DEMOCRACY: INTRODUCTION

The concept of democracy is at the centre of fierce debates in political theory as well as in
commonplace discussions on politics. This chapter examines the ways in which democracy
has been conceptualized, defended and critiqued. In doing so, it discusses the evolution of
democracy as a concept, the various criticisms levelled against the concept, followed by
perspectives and debates in contemporary democratic theory. It concludes with some of the
key debates which characterize democratic theory today.
Consider situations in your everyday life where you are part of a group and decisions
have to be made for the group as a whole: whether it is a group of friends deciding if they
should watch a movie or a family deciding where to go for a vacation. Suppose that among a
group of ten friends, seven want to see a movie but three want to go for an art exhibition.
What should the group decide to do? Consider another situation where a university class has
been asked by their teacher to arrive at a convenient date for having a class debate. And here,
in a class of thirty, everyone is agreed on a date except for five students. These five, however,
have important and unavoidable reasons why that particular date is not convenient to them.
What should the class do? Should it go by the decision of the majority? But doing so will
deprive those five students from the chance to take part in the debate. Would that be a fair
decision? Now, suppose the class has to decide on the topic of the debate. The number of
opinions and suggestions made increase manifold and decision making becomes that much
more difficult.
In all such situations of collective existence, there is a constant need to arrive at
common decisions. Who takes these decisions and how? How do we judge whether these
decisions are fair or the best possible? The idea of democracy provides one basis for making
such judgments. A democratic decisions is one that takes into account and reflects the wishes
of the people who come under the purview of that decision. There are, of course, other ways
to take decisions. A father can decide where the family will go for a vacation without taking
the opinion of other family members, or a teacher can give no choice to the students on the
topic or the date for the class debate. But advocates of democracy argue that a decision-
making procedure which reflects a commitment of taking into equal consideration the
preferences of members of the concerned group/s is a legitimate one. Democracy is, thus,
both a method to arrive at collective decisions and a set of values and behaviour with which
people approach decision making.
THE CONCEPT
How should a political community then arrive at collective decisions? In other words, who
should rule? What should be the principle guiding government formation and what are the
institutional arrangements required for this purpose? Democracy is now the universally
accepted answer to this question, so much so that everyone - even military juntas, dictators
and monarchs - claim to be democrats. The charge of being called 'undemocratic' is taken
seriously now. However, this positive value according to democracy is recent in history; for a
long time it was associated with 'mob-rule' and inefficient governments. The term democracy
translates as 'rule by the people'. Who are the 'people' and how do they rule? On what
matters? To what extent? Through what institutions? To secure which goals? Is this a
desirable arrangements?
 There are varied views on the nature, purpose, extent, effectiveness and desirability of
democratic rule, as well as varied critiques on the practice of functioning democracies.
Indeed, democracy is often called an 'adjectival concept' because of the endless number of
'types' or 'models' into which democracies are classified, for example; liberal, social, people's,
direct and indirect, radical, associational, deliberative, strong and weak, procedural and
substantive, pluralist and elitist ... the list goes on. Before we examine some of these debates,
let us briefly discuss the concept and look at the various theories and types in the light of their
differences and areas of consensus.
At the heart of all democratic theories is the concept of popular power. According to
Anthony Arblaster (1994), it refers to a situation where power and authority ultimately rest
with the people. A democratic government is contrasted with an authoritarian one where
decisions are imposed on the people and exercised without their consent. Democracy ensures
the accountability of those holding power to the people who are the ultimate source of that
power. It is the consent of the people which makes government authority legitimate.
How is this consent to be given? The question of consent immediately connects with
that of participation. How much participation is desirable? In a direct democracy, there is a
high degree of participation as citizens collectively decide, often through mass meetings, on
almost all major issues. In effect, people rule themselves. This form of democracy is
associated with the classical Athenian model. In India, the gram sabha is such an institution
of direct democracy as are a number of devices like referendum, initiative and recall
practised in contemporary societies. In contrast, in an indirect or representative democracy,
government functions through representatives who are chosen through popular elections.
These representatives provide a link between the governments and the people and elections
allow the people to control the action of the representatives and prevent abuse of power.
Liberal democracy is a representative form of government. While these two methods are seen
in opposition to each other, we shall see in the last section how contemporary debates on the
question of participation seek to combine the two.
Democracy refers to a government based on political equality, i.e. consent is required
of all the individuals who form part of the political community. It is informed by the belief
that all people are equally capable of, and have a stake in making, collective decisions that
shape their lives. In a democracy, no one person's opinion or interest is of more value than the
other, hence the principle of 'one person one vote'. It is based on the idea of the equal moral
worth of all individuals and against the exclusion of anyone from the political process. Thus,
it is against hierarchy or inherited privileges and discrimination. Today, when we say 'the
people' we usually refer to all adult citizens in a polity. This was not always so and a long
struggle was waged by hitherto excluded groups demanding the right of suffrage. From being
initially restricted to the property-owning white men in Europe and America, eventually
educated men, working-class white men, black men, and women (in that order) were
subsequently recognized as full citizens with the right to vote and contest elections.
Meanwhile, in the colonies of Asia and Africa, democratic struggles took on a specifically
anti-colonial character and the people of colonies like India claimed the right of self-
government as a people.
In a democracy it is assumed that there will be a diversity of opinions and interests on
almost every matter of common concern. Indeed, this diversity is seen as its main strength
and it calls for tolerance for all shades of opinion. A democratic society is also called an
'open society' where there is space for all voices, however unpopular or conventional they
may be, to be heard. This requires a range of political freedoms like freedom of expression,
association and movement among others, which are protected by the states. People must have
access to information and be able to protest and freely criticize the government and others in
order to make informed uncoerced choices and intervene in the decision-making process.
Thus, the practice of democracy is unthinkable without rights.
But do these freedoms by themselves ensure that all voices are in fact heard, and
heard equally? Equal distribution of political power, however, doesn't mean that everyone
manages to have equal influence on the decision-making process. Is it the same for an
influential industrialist and a poor farmer or a slum-dwelling labourer to have the right to
vote? Do they have equal influence on policy making? For democracy to be effective, then
those factors which discriminate against sections of people and hinder their effective
intervention in collective decision making need to be addressed. The presence of structures of
power that are sources of inequality in a society are an impediment to democracy. Equality,
thus, is a condition of democracy and democratic societies are expected to devise
arrangements which further equality.
What is the nature of a democratic decision? There has been much debate on this. As
a conflict-resolution model, democracy is often identified with majority rule and this raises
the problem of oppression of minorities. On the other hand, democracies are expected to
arrive at a consensus. But in plural and complex societies that are also unequal, consensus is
difficult to achieve.
