Hello and welcome friends, to this lecture
today. Today, we are going to start a new
topic that is on democracy and you know, democracy
is a widely used term. And everything now,
in contemporary era that is good or virtuous
is often, associated with democracy, but when
we think or theorize or try to define, what
is democracy? It is the contested concept
and yet it is very central to any theorization
of politics or government or state in modern
times.
So, all states, necessarily, at least profess
that they are democratic. But how far, they
are democratic is something, that is constantly,
debated, contested and challenge. And therefore,
even when you see in modern era, democracy
used as a kind of legitimizing idea, it is
not really, a universally accepted norms or
criteria about what does it mean to be a democratic
country or a democratic society. Some of these
debates and discussions, we will do over the
course of two/three lectures on democracy.
Today, we are going to basically, look at
the understanding or the kind of definition
of democracy by many scholars. And then, we
will look at the evolution of idea and how
in the modern time it becomes a kind of all
pervasive idea, even when the meaning and
the understanding of a democracy is far from
settled. And then, we will discuss, particularly,
direct and indirect form of democracy, and
more specifically, the idea of procedural
and substantive notions of democracy system.
So, these are some of the things, we will
discuss today. In the next lecture, we will
discuss different models of democracy and
then, we will follow up with them challenges
and criticism to this idea of democracy.
So, to begin, with this idea of democracy
is central to any discourse on politics and
government in modern times. So, any discourse
about politics or state or the government
in modern times, revolves around the idea.
But that does not mean, there is a kind of
settled understanding or universal consensus
on what this idea means. And therefore, there
is lots of confusions, lots of challenges
to understand exactly, what democracy means
or what does it mean, when we say that we
are democratic.
Nonetheless, this idea is very much central
to any political and government related discourse
in modern times. And of course, as an idea
its roots can be traced back to the ancient
times. So, in Greece or even in India, we
have many sangas or many republics, where
there was a kind of democratic structure of
decision-making and so on. But as a all pervasive
legitimizing idea, so much so that even the
military junta or undemocratic government
and the outright dictators or autocrats, also,
tries to legitimize their rule in the name
of democracy. So, this kind of resurgence
or reformation of democracy, as the legitimizing
idea of time is something, of a recent development
or a modern development, even when the roots
of this idea can be traced back to the ancient
time.
So, the word democracy is derived from the
Greek roots which means, ‘demos’ and ‘cracy’.
So, demos, means, the people and cracy, means,
the rule or the government. So, democracy,
literally, means rule of the people. So, democracy
is about a system of rule which is based on
the governed or that is a kind of legitimizing
process for a democratic government that the
functioning or the existence of government
is based on the consent of the people. So,
a democratic rule by nature means a rule ‘by
the people, for the people, of the people’,
as one of US President Abraham Lincoln, defines
it.
So, this is a kind of literal meaning of the
term, but its actual functioning or the process
of democratic government, you see a lot of
challenges to identify, which government is
a truly, functional democratic government
or which is not. So, it is not easy, to define
what is democracy. And some the following
definitions, gives us a sense of contested
meanings and understandings of democracy.
So, democracy, according to Greeks is the
government in which people rule over themselves.
So, it is a system of governance, where people
rule over themselves and there is no external,
or an outset authority which governs them.
Aristotle, considered as a perverted form
of government. So, Aristotle, talks about
many forms of government starting from authoritarian
to autocracy, then he goes on to define polity
as the rule by many and he regarded, it as
the ideal form of government, then democracy
which he regarded as a perverted system of
governance. So, for Aristotle democracy is
a perverted form of government. Herodotus,
says the democracy denotes that form of government
in which the ruling power of the state is
largely, vested in the members of the community
as a whole. So, the rule or the basis of ruling
is in the larger community as a whole in the
society.
The most quoted and often, repeated definition
of democracy that you often, hear is by Abraham
Lincoln the US President who famously, said
that democracy is a government of the people
and all these three things that he says, about
democracy matters. So, ‘democracy is a government
of the people, by the people and for the people’.
So, the very constitution of a democratic
government is of the people. That means, representative
of the people. The government is run by the
people themselves and not other groups or
communities, so by the people and for the
people. So, the very rational or the objective
of government is to work in the interest of
or for the benefits of the people.
So, this definition, of democracy as rule
‘of the people, by the people, for the people’,
give us a broader or comprehensive understanding
of democracy. But when again, comes to accessing,
the actual functioning democracies in the
world, we face a lot of challenges in terms
of, even when a functioning democracy follows
some procedural parameters, the actual effect,
the actual outcome of that democracy may not
be democratic that we will discuss, in procedural
and substantive notion of democracy.
