamin Constant in France, Jeremy Bentham and James Mill in England and James Madison in America ‘wanted to use democracy as an instrumental device to prevent dominance of any one group, whether the masses or aristocracy’.11 Bentham conceived democracy as a protective mechanism, which should provide protection from dominance and arbitrary act of government and group of citizenry against each other. Unlike Mill’s developmental idea of democracy as intrinsic good or something which has value of its own for intellectual and personal advancement of individuals, Bentham views democracy as an instrument for protecting citizens. James Madison argued that checks and balances are required to provide defence against tyranny. Madison was providing defence against dominance of any one group as Tocqueville or Mill did. Madison’s system of checks and balances is called ‘Madisonian system’.12 The system of checks and balances are also present in Indian democracy where legislature, executive and judiciary work as checks on each other.
Brief analysis given above suggests that democracy can be viewed as either or a combination of the following:
- As a political concept of power sharing, form of government, device to control dominance and mechanism for selecting rulers;
- As a social value or social condition or type of society where value of social equality and equal chances prevails and democratic institutions obtain;
- As an ethical principle with its own intrinsic value for the moral, intellectual and self development on citizens.
Professor F. Giddings (Democracy and Empire, 1900) treated democracy in all the three meanings given above. He treats democracy as a form of government, a form of state, a form of society, or combination of all the three.13
In early twentieth century, Professor Laski and the guild socialists, Sydney and Beatrice Webb, G. D. H. Cole and others advocated industrial democracy. Industrial democracy implied worker’s participation in industrial and economic activities. Democracy is now used in all three dimensions – economic or industrial democracy, political democracy and social democracy.
Issues of social democracy have been part of various civil rights and liberation movements. Feminist groups and civil rights activists have advocated that primacy should be given to social democracy. Social democracy implies socio-economic equality as the basis of political process and power sharing in government. Some of the extreme examples of socially undemocratic practices have been slavery in many parts of the world, apartheid in South Africa, discrimination against women everywhere and caste untouchability in India. Social democracy means absence of unreasonable, illogical, irrational and anti-human discriminatory practices that hampers individual initiatives, restricts free participation in the processes of civil society and political system, excludes and marginalized people by invoking artificial and constructed reasons. One of the important social and civil right activists of modern India, Bhimrao Ambedkar unequivocally declared social democracy in India as a prerequisite for political democracy to succeed. He felt that the political democracy and universal adult suffrage provided by the Constitution of India would be meaningless unless conditions of social equality are provided and strengthened for all castes.
As such, democracy is not a mere form of government or form of the state; rather it is also a condition of society. Democratic social process was identified by Tocqueville as a social movement, insisted by Ambedkar as pre-requisite for political democracy to succeed. In ninety sixties and seventies, radical democrats insisted on socio-economic equality as a precondition for success of political democracy. Democracy is a theory of government as much as it is a theory of society. A democratic government means a government elected by a process of free, fair and open election based on universal adult suffrage and within a competitive multi-party situation. A democratic society means a society with socio-economic equality and a democratic state would be one in which the community gets a chance to participate in the open and fair political process and the government work in the interest of the community. Canadian political sociologist, R. M. MacIver, in his The Modern State (1926) defines democratic states as ‘those in which the general will is inclusive of the community as a whole or of at least the greater portion of the community, and is the conscious, direct, and active support of the form of government.’14
Leave a Reply