We will see in the last section how these very issues of equality, participation,
representation and diversity pose important questions and are the concerns of contemporary
democratic theory. Before that we will now examine the two main models of democratic
practice, namely, the direct participatory model and the liberal democratic models. Later, we
examine some of the major critiques of democratic practice.
DIRECT PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
The most celebrated form of direct participatory democracy was the one practiced in the
Athenian city-state of ancient Greece during the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. Athenians prided
themselves on the 'happy versatility' of citizens and their ability to perform all tasks of
governance, i.e. in enacting, implementing and adjudicating of laws. They met in open
assemblies to debate and deliberate on all matters and shared magisterial and judicial offices.
All major decisions were made by the assembly to which all citizens belonged. Citizens were
also meant to sit on juries and adjudicate on disputes. Offices were filled by either election or
draw of lots and no officer was to enjoy perpetual tenure. The idea was to ensure that at least
the short-term offices went to as many people as possible. What is remarkable in this model
is that it ensured a high level of political accountability and political activity of the citizen.
Indeed, citizenship entailed participation; it was sacred duty and the full-time
occupation of the citizen. The purpose of political participation was the common good of the
state. This common good was independent of and prior to individual interests and desires. It
is when citizens set aside their private interests, completely identify with the community, and
give it their best that common good can be achieved. The underlying philosophy was that
there was a single, shared, substantive idea of good life for the whole community; the
separation between state and society didn't exist. Participation in the collective affairs of the
community was considered important for the rational self-development of the citizens; it was
the highest form of good life that they could hope to achieve, fulfil themselves, and live
honourably.
Republican Rome shared some features of Athenian democracy, namely, the notion of
popular participation in civic life, a strong sense of duty to the community, the idea of public
good and civic virtue as being of higher value than private individual interests. This is also
called civic republicanism.
Rousseau, an early critic of liberal democracy, was heavily inspired by this model.
Writing in the 18th century, Rousseau was critical of electoral democracy and representative
mechanisms which were emerging in various European states. For Rousseau, democracy was
the way by which citizens could achieve freedom. By freedom he didn't mean the absence of
constraints on the individual's pursuit of self-interest. Instead, he articulated a positive notion
of freedom. Individuals are free only when they participate directly, actively and
continuously in shaping the life of the community, especially in the making of laws. For him,
law-making was an exercise of sovereignty - which cannot be transferred or represented by
anyone else - and an expression of the will of the people.
For Rousseau, participation was essential for the self-development of the individual
and democracy was a means of individual development, but not the pursuit of selfish
interests.
Rousseau made a distinction between private will and what he called 'general will'.
General will is not an aggregation of private will or interests of individual citizens. Instead,
general will is that which emerges when people set aside their selfish interests and deliberate
on the collective common good of the community. Freedom lies in obedience to the general
will; by doing so they are obeying their own true nature. Rousseau goes to the extent of
saying that people can be 'forced to be free', i.e. obey the general will.
Such conceptions of participatory self-governance, active citizenship and community
life have been an attractive one for all those critical of liberal democracy. Socialists,
feminists, radical and deliberative democrats have drawn on this legacy. However, the very
conditions in which this model has been practiced provides a note of caution. The successful
operation of the Athenian democracy depended on a system of exclusivity and inequality.
Only citizens were worthy of the good life and a majority of the population - women, slaves
and resident aliens - were kept out of citizenship. Indeed, it was on the basis of their labour
and economic activities that the free adult male could be freed for citizenship. Aristotle, even
as he was critical of democracy, justified this denial of political equality to women and slaves
both on the grounds of necessity and the latter's natural inferiority. Rousseau, too, explicitly
kept out women from political participation. He argued that women were primarily meant to
perform sexual and domestic roles and their public presence would be a distraction.
Rousseau did, however, consider a certain measure of economic equality essential for
the exercise of citizenship. For any renewal of strong and active participation a society has to
work out a balance between the satisfaction of material needs and political participation in a
framework which treats all adults equally. A further point of debate is whether present
societies can work with a single notion of common good which can be oppressive not just to
individual freedom, as liberals fear, but also to the diverse groups and cultures which
comprises most societies. In other words, a participatory system is seen to put pressure on
attaining homogeneity. Rousseau's theory, as we observed, has totalitarian implications.
LIBERAL DEMOCRACY
Today, when we talk of democracy, we often have what is known as liberal democracy in
mind. It is dominant form of democracy as most countries form democracy as most countries
seen to practise this model in one form or the other. However, it is important to remember
that liberal democracy is a product of a long history and it contains many strands.
Protective Democracy
For early liberals, democracy was meant to be protective, in the sense that it was meant to
protect the rights of citizens and safeguard them from the tyranny of state power. The 'liberal'
element in liberal democracy preceded the democratic element and has shaped its nature.
Liberalism emerged in the context of the transition from feudalism to capitalism. In this
process, the newly emerging bourgeoisie/middle class sought to put limits on the absolute
powers of the monarchs and the feudal aristocracies in European states from the 16th century
onwards.
Underlying this challenge to absolute and unaccountable power is the new doctrine of
individualism. According to this notion, all individuals are free and autonomous, masters of
themselves, and makers of their own destiny. Individuals are primarily rational and self-
interested beings, intent on pursuing their desires and goals. Each individual has his/her own
preferences, values and goals, i.e. his/her own conceptions of a good life. What individuals
require are the basic conditions to pursue these self-defined goals. Liberals identify these
condition as rights, namely, of life, liberty and property, which are fundamental and
inviolable in nature. What binds individuals to each other is a common interest in protecting
these rights which would allow them the maximum freedom for free exchange among
themselves. The emergence of liberalism is linked to that of capitalism and market society.
That is why property is understood as a fundamental right. An individual's property is
considered an extension of the self and an individual is the master of his/her own self.
According to liberal thinkers like Hobbes and Locke, individuals don't derive their identity
from the community and are not bound to it by any sense of duty, nor do they see themselves
as part of a hierarchical system or a divine plan. Thus, liberalism's lasting constribution to
political thought is a radical notion of equality among human beings. This view on human
nature meant a re-conceptualization of the role and purpose of government.
Liberals make a distinction between the state and civil society or the public and the
private life of individuals. The public realm is the realm of politics; this is where they are
bound to take collective decisions. The economy, family, associations, etc., are part of the
civil society, the realm where individuals interact with each other in the pursuit of their
interests. This is the realm of competition, conflict and cooperation among them. It is in order
to resolve these conflict that a regulated framework is required. Thus, the role of the
government is to create and maintain a system of individual rights, and undertake activities to
that end. The coercive power of the state is required to ensure that individuals in their
interaction with each other in a civil society do not encroach on each other's rights.
Governments were not meant to arrive at or promote a common good, since individuals do
not share a substantive notion of good life. The state is a neutral arbiter; it is not supposed to
interfere in the functioning of civil society.