Now, moving onto this Bryce definition of
democracy, the democracy is that form of government
in which the ruling power of a state is legally
vested not in any particular class or classes
like in aristocracy and so on, but in the
members of the community as a whole. So, the
each and every member of that particular community
together gives the legal basis of a democratic
state and government.
Democracy, writes Mazzini, is the government
of the best and the wisest, for the progress
of all and through all. So, this sanction
or the basis or what we can also, call the
consent is very crucial for the very legitimacy,
for the very existence of a democratic government
which must function on the basis of this idea
that the constitution of the government or
a democratic rule is the result, of the consent
of the each and every member of the society.
So, for a very long time, governance is something,
that is regarded as that task or responsibility
of a very few section or a very few classes
in the society. For the first time, democracy,
radically, altered such conceptions of governance
by a few, by asserting that a democratic government
must functions on the basis of each and every
member of the government for the benefit of
the people. So, these two things, first the
process of electing a government or forming
a government should be the result of the participation
of every member.
And second, once the government is constituted,
it must functions for the behalf of everyone,
for the benefit of everyone. That means, the
common good or the good of the people is the
objective of the government. So, the constitution
and existence of the government rests on this
idea of the people and that is very central
to the understanding of democracy.
Similarly, Prof Seeley, talks about democracy
is a government in which everybody has a share.
So, in this form of government, say in monarchy,
only the monarch will have the stake because
it is his monarchy, right. Similarly, in say,
aristocracy, it is a particular class in the
society whose interest is at stake in the
government. But in democracy, every single
citizen of a democratic state has a stake,
has a share in the decision-making or in the
administrative process of that state.
According to Dicey, democracy as a form of
government in which the governing body is
a comparatively, large fraction of the entire
nation. So, the question of representation,
where the governance is in the hands of those
who are comparatively, large fraction of the
entire nation and not representing a particular
class and section.
Thus, we find that democracy is understood
as a procedure, as an ideal. So, the biggest
challenge in defining democracy is that it
is understood as a procedure. So, we can say,
free and fare election, rule of law, constitution,
political parties, if these exists in a country,
it may be a democratic country. So, it is
a procedural thing. But it is also, an ideal,
no country can claim to be truly, democratic
country. Because there will be some undemocratic
ways of doing thing, or undemocratic power
that is exercised, coercive dimension of the
state and so on.
So, therefore, as an ideal, it remains, as
a kind of guiding principle, where all the
societies or modern societies tries not just
to govern themselves through the democratic
or elected government, but also, internalize
the value of democracy which is against hierarchy,
any kind of subordination and domination,
any kind of arbitrary use of power and so
on.
So, democracy, in that sense, remains an ideal
or as a guiding principle for many societies
or individuals or collectivities in modern
times. So, it is a procedure, it is also,
an ideal and more than that a system of rule,
that is very difficult to conceptualize and
that is the most difficult part of democracy.
As I have said that many undemocratic or military
junta, also, legitimize the rule, or accesses
of their rule in the name of democracy. So,
as a procedure, as an ideal and more than
that as a system of rule, the definition or
the interpretation of democracy is a very
difficult challenge.
Now, we can make a sense, of what does democracy
implies, by making a kind of contrast between
democracy and autocracy. So, democracy, is
by definition rule by the people, for the
people, of the people, that means, rule by
every member. So, in a democratic rule, all
members of the society or the communities
are expected to participate or have stake
in the function of the world.
Autocracy, on the hand, it is a rule by one
dictator or the authoritarian person or by
few, but certainly, not by everyone. So, autocratic
rule, by definition is about rule by one person
or few individuals or small sections in the
society. Now, if we contrast the democracy
with autocracy, we will find that democracy
is rule based on certain rules, customs and
procedures, whereas, autocracy is more about
command or obedience. So, there will be absolute
hierarchy and the very functioning of autocratic
rule is based on command and obedience, whereas
in a democracy, you have the rules and procedures.
So, the functioning of state and its machinery
must follow and abide by rules and procedure.
The second, democracy insures participations
of most of its population, almost all. So,
each member or a democratic citizen, so say,
right to vote that is the most crucial understanding
of political participation in modern democracy.
And there are criticisms to that like Rousseau
and others, we will discuss later on. But
certainly, the right to vote is given to every
adult member of a particular community, of
a particular…above the particular age.
