Theoretically, there are different perspectives regarding representation on which liberal democracy works. For Hobbes, individual is represented in the Leviathan and unity of those represented lays in the unity of the Leviathan not in the unity of the ruled. By proposing the unity of the sovereign, Hobbes rules out any possibility of representation. Rousseau, on the other hand, seeks representation of each individual in the General Will and independently. However, in Locke, there is a contract of the people with the government as a ‘trust’ and this trust requires representation and periodic renewal of the trust. Every individual has natural rights, has equal consent to the social contract, hence equal trust in government. Then, a contradiction arises. Can each individual claim to have equal trust and representation in government? If so, then each should participate or have representation. This is possible only when there is a direct form of democracy where everyone participates and remains part of the General Will, as Rousseau demands, or a Hobbesian Leviathan as a unified representative of the whole body politic. Lockean democratic theory falters here in its logic. Representation by its very nature cannot be inclusive and has to be based on a principle of exclusion of some. An all-inclusive representative requires to be elected by consensus. Representative democracy with multi-party competition can be only majoritarian, either absolute or relative. Thus, principle of majority becomes the reigning principle in democratic theory and consent of ‘the people’ in representative democracy is confined to consent of the political majority.
If majority is the reigning principle of representative democracy, then John Stuart Mill and Alex de Tocqueville are there to caution us. They consider majority as inimical to individual liberty. While Lockean democratic theory seeks to preserve individual natural rights, his operating principle of majority denies the same to a number of individuals. Macpherson has been critical of Locke’s theory and says it is hard indeed to turn the Lockean doctrine into any kind of unqualified democratic theory. By itself, majority based representation becomes partial. Further, the very concept of representation has been doubted on the ground whether individuals or constituencies can be represented at all. Rousseau felt that General Will being a collective will could not be represented by any means. He was critical of the British representative democracy as giving chance to the people only periodically to see democracy.
On the other hand, Edmund Burke, a British parliamentarian, in his address to the city of Bristol on 3 November 1774 after his elections, declared that elected representative is not a mere ambassador of a constituency rather is a member of parliament. He says, ‘parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates, but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of a nation with one interest – that of the whole …’ He further adds, ‘you choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament.’32 Burke’s position saves the majoritarian concept and makes the elected members as representative of the entire community.
Another aspect of representation that comes into discussion relates to territorial versus functional representation. Territorial or geographical basis of representation has been found as incomplete system of representation. It is argued that interests of individuals are not all encompassed in the geographical based interests. Most of the interests of individuals are linked with their functional affiliations such as doctor, teacher, lawyer, government servant, farmer, industrialist, industrial worker, trader, consumer, etc. As such, representation should be based on both functional basis and geographical basis. Laski motivated by his belief in pluralist state and industrial democracy supported functional representation. Sydney and Beatrice Webb also supported twin basis of representation.
Many observers and theorists have evaluated liberal democracy and sought to see whether it serves as a mechanism of accountability and responsibility, maintain individual liberty and freedom, promotes equality or whether democracy has become a mere adjunct of the liberal adjective attached to it. A primary condition of democratic representation is awareness of those who elect representatives. As election of representatives involves rational choice or exercise of individual choice to let someone represent my desires, wishes, wills and interests. It is argued that apathetic, ignorant, poor, uneducated and indecisive masses cannot make rational choice. People are incapable of making selection and choosing representatives that serve them best. Initially, this has kept democratic right of suffrage restricted to a certain wealthy and educated classes. This restriction has been removed through the universal suffrage and a primary assumption in democracy, i.e., political equality, was achieved. This means equal right to vote, seek public office and contest elections and hold public office was extended to all eligible men and women. However, two issues arise here. Firstly, is political equality in itself, without social and economic equality, sufficient to realise democratic participation? Secondly, is representativeness of democracy maintained even though there is large portion of the people who does not vote and are apathetic, unconcerned and uncritically unsupportive to democracy?
It has been generally felt that political democracy requires adequate social democracy, or socio-economic equality to be successful. In various capitalist societies and developing countries, social inequality has been cited as a limiting factor in realizing meaningful and participatory democracy. Radical democrats and New Left writers have suggested that social and economic equality is needed to make political democracy successful. Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen has argued that for a meaningful participation in the social and political life by the people, ‘expansion of basic human capabilities’ should be provided. He feels that a democratic government has to be responsive to the needs of the people.33 As such, democratic government is needed for wider capability expansion, the latter, in turn, is needed for a meaningful democratic government. Babasaheb Ambedkar has eloquently cautioned us that in the absence of social equality, political equality would be meaningless.
Further, even though political democracy is available, participation of the people may be limited due to apathy towards politics and a general feeling that whether they vote or not, it may not make any difference. In Indian context, this feeling can come due to many factors. It can be due to unresponsive political process, unresponsive and inept political leaderships, political process dominated by certain well-knit families and elites, criminalisation and corruption of political process, etc. However, two important factors of political apathy can be: (i) socio-economic exclusion of the marginalized classes, and (ii) attitude amongst the rich and the elite that politics is a means of redistribution and welfare only needed by the poor and not by them.
Many electoral and psephological studies and surveys depict larger participation of the poor and marginalized people. However, an apprehension remains. Can we completely deny that parties, political brokers and mobilizers induce the marginalized section by money and material gains? We have media reports, eyewitnesses, and allegations of rival political parties of distribution of dhotis (white drapery worn by men), sarees (drapery worn be women), blankets, and of course the mother of all, money amongst people by this party and that party. People are even brought in vehicles provided by the concerned parties and they are made to vote on a particular electoral sign. In this case, the very assumption of democracy based on rational choice of the individual in selecting representative is lost. Further, developmental value of democracy is not realised because participation is induced participation and does not help in the moral and free development of individual self.
It is not uncommon amongst the rich, elite the urban upper class in India, displaying a general attitude that politics is not necessary and is not required by them. This apathetic condition may arise when they associate politics and elections with sectional or redistributive politics, which they oppose. This type of apathy may arise due to reactionary attitude. It is also possible that there is a feeling of political immunity, which comes due to sufficient political connections and economic influence. This leads to the feeling that whichever political party rules, they would have sufficiently networked ministers and leaders and of course bureaucratic officials to take care of their problems and needs. In both the cases, political and electoral process is treated as without any intrinsic value for moral, intellectual and self-development. You dare to speak someone claiming to be a technocrat, professional or management or bureaucratic elite or urban rich or in cases a highly educated person that discussions and debates and election and voting in a democracy are morally and intellectual liberating and self-realizing. You may get the answer bakwas bund karo (stop your nonsense) and if you are lucky and they decide to be diplomatic, you will have haha hah hhaahh (illegible, but they are laughing at you). Democracy is faced with a dilemma of confronting this ‘people’. Unfortunately, this ‘people’ are its assets, they are its nemesis.
Leave a Reply