At the same time, liberals share a deep fear that governments will abuse this power
and encroach on these rights. Liberals were giving voice to the struggle by the bourgeoisie to
unshackle the restrictions of feudal and aristocratic authority. In other words, there is need for
a strong but limited government. Moreover, among free and equal individuals any institution
of authority over them requires their consent, otherwise it will be illegitimate. Thus, there is
need for a mechanism through which people can consent to a government and retain control
over it to ensure the performance of the tasks entrusted to it and restrain it from exceeding its
limits. This is where liberals turn to democracy as a solution.
Liberals advocate a representative democracy. The task of governance requires
expertise, but those in power must be made accountable. Political participation is not
considered a good in itself, like in Athenian democracy, but a means to control the
government and ensure the protection of individual liberties. Through franchise and
competitive elections, individuals choose representatives who then form governments on the
majority principle. Political decisions can be made only by these representatives, because
only they enjoy the consent of the people. This ultimate authority of the people is affirmed,
and people can keep a check on the representatives through periodic elections. The powers
and tasks of the government are defined through the constitution, especially by including
within the provision of fundamental rights, and through the principle of rule of law and the
presence of an independent judiciary (for example, the Bill of Rights in the Indian
Constitution). The separation of powers among different branches of government is meant to
provide a system of checks and balances, preventing the concentration of power.
Even though the model of representative democracy was based on the principle of
equality, in early liberal democracies, franchise or political equality was in effect restricted to
a few. They were more in the nature of oligarchies. Early liberals were as fearful of the
'tyranny of the masses' as they were of the tyranny of state power. Locke, James Mill,
Madison and Montesquieu were all opposed to universal franchise. For example, John Locke,
who was the first to articulate the key ideas of liberal democracy, restricted franchise to
property owners, defended property as a 'natural' right as well as the unequal distribution of
property, and modified his powerful notion of consent to mean 'active' consent of the
propertied and 'tacit' consent of the rest. Even JS Mill, who supported universal adult
franchise and was among the first to support enfranchisement of women, sought to restrict the
right to vote to those with basic educational qualifications and desired provisions for giving
extra votes to educated and better qualified individuals. It was feared that if vested with
political freedoms, the majority would not use their right to vote responsibly but would
overturn the distribution of (unequal) property in society. In Indian courts, a series of cases
came up after the adoption of the constitution which challenged the land redistribution
policies of the government as being violations of the fundamental right to property.
Understood as popular rule without the restrictions of individual rights, democracy, thus,
becomes a threat to liberty. There is a conflict between the 'liberal' and 'democratic'
components.
 It was in the aftermath of the French and the American Revolutions that popular
democratic struggles emerged. The 19th and 20th centuries were marked by increasing and
often violent struggles by the working class, African Americans, and women, demanding the
extension of suffrage on the basis of the very ideas of individualism that had been invoked by
the propertied male to win freedom from aristocracies and monarchies. The implicit radical
potential of the notion of individualism, rights and equality was realized by these struggles. It
is only with this acceptance of universal adult franchise that liberal democracy acquired its
current form.
John Stuart Mill and Developmental Democracy
Predominantly, liberal democracy is concerned with the protection of individual rights and
prevention of abuse of power. Participation in this context is of value because it allows the
individual to put forward his/her interests and keep a check on the activitiess of those in
positions of power. It is of intrinsic value in terms of the self-development of the individual.
JS Mill controversially claimed a distraction from the pursuit of self-interest, franchise need
not be extended to those whose interests are subsumed under those of others. Not only did he
exclude women in this way but also men under the age of 40, whose fathers could represent
their interests.
The views of JS Mill, known as the best advocate of liberal representative democracy,
present a contrast to this. For Mill, a representative system must create maximum space for
people to take part in the functioning of the government and not restrict their involvement by
merely allowing them to vote. He considered participation important because it develops the
confidence of the people in their ability to govern themselves. Mill, thus, understood
democracy as a system which allows for the development of an individual's personality. It
develops the intellectual talents of people and is the best condition for liberty to flourish.
Participation makes informed and intelligent debate possible. It is through debate and
discussion, where there is space for rational persuasion of each other, that the best argument
emerges and this helps in solving the problems affecting the whole community. This is why
he regarded the parliament as the forum where all kinds of opinion should find a space and be
vigorously debated. Mill considers a measure of socio-economic equality as necessary for
democracy and liberty to be actualized. Despite his insistence on the value of participation, he
was sceptical of the capability of every citizen to govern and considered governance a task
requiring expertise. He sought to balance this by recommending maximum participation at
the local level so that people get educated in the task of governance. In the next section, we
shall see how he suggested institutional measures to counter the ills of democracy.
Policy Making and the Pluralist View
Decision making in a liberal democracy is an outcome of the aggregation of individual
preferences or choices. In a protective model, these choices are aggregated over the choice of
government personnel and not over the activities of the government. That is, the vote and
electoral processes allow people to choose or reject a representative or a political party but
not to determine what policies the government should undertake. This is because protective
democracy offers minimal scope to government activity.
However, as the functions and activities of the government increased, the focus turned
to the policy-making process itself. Utilitarian thinkers like Bentham and JS Mill propounded
the principle of 'greatest happiness of the greatest number' as the basis of determining
functions of the government. While they advocated minimal government and free market,
they did make space for selective state intervention in the economy for welfare activities like
education and wage reforms. But the idea that government policies must reflect the aggregate
choices of the majority became important for liberal democracies. The welfare state model of
liberalism assigns more tasks to the government in the economy and these tasks, like the
provisions for social security, education, regulation of industry and making employment
opportunities available, are justified in the name of democracy. John Rawls, for example,
justifies extensive intervention in the economy to provide equality of opportunity to all, but
most liberals are sceptical of extensive redistribution of wealth.
How do people influence policy? The pluralist theory provides an answer. The
pluralist view, associated with the work of Robert Dahl, is a specifically American
understanding of political processes but still has relevance for understanding liberal
democratic practice in general. Power, according to Dahl, is the capacity to influence ... the
process and outcome of decision-making. People form groups and associations based on their
specific interests; so in any society there will be a wide variety of interest groups. Interests or
pressure groups are the mechanisms that people adopt in order to advance their interest,
promote their causes and achieve preferred policy outcomes. For example, kisan sabhas,
teachers' and students' unions, women's organizations, trade unions, associations of industries
like FICCI or CII in India. and The policy making arena is like the market, where different
groups pursue their interests and the outcomes are not pre-determined, but a balance is
achieved out of conflicts; through a sort of an 'invisible hand' mechanism. Political decision
making is a complicated process and involves bargaining between various actions. In the
process, people use a wide range of means at their disposal like economic and social position,
education, organization skills, reputation, religion, etc. Unlike elitist and Marxist views,
pluralists understood power as not concentrated in a particular class, but as spread throughout
society.