Now, this right to vote, ensures the maximum
political participation in the governance
in a democracy or electing the government
in a democracy. So, it is about participation
of every member or every eligible adult member
in a society. So, democracy is a rule by participation,
whereas, in autocracy, we have non-participation
or very less participation of people in decision-making.
So, the people are subjected to certain commands
or certain orders and they are expected, to
abide by or to obey those commands and orders.
But in the decision-making, the participation
is either less or none at all, in comparison
to democracy.
Again, democracy is a government of the citizen,
by the citizen and the citizens are right
bearing citizen. That means, a state and the
government must protect certain rights of
the individual citizens. And this protection
of rights gives the state certain limits,
certain restraints. So, for example, in Indian
Constitution, you have fundamental rights.
Now, fundamental rights prohibit the state
to formulate certain policy which contravenes,
which takes away the rights that is guaranteed
under the fundamental rights chapter.
So, democracy, recognize and protect certain
rights of the citizen, whereas in autocracy
you have the loyalty. So, you benefit or you
lose on the basis of your loyalty to the commander
to the higher authority or to the dictator,
so that is, the contrast between autocratic
and democracy that you can have. So, democracy
is something, more than a system of rule or
it is not just about the procedure. It has
both procedural and substantive aspects which
we will discuss, in the later part of this
lecture.
It is a method or procedure to arrive at a
decision. So, democracy is a method or procedure
through which we arrive at a particular decision.
But it is also, about a set of normative value
and behavior, and this normative value and
behavior through which a society approach
and participate in collective decision-making
is something, which makes democracy more than
a system of rule or more than merely, a mechanism
of governing the society. It is something,
which is about creating new norms about exercising
in the power or legitimacy of that power.
And it then, further, from a system of rules
goes down to shaping the behavior of individuals
and groups in the society. So, the deepening
of democracy is a term which can explain that
how democracy is not just about the system
of rule and procedure and so on. But it is
also, about how individuals or groups in the
society themselves imbibe the democratic ideals
or democratic principles and that leads to
creation of a good and better society.
So, democracy as a system of rule is based
on this idea of rule of law that is very crucial
for democracy that it must functions within
the rule of law and its legitimacy comes from
the consent of the ruled. So, democratic government
exists and their existence is legitimate,
so long, it is based on the consent of the
people and how consent is acquired through
the periodic elections in free and fair manner.
So, regular, free and fair election is regarded
as essential feature of democracy. It also,
signifies a free and open society which allows
all kinds or shades of opinions or voices,
to be expressed or to be heard. So, the characteristic
of a democratic society in comparison, to
undemocratic and autocratic society is, it
allows, all shades of opinions or voices to
be expressed and heard in the public.
Now, if we look, at the evolution of the concept
and this world wide prevalence of democracy,
is relatively, a new or recent phenomenon.
So, we were not democratic, still today lots
of countries and societies though claim to
be democratic, but they are in substance or
even in the procedural sense, not exactly,
a democratic state. However, as an idea, democracy
is now widely, prevailed or even a legitimizing
idea of our age. Now, this becoming of legitimizing
idea or wide prevalence of democracy is something,
of a recent phenomenon, more precisely, the
most population of the world claims to be
governed by a democratic government in a post-second
world war phenomena.
So, only, after the post-second world war,
most of the population in the world or the
rulers, claim to be democratic. So, for a
very long time, people were very suspicious
of democracy and used to equate democratic
rule with say, mobocracy, rule by mob or inefficient
rule, because the ruling or the governance
is regarded as something, which require certain
expertise and not everyone is capable of ruling
or governing. And therefore, for a very long
time, the democratic government was equated
with the government of inefficient people
or it was a mob rule, or mobocracy. It was
not something, which is good and virtual.
So, for a very long time, there was a kind
of suspicion or apprehensions about democracy.
And even, the most progressive liberal thinkers
and scholars refrain from calling themselves
as a democrat. So, democrat was equated with
the mobocracy and inefficient rule for a very
long time. It is only, recently, that now
we associate or attach everything that is
good and virtuous with democracy. But for
a very long time, democracy was equated with
this idea of mobocracy or rule of mob or inefficient
rule.
Even in modern times, its uses are not without
problematic and challenges. So, it is true
that it has become a legitimizing idea of
our time. So much so, that even military juntas
dictators and the monarchs legitimize, their
rules in the name of true democracy, what
they called right. So, starting from say,
for example, how competitive they are in terms
of legitimizing a very different and contradictory
system of rule in the name of democracy. So,
for a capitalist or in a capitalist economy,
a free market economy will fight for the protection
of the rights and for the democratic rule.