It is a democracy that provides opportunities for everyone to articulate interests,
mobilize support and seek representation. A vigorous interest group activity keeps the
wielders of political power in check. Democracy here is identified with certain institutional
mechanisms and procedures, representative institutions, accountability of executive to elected
assemblies, basic liberties for all including the freedom of expression and organization and an
independent judiciary. As long as these procedures are followed, a system can be referred to
as being democratic. This is also called procedural democracy as distinguished from a
substantive democracy. The latter is concerned with the attainment of certain ends, like
equality or justice.
The chief merit of the pluralist analysis is that all modern democracies do have a
plurality of forces struggling and competing for their interests. However, procedural
democracy is compatible with the results which are always skewed in favour of particular
interests and groups. Social and economic inequalities reduce the opportunity of
disadvantaged groups to influence policy outcomes. Thus, an agricultural landless labourer's
collective effort cannot hope to match CII or FCCI either in resources or in influence. In his
later writing, Dahl does acknowledge the fact that inequalities can be debilitating and
consistently leave certain groups out of the political process, despite the formal freedoms of a
democracy, in which every citizens has the right to participate in the decision-making
process. Thus, there are structural and ideological constraints which prevent democracies
from operating as an open, equal marketplace of competing interests. In this process, the
existence of democratic procedures and its openness to conflicting views, interests and
methods of influence is valuable for a democracy, but the outcomes are liable to be
undemocratic.
Thus, in the liberal view, the aim of democracy is to aggregate individual choices and
preferences in the best possible way. This aggregation of choices could be restricted to the
choice of government (by voting for a representative who usually belongs to a political party)
or should constitute a mechanism of policy making. In the first view, the role of democracy is
to basically provide a defence against arbitrary and unaccountable government through
elections and constitutional government. In the second view, democracy has a more direct
link with choosing and influencing the activities of the government. This is usually done
through wide range of interest groups, political parties and pressure groups.
Today, liberal democracy is both at a moment of triumph and crisis. On the one hand,
the collapse of the communist bloc, introduction of liberal democratic institutions in the
former communist countries as well as the military intervention of the USA in West Asia to
introduce democratic regimes signal its near universal acceptance as the only practical model
of democracy. Indeed, the key ideas and institutions of liberal democracy like representative
governments, rule of law, individual rights, electoral competition and multi-party system
have become central to any conception of democracy. Francis Fukuyama in his 'end of
history' thesis argues that there is no credible alternative to liberal democracy. On the other
hand, liberal democracy continues to be subjected to a scathing critique by socialists,
feminists, mulitculturalists and deliberative democrats for not being democratic enough and
these critiques have sharpened in the context of globalization. They observe how the form of
liberal democracy currently advocated is minimalist or what Benjamin Barber calls a 'weak
democracy' emphasizing elections and a choice of political parties. Before we examine these
critiques, let us look at some of the common objections to democracy.
OBJECTIONS TO DEMOCRACY
Critics of democracy can be classified into two groups - those who are dissatisfied with a
particular kind of democratic practice and seek to deepen it and those who are critical of the
democratic principle as such. We have observed how the positive value attached to
democracy is a recent one in history. The very principle of popular power continues to be
subjected to trenchant critiques. Let us examine the main objections to democracy.
A key objection to democracy is that it produces incompetent and inefficient
governments. In his critique of Athenian democracy, Plato argues that governance is matter
of skill and expertise and therefore should be left to experts. Human beings are by nature
fundamentally unequal. However, democracy presumes that everyone can handle complex
matters of governance and is, therefore, based on a false understanding of human nature.
Thereby, it substitutes ignorance and incompetence for excellence and expertise. Because it
allows non-experts to rule, democracy is an irrational form of government. He recommended
a strict division of tasks depending on one's ability. Matters of the state would thereby be left
to a particular class of people who by nature and training were most fit to rule - whom he
called 'philosopher-kings'. To rule meant ensuring that everybody else preformed tasks they
were most fit for.
 A distinction is made here between popular rule and public interest , whereby
governments are prevented from functioning in public interest and taking strong purposive
action due to the compulsions of democracy. In India, for example, democracy is often
blamed for the ills afflicting the country. Common middle-class assessments blame the
government for following 'populist' policies (and not 'correct' or 'rational' policies), like
providing slum-dwellers with ration cards because of the compulsion to seek votes. A deep
fear and distrust of the 'masses' runs through the history of democracy. Aristotle in his
classification of governments placed democracy as an 'impure' system where the multitude
rule in their own interest.
As already observed, early liberals were sceptical of mass suffrage and considered
political equality a threat to liberty. Constitutionalism and an elaborate system of checks and
balances were devised to prevent majoritarianism. Writing in the 19th century in the context
of the emerging democratic society in Europe and America, Tocqueville coined the phrase
'tyranny of the majority' to describe the threat that democracy posed to minorities and
individual liberty. He particularly feared its cultural repercussions. Since the cultural
standards of the majority are dominant, general morals, manners and creativity are debased in
a democracy. For example, when Bollywood films are discussed, a distinction if often made
between films for the 'masses' and those for the 'classes', or between 'popular' and 'art' films.
Even JS Mill for all his defence of democracy and political participation considered
majoritarianism and mediocre government as the biggest weakness of democracy. Not only
does majoritarianism exclude minority voices but it lowers the standards of the government.
Subsequently, people with a lower level of intelligence perform the most important task of
legislation and administration. Mill suggested a number of institutional mechanisms to
counter these ills. Through proportional representation, minorities can obtain a place in the
legislative assembly and, through plural voting, educated and intellectually superior
individuals can have more say in the choice of representatives. He was particularly concerned
about the opinion of minorities the experts and the geniuses - who get sidelined when the
majority principle is applied. Majority rule has a tendency to promote uniformity and
conformity, whereas the main catalysts of progress are the non-conformist geniuses. This
system of plural voting, in fact, violates the basic democratic principle of political equality.
He also recommended a separation of the tasks of government, wherein the all-important task
of law formulation would be done by an expert constitutional committee, and the
administrative tasks were to be carried out by a skilled bureaucracy. The task of the
representative assembly was to debate and deliberate on the legislation and to monitor the
functioning of the government.
Mill's philosophy, thus, combines a value for participation and equality (which is
unique among liberal thinkers) with elitism, where governance is seen as the task of the
educated and the experts. Moreover, despite his egalitarianism, he didn't recommend
representative governments for colonies like India. Democracy was possible only in
'civilized' countries and not in 'barbaric' ones and, therefore, despotic rule was suitable till the
time the people of the colonies were ready and capable of democracy.