A society which believes in the collective
ownership or the state ownership of properties
or national resources will fight that capitalist
or what they call bourgeois democracy in the
name of bringing true democracy or more genuine
democracy, and so on. So, this idea has a
kind of legitimizing effect in the modern
times and to call someone undemocratic is
seen as a kind of offensive, or so, everyone
want to present themselves or profess themselves
as a democratic person.
However, there are many challenges and criticisms
to democracy, even today. So, democracy is
basically, also, equated with majoritarian
rule. The majoritarian rule is arithmetically,
speaking, the rule of 50 plus 1. So, in a
society of 100, the one who has the vote of
51 will have the right to rule and govern.
Now, this kind of democracy is also, related
to the tyranny of majority and the rights
and the property of the minority is always,
at danger in this tyranny of majoritarian
rule in a democracy which is based on the
number. The other criticism of democracy is
that it does not distinguish between a person
who is well qualified, educationally and a
person who is illiterate.
Now, in a democratic rule, you have this idea
that 1 person, 1 vote, 1 vote, 1 value. This
1 person, 1 vote and 1 vote, 1 value do not
make a distinction between a person who is
a say PhD or a person who is illiterate. The
vote of each one of them is same, so it does
not make a distinction between the educated
or qualified and uneducated or unqualified.
So, these are the some of the other criticisms
of democracy.
However, the idea that people should run themselves
is not new. This idea that the government
should be based on the interests of the people
and people themselves should participate in
governance is not new. Around 2500 years ago,
in ancient Greece, the people of Greece city
or city-states of Athens developed a way,
of making decisions that was different from
the autocracy. The features of an autocracy
or autocratic rule we have discussed.
Plato and Aristotle saw democracy at work
in some of the ancient Greek city-states,
especially, in Athens. And its salient features
were equal participation by all freeman this
point we will discuss in a minute. So, equal
participation of all men in the common affair
of the polis or that is also, called city-states
which was regarded as the essential instrument
of good life.
So, a good life is a public life in the polis
is regarded as a good life, where the participation
in the common affairs of the polis or the
city-states was available or given to all
freemen in Athens. We are arriving at decisions
in an atmosphere of free discussions. So,
the decisions were taken through discussions
and not through coercion, and not through,
you know whims and fancies of a few persons
or one individual.
Third, the general respect of for law and
for the established procedures of the community.
So, the Greeks, took pride in their customary
law and admiringly, distinguished it from
the ‘arbitrary rule’ prevalent among the
‘barbarians’. So, why, they call themselves
as civilized is precisely, because they conducted
their rule through procedures, by the procedures,
that is established in the community. In contrast,
to the arbitrary rule of the barbarians, where
the whims, fancies and passions largely, drive
the politics and the governance.
So, the cornerstone of Athenian democracy
was the direct and the continuous participation.
You can well understand the democratic nature
of this rule by this definition of citizenship
in Aristotle, which we will discuss, later
on also, when we will discuss citizenship
that citizenship is ability, to govern and
we govern in turn. So, there is very thick
notion of citizenship, where the citizen is
not just the subject of rule, but equally,
capable of ruling himself or herself, so that
is, the hallmark of citizenship or democracy
in Athenian city-states, Greek city-states,
certainly, in Athens.
However, the form of democracy, prevalent
in ancient Greek city-states was by no means,
regarded as an ideal rule why, because Athens
was not a true democracy as women we are not
included nor foreigners, slaves and freed
slaves. So, the citizenship or the participations
were limited only to the male citizens of
the cities and not the women foreigners, slaves
and so on. So, the democracy was only, for
a small minority of the people living in Athens.
And therefore, we cannot regard the Athenian
democracy as the ideal democracy. However,
the ideal of common good as independent of
and prior to individual interests and desire
was very much strong in the governance of
the city-states.
Similarly, in Republican Rome, some of the
democratic ideas were quite popular for example,
popular participation, public good, civic
virtue, citizenship and codification of law.
So, these are some of this ideals which can
be regarded as modes of democratic ideals
or democratic ways of functioning, which was
also, very popular in Republican Rome.
In mediaeval England and that is the beginning,
of modern constitution and democracy. In 1215,
King John had total control and his subjects
had no freedom or say, in the administration,
whatsoever. So, in 1215, there was a kind
of complete control of monarch over the administration.
The Magna Carta took