While Plato and Mill draw attention to the dangers of majority rule, elite theorists
consider a functioning democracy impossible because of the inevitability of concentration of
power. While Mill and Plato among others are elitist in their view, elitist theory is attributed
to a specific critique developed by pareto, Mosca, Mills and Michels about the inevitability of
elite rule. Classical elite theorists like Pareto and Mosca say that political power in every
society has always been in the hands of a minority, the elite, which has ruled over the
majority in its own interest. These elite manage to dominate because they possess exceptional
skills, especially the psychological attributes and political skills of manipulation and
coercion. They are far better organized than the masses and also possess qualities which are
considered valuable and hence use it to justify their privileged position in the society. C.
Wright Mills' study of the American political system refers to a 'power elite' which dominated
executive power and members of this class were closely knit, sharing the same background
and common values. Thus, they dispute the pluralist contention that power is widely
distributed in society. In his study of socialist parties, Michels noted how despite socialist
principles, the actual working of the decision-making process tended to concentrate power in
the leadership due to bureaucratization and centralization. Not only did the leaders not
consult the working class members, the decisions taken were often contrary to their interests.
This led Michels to postulate an 'iron law of oligarchy' which applied to all organizations
resulting in undemocratic outcomes.
In India, we note the wide prevalence of dynastic rule and the involvement of all
members of a family in politics. This phenomenon is observed in almost all countries and is
an evidence of the tendency of concentration of power among a few who have access to the
political system.
The merit of these critiques lies insofar as they expose the myths of democratic
practice by exposing who actually wields power. But in considering this concentration of
power as inevitable, these critiques affirm a belief in the natural inequality among human
beings, and are pessimistic in nature.
In this view, the value of democracy, given the inevitability of elite rule, is that it
allows people to choose among the elites. Joseph Schumpeter in his influential work
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy puts up a model of competitive elitism as the most
workable one in modern industrial societies. He has a low opinion of the ability of people to
develop an informed opinion on key issues and opines that it is better to let experts rule.
Passive citizenship is good for governance. The only role that people have is in the selection
of the government among rival competing political elites through voting. Democracy, thus,
performs the crucial function of legitimating a government. The unanswered question is one
of how people who are incapable of reflecting on key issues can make an informed choice
among political groups.
PERSPECTIVES ON DEMOCRACY
Let us now examine those perspectives on democracy that affirm it as an ideal but critique its
practice. Since liberal democracy has been the dominant form of democratic practice in
modern times, critics who seek a deepening of democracy begin with an assessment of liberal
democracy and develop their alternative with reference to it.
Socialist View
Socialists share the elitist view that even in a democracy, political power is used to protect
and advance the interests of a minority. While elitists attribute psychological, social and
economic attributes to the elite which allow them to dominate; for socialists, the power of the
minority derives from their economic class position, that is, their control over the means of
production. The inequality then is not 'natural' but a product of specific social and economic
arrangements. The capitalist market economy produces systemic inequality. All strands of
socialism draw attention to the incompatibility between democracy that is based on political
equality, and capitalism which is based on the right to private property and market economy.
In a market economy people have unequal access to economic resources and this also is the
source of unequal access to knowledge and information. Thus, the existence of private
property and the unequal distribution of wealth is the source of socioeconomic inequality in
society and this prevents most people from effectively exercising their political freedoms. In
a market economy most people neither have the time nor the resources for more political
involvement.
Marxists challenge the liberal conception of the state as a neutral body. The state
insofar as it is committed to securing the right to private property is deeply implicated in civil
society. There are two strands of thinking about political power in the writings of Marx and
Engels. In the first instance, the state and its agencies are the instruments of dominant class
interest. As Marx declared in The Communist Manifesto (1848), 'the executive of the modern
state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie'. In the
second instance, Marx and Engels talk about the 'relative autonomy of the state' from the
dominant class. The practice of parliamentary democracy and the compulsions of elections do
lead governments to respond to some demands of the working class majority. Many liberal
democracies do undertake policies to correct the uneven outcomes of the market, like
restrictions on wealth, employment guarantees etc. But for Marxists this is at best a short-
term measure because the state cannot go against the long-term interests of capital. This is
why, for Marxists, the vote cannot be used to transform the system, because any welfare
policies will be corrective at best and will not address the structural reasons of inequality. The
ability of the government to undertake welfare policies is constrained by the constitution.
Marxists acknowledge the emancipatory potential of liberalism because it rejects
hierarchy and affirms the equal moral worth of all individuals. However, the liberal
distinction between the state and the civil society, or the public and the private marks the
economy out as the private realm of freedom and therefore, out of the purview of political
decision making. The socio-economic divisions generated in civil society render the political
equality guaranteed by the state ineffective. A democracy which does not tackle the
inequalities of class power is inadequate at best and a sham at worst. As against the fear of
people like Tocqueville that democracy can lead to the tyranny of the masses, Marxists fear
that it will not. The ideological and cultural hegemony of bourgeois values secure the consent
of the working class. This includes telling the poor that the reason for poverty are because
they are not hard-working enough. Liberal democracy and its institutions thus provide an
ideological facade of equality and thereby act as a legitimizing shell for capitalism. While
democracy provides the 'road to socialism' it is incompatible with capitalism.
Marxists and socialists are further critical of the nature of individualistic rights which
are the corner stone of liberal democracy. Marx terms these rights of the egoistic man,
separated from his community and perceiving everyone else as a competitor and a threat. The
socialist aim is a situation where the free development of each is compatible with the free
development of all. Thus, they endorse a more participatory democracy where democracy
extends to the management of all collective affairs, including the workplace. The idea of a
cooperative without the divisions of owner and wage labour informs socialist conception of
economic democracy.
Communist countries seek to achieve socialist aims through a revolutionary break and
they advocate a model of people's democracy where a single party - the communist party -
assumes leadership and directs the country in its transition to socialism. Social democracy, on
the other hand, seeks to reconcile socialist aims and liberal democratic institutions. It
perceives the establishment of socialism as a longer gradual process in which electoral
democracy can be used to correct the injustices of capitalism. This is to be done by extensive
regulation of the economy, provision of employment and educational opportunities including
affirmative action and social security measures. We shall elaborate on social democracy in
the next section.
Marxists have usually ignored the concentration of power in the party and the state.
The experience of one-party communist states, the distortions of the communist bloc in
Eastern Europe and the fall of USSR have led to a reappraisal of democracy within Marxist
thought. The debate had usually been structured as prioritizing between political freedom and
economic freedom. Contemporary thinkers on the left, on the other hand, affirm that
socialism and the attainment of economic equality don't necessitate giving up the gains of
liberal democracy, and particularly those of individual rights. What is needed is a deepening
of democracy which can both tackle inequalities and allow more participation. They also
draw attention to the raise of corporate power and the unaccountable nature of international
financial organizations that dominate world economy. They understand neo-liberal
globalization as posing the biggest threat to democracy in present times.
Indian Debates on Democracy
In India and the rest of the Third World, democratic ideas emerged as part of anti-colonial
struggles which claimed that colonial rule was a violation of the principle of self
determination and that the people had a democratic right to self-rule. These movements
further claimed that the backwardness of their countries was because of colonial exploitation
wherein the resources of the colonies were used not for the benefit of its people but for those
of the colonizer. With independence all Third World countries had to address the need for
rapid economic development and social transformation. The possibility and desirability of
democracy and the nature of democratic arrangements were debated in this context. The
Indian Independence movement was inspired by socialist ideas and impressed by the
achievements of the Soviet Union. Thus, socialist analysis was sought to be applied to
understand Indian problems. In this section, we will examine the views of two thinkers,
Jawaharlal Nehru and Ram Manohar Lohia, both of whom sought to adapt socialism to the
Indian context, and see how their understanding of socialism had an impact on their approach
towards democracy.
Jawaharlal Nehru is credited for the strong foundation of India's constitutional and
democratic institutional traditions. He was influenced both by the liberal democratic
traditions of the 19th century and the Fabian socialism of the early 20th century. At the same
time, he was also impressed by the rapid economic transformation achieved by the Soviet
Union. His views on democracy reflect all these influences.
 He considered democracy a peaceful way to achieve the goals of individual freedom
and social justice. For Nehru, the well-being of the individual was of principal value and the
highest goal of the society and the state. His thought reflected respect for the freedom and
dignity of the individual and the need to allow all individuals to grow and develop their
potential. He had faith in the power of debate and discussion in the pursuit of truth and the
possibility to educate and persuade people through rational means to think in terms of
common interests. This required free public discussion, tolerance for differing points of view
and dissent. He advocated the institutional framework of liberal democracy for India, i.e.
fundamental political and civil rights of the individual, freedom of the press, secularism in
terms of the separation of religion and the state, rule of law, parliamentary government and
an independent judiciary.
Nehru shared the socialist critique of capitalism. He defined equality not just in terms
of political equality but as equal opportunity for all and progressive economic equality. He
recognized that in the context of economic inequalities the democratic machinery can be
hijacked by the ruling class. As he said, equality before law cannot make a millionaire and a
pauper equal. Democracy can flourish only in the context of social and economic equality.
So, political democracy can be of value only if it can be used to achieve what he called
economic democracy. This meant active involvement of the state in the economy and he
development programme through the device of planning as well as redistributive mechanisms
like land reforms. While he admired the prosperity and equitable redistribution of wealth
achieved by the Soviet Union, he was critical of communism because it had a tendency to
become authoritarian, violent and to suppress political dissent. He did consider that political
liberties slow the pace of growth and achieve lesser redistribution, but he preferred slower
growth and lesser equity to the sacrifice of political liberties.
In this way democracy was to make possible both economic justice and individual
freedom. Thus, Nehru advocates a model of social democracy. Democracy in the
international scenario was another area of concern for him and the policy of non-alignment
was formulated in order to secure independence in foreign affairs and equality in
international forums, especially for weaker countries.
Lohia's views are significantly different from Nehru's. He is critical of both
communism and Nehru's democratic socialism. Both, according to him, understand socialism
as involving only a transformation of capitalist relations of production. That is, they are
concerned primarily with redistributive mechanisms. However, the inequalities of capitalism
lie not just in its production relations but in its technology. Capitalism specifically requires
large-scale industrialization and a centralized production process. In the political domain, this
requires a centralized state apparatus. Thus, capitalism has a tendency towards centralization
of power and this makes it authoritarian. Nehruvian socialism was nothing but state
capitalism with some welfare features. While Nehru recognized the tendency towards
centralization, he considered the provision of fundamental rights and universal franchise as
guarantees of the freedoms of the individual. Lohia considered electoral and parliamentary
mechanisms as important but inadequate to achieve either the active involvement of the
people or in achieving social transformation. Lohia, thus, drew attention to the way
communist states concentrated power in the state apparatus.
 Socialist transformation can be achieved only with the active participation and
struggles of the people. Democracy involves people taking control over their lives. It is a
process of empowerment. This means preventing the concentration of power and energizing
the civil society's constant struggles against oppressive social and cultural injustices. Lohia
advocated a two-pronged strategy to tackle centralization and concentration of power
decentralization of political power through the four-pillar framework and decentralization of
the economic production process through the small unit machine. Use of the latter along with
appropriate technology would help technology address the specific needs of Indian society.
This meant rejecting a singular model of economic development based on the experience of
the Western capitalist countries. With the four-pillar framework, the sovereign power of the
state would be constitutionally diffused into four levels - namely village, district, province,
and the centre. Areas like the army or core industries would come under the centre, smaller
industries under the district, and agriculture under the village level. What is significant about
this decentralization was that it was meant to be decentralization not just in executive powers
but in the legislative and planning process, too. This would ensure decision making by the
smallest of communities in human activities like production, ownership, administration and
education. Lohia was particularly concerned about the interlinked structures of caste and
gender oppression that characterized Indian society. Empowerment of this majority and
making them take an active and effective part in the affairs of the country required
decentralization.
Lohia's views assume importance because there is a renewed focus on participation
and decentralization as a way to tackle bureaucratization and centralization of power. We will
look at this issue in the last section.
Feminist View
Feminists have further critiqued the liberal distinction between the public and the private.
They characterize relations between men and women as one unequal power relations. In the
sphere of the family and the household, the division of labour is unequal as the bulk of the
child-rearing and household tasks is done by women. Further, these tasks are devalued and
not considered productive enough to constitute paid labour. Thus, the domestic arena is a site
of unequal power structures and is, therefore, an arena of democratization. In liberal theory,
the family is part of the private sphere and hence kept out of politics and therefore, out of
democratization. This is one dimension of the feminist slogan 'the personal is political'. The
other dimension is that this gendered division of labour and power in the private sphere is
linked to the unequal distribution of political status and power in the public sphere. In
Western countries, which have the longest history of democracy, women were the last
category to get the right to vote. Switzerland, for instance, enfranchised women as late as
1971. Most political thinkers explicitly excluded women from the category of citizenship on
the grounds of their natural inferiority and incapability. Despite formal political equality,
women continue to be grossly underrepresented in political institutions and decision-making
structures. In India, for example, the proportion of women in the Lok Sabha has never
exceeded 12%.
Further, political equality has been undermined on the grounds of sexual, social and
economic inequality. Thus, specific policies are required to enhance participation and
representation and deliver equality, for instance, redistribution of domestic work (both
through sharing and through public provisions for child care) and electoral reforms. In India,
the proposal to reserve 33% seats for women in the Parliament and the Legislative
Assemblies is a proposal of the latter kind.
Feminists, however, note that the measures to ensure substantive equality for women
have to be of a distributive kind; they have to incorporate a notion of difference. Typically,
democratic theory understands equality as the removal of differences. So, formal political
equality recognizes no difference among people and socio-economic equality understands
differences as a disadvantage, and seeks to remove them. But the idea of disadvantage is
based on a nation of comparison which is always based on a particular standard. The concept
of the individual that is central to liberalism is that of an independent, rational, self-interested
person. Understanding differences between men and women solely as a disadvantage is to
adhere to a male norm. For example, politics has always been constructed as a male domain
and women politicians have to prove they are 'tough' and 'strong' according to this standard.
At the level of policy too, for example, pregnancy is understood as a disease or illness
because it is the male body which is the standard of normality. Understanding differences as
disadvantages has meant that democratic theory has been insensitive to the realities of
women's lives. Using a particular norm as the standard and imposing it on others is an act of
discrimination. This advantages women as a group. Thus, feminists contend that there is a
gender bias in the democratic theory itself. In order to ensure substantive equality, democracy
has to think in terms of recognizing and accommodating differences.
Like the deliberative democrats, feminists have also been critical of liberal
democracies for taking people's preferences as given and for the restrictive view it has of
participation. If interests and preferences are taken as given, then democratic decision making
will simply reproduce the status quo. Unequal power structures sustain themselves through
ideologies and socialization. Thus, for women, the process of democracy is also a process of
empowerment, where they become aware of exploitation, gain confidence, and seek to
transform their conditions. This, however, calls for a move active and participatory
democratic practice.
Deliberative View
In contemporary political theory, a key idea is that of deliberative democracy. It is associated
with people like David Miller, J Drysek and Joshua Cohen among others. Liberal democracy
views decision making as an outcome of aggregating the preferences of individuals. In this
sense, it is believed that people's preferences and the political process only negotiates
between the conflicting interests. Deliberative democrats, on the other hand, believe that
people's preferences are formed during the political process and not prior to it. Democracy,
then, is a process of arriving at an agreed upon judgment or a consensus. Such an agreement
is an outcome of deliberation, i.e. a process where people try to persuade each other through
the give-and-take of rational arguments. In this way, people become aware of information
and perspectives that they are previously unaware of and then they can question each other's
views. In this process, preferences or interests get transformed to reflect a common
agreement. Deliberation, thus, reinvents a participatory model of democracy and the key idea
is that of a dialogue. Through open participation and unlimited discourse, a better argument
emerges. But this needs what Habermas calls 'an ideal speech situation', i.e. a situation where
free and equal participants are able to communicate with each other without discrepancies of
power and constraints of particular circumstances. There is an inherent danger of preferring
certain dominant forms of communication and knowledge as more authoritative. Moreover,
deliberative democrats hope for a consensus which is difficult, if not impossible to achieve in
diverse and complex societies.
KEY DEBATES IN DEMOCRATIC THEORY
In this section, we briefly discuss those issues which have emerged as areas of debate in
contemporary democratic theory.
Democracy and Difference
Historically, democracy has been a movement that has aimed at the removal of differences. It
was assumed that equal political rights and recognition of citizenship would counter the
discrimination people faced on account of differences on the grounds of caste, race, ethnicity
and gender. This idea of eliminating differences in consideration of equality has been
important for emancipatory politics because it affirms the idea of equal moral worth of all
individuals. We have seen how feminists consider that a substantial notion of equality must
incorporate a notion of difference.
On the notion of difference, feminists are joined by multiculturalists who argue that in
culturally plural societies, treating all differences among people as a disadvantage is to use
the dominant group's culture as a norm. Most contemporary societies are culturally diverse
and are composed of many communities, for example, immigrants, indigenous people, racial
minorities. India itself is multi-religious, multilingual, multi-cultural and also has adivasi
communities. Not only are communities socially and culturally different, they are often in
relations of domination and subordination with each other. Further, liberal democracies claim
to be neutral with respect to conceptions of good life and leave these to individual choice.
However, the laws and practices of a country reflect the cultural bias of the majority.
Feminists and multiculturalists say that liberalism, which values the abstract self-interested
individual, is itself a particular notion of the food life. For an adivasi group, where property is
common, the insistence on private property is alien.
Liberalism values diversity, but in terms of opinion it recognizes diversity only at the
individual level. But an individual's identity is formed in a cultural context, and ignoring or
devaluing the culture is discriminatory both to the individual and to the group. Thus, a
commitment to the equal worth of all individuals means equal respect to their culture and
equal treatment of all groups. It is only when this diversity is valued and respected that
people can develop their capacities and contribute to collective life meaningfully.
Not recognizing the differences among groups is to ignore the diversity of the ways of
life and experience among people. Such a democracy assimilates and evaluate everyone,
keeping the culture of the privileged groups as the standard. Those not conforming to this
standard either have to lose their identity to assimilate or get marked out as the 'other'.
Ignoring the specificity of a minority group is to marginalize it.
Democracy involves equality in setting standards, too. Thus, according to the late
professor Iris Marion Young of the University of Chicago, asserting the value of group
differences provides a standpoint to both point out that the norm presented as universal is
culturally specific, and criticize them by presenting an alternative. Some feminists say that
care and nurture, which women have been associated with, are desirable values for everyone.
Tribal communities and forest-dwellers compare their harmonious co-existence with the
environment to the destructive industrialization which is presented as 'development'.
As democracies are concerned with equality, it must have procedures and mechanisms
which recognize difference. Iris Marion Young recommends procedures that ensure
additional representation for all oppressed groups, affirmative action and public funding to
promote the self-organization of groups, consultation with the groups on policy matters
affecting them and a veto power over specific policy decisions which directly affect the
group. The meaning of representation in this context requires that a democratic polity must be
representative of the diversity within it. Will Kymlicka recommends self-governance rights
for indigenous peoples and cultural rights for ethnic groups. The STs and other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Right) Bill, 2005, passed in the Lok Sabha in
December 2005, likewise proposes that forest-dwellers have a right to the forest and mineral
resources.
These proposals, however, raise significant issues. There is a danger of freezing
identities and privileging a particular identity of an individual over the other identities s/he
may have. Further, there is the question of internal democracy in the groups. Whose views
are to be seen as representative of the group? In India, for example, in the debate over the
uniform civil code, personal laws of religious communities are sought to be replaced on the
lines of the Hindu Code Bill, which ignores the differences among communities. However,
all personal laws are discriminatory to women. The right of a group to maintain its identity
conflicts with the equal rights of women within the group.
Thus, the recognition of difference is both a requirement of and poses important
issues for democratic theory.
Representation and Participation
Most practising democracies are indirect or representative in nature. However, what does it
mean to represent? Are representatives meant to be delegates, i.e. give voice to the wishes of
their electors? In territorial constituencies, however, the process of amalgamating the
interests of a diverse electorate is a challenge. JS Mill rejects the idea that representatives are
delegates because that would tie them down to the preferences of the electorate. Instead, he
says, representatives must be free to act according to their own judgment. However, they are
meant to act on behalf of the people and not merely reflect their views. In that case, what kind
of control can people hope to have over their representatives? The other view of
representation is that people mandate a person or a political party to carry out a specific set of
policies, and thus direct the government. But in most countries the election manifestos tend to
be very general in nature and are not concrete policy documents. Moreover, elections are
fought and won on a variety of grounds as political parties, which are the main players in an
electoral system, themselves constitute the political elite and are often deliberatively vague
about policies. Elections are media-orchestrated events. Besides, in most countries either a
first past the post (FTP/FPP) or a proportional system of election is followed. In the former
system in particular, the victorious party that forms the government has most often not
secured the majority of votes. There is, hence, a mismatch between the number of seats won
and the percentage of vote secured by the party. Thus, an election, which is the main vehicle
of representation, is an inadequate mechanism to convert people's view into policy directives.
 All these developments have meant a renewed attention to participation. Even in order
to ensure that there is a check on representatives, and to prevent abuse of power (protective
democracy), there is need for more active citizen involvement. The remedy for
bureaucratization, corruption, centralization, lack of transparency and accountability is sought
in participation. In that sense, the traditional line dividing a direct and indirect democracy is
being redrawn. The recent Right to Information Act, which seeks to make government
functioning open, is one such initiative in India. Critics of centralized government also
advocate decentralization through local self-government institutions like panchayats.
The main objection to participation has been that it is difficult to make it work in large
and diverse society. However, the advancement of technology, the spread of the reach of the
media and the internet, devices like the jan sunvai or public hearing, devolution of powers to
local bodies wherever possible, and involvement of citizen groups like resident welfare
associations, make increased participation possible. The point being made is that both
representative and participatory mechanisms can be combined.
Democracy and Development
Indian democracy has often been analysed as a miracle because it has survived in the context
of widespread inequality, poverty and unemployment. Democracy is often blamed for the
slow rate of development achieved by India. We often hear popular calls for a 'strong
political leadership' or even a 'dictator' who can lead the country towards economic growth.
Democracy here is seen as a luxury that poor countries cannot afford. It is also seen as an
impediment to development and so suspension of democratic rights or political freedoms is
desirable. This is popularly known as the 'Lee Thesis' attributed to Lee Kuan Yew, the former
PM of Singapore, who held that the denial of political and civil liberties and a measure of
authoritarianism is advantageous to economic growth. The notion that democracy slows
growth is popular and we saw how communist regimes made it a choice between political
freedom and economic rights.
Amartya Sen contests this theories and says that it is not supported by satisfactory
empirical evidence. He further argues that in poor societies, democracy has both an
instrumental and a constructive role to play in promoting development. In a democracy where
the rulers have to face the electorate, there is an incentive to listen to the needs of the people.
Political freedoms and civil rights, a free press, the presence of opposition parties - all of
these mean that the actions of the government are subject to the evaluation and criticism of
society and that has a direct impact on the political fortunes of those in power. Democracy,
thus, plays an instrumental role in promoting the economic needs of the people. Additionally,
he argues that democratic arrangements play a constructive role in the sense that they even
allow for the conceptualization of what constitutes economic needs. Democracies created a
set of opportunities, and through open debate, discussion and dissenting opinions, people get
involved in formulating their needs and priorities.
This view is important because there are contending views on what constitutes
development. The idea that economic growth constitutes development is contested not just by
those critical of the way the benefits of growth are concerned by the powerful but also by
environmentalists. Movements like the Narmada Bachao Andolan contest the claims of
benefits that high-level industrialization and multipurpose river projects are supposed to
bring. Many tribal and local communities claim the right to use natural resources in a way
that is beneficial to the community. They contest the notion that there is a single model of
development which is applicable to all. Social and environmental movements assert the need
to formulate alternative, people-centred, sustainable models of development. If by
development one means improvement of living conditions, then the precise mode of
development to be adopted by a society is a matter of democratic decision-making.
The Scope of Democracy
Socialist, feminist and multicultural critiques as well as anti-race and anti-caste movements
draw attention to the presence of various structures of power and inequity in society. Since
these power structures affect the way people exercise their political freedoms and their ability
to influence collective decisions, removal of these structures becomes a concern for
democracy. That is, a democratic society is the basis for democratic political arrangements.
Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau identify the task of radical democracy as a struggle
against all modes of oppression and subordination in society by fully realizing the ideals of
liberty and equality for all. As the concept of equality expands from formal equality to
include equality of opportunity and equal treatment of culturally diverse communities, thus
requiring a notion of difference, the scope of democracy will widen.
Democracy, conceived in this form, is of relevance to all spheres of human collective
life, be it the family, association, workplace, community or the nation. Within the framework
of the nation-state, the agenda of deepening democracy involves enhancing participation and
the devolution of power to regional and local levels. However, the principle of democracy is
relevant beyond the level of the nation-state as well. Our globalized world is characterized by
a high degree of interdependence among nation-states due to changes in production,
communication and trade. International financial agencies like the IMF and World Bank, and
transnational corporations are powerful players in the world economy and exercise much
influence over Third World states. They are not subject to any transparent system of
accountability. On the other hand, many pressing issues like environmental protection and
human security require cooperation among states, and on issues like violation of human rights
and peace, international intervention in nation-states is required. The current UN system and
international organizations like the WTO are skewed in favour of the most powerful states.
These underline the need for effective and democratic global systems of governance. David
Held suggests a cosmopolitan model of democracy as a way to respond to these changes and
democratize the global system. It envisages setting up political, legal, administrative and
regulatory institutions at global and regional levels, which would help created methods to
ensure transparency and accountability in international government and non-government
institutions; secure world-wide consultation and referenda on certain issues; and enforce
peace and human rights within nation-states. This model of democracy is not meant to be an
alternative to the nation-state but a system that complements democracy at the national and
local levels.
CONCLUSION
Everybody's for democracy in principle. It's only in practice that the thing gives rise to stiff
objections.
- Noam Chomsky
The history of political theory is witness to divergent views on the desirability of democracy
as well as its nature and extent. These differences emerge from what one expects democracy
to achieve. In this chapter, we examined the key ways in which democracy is understood and
the dilemmas faced when it is sought to be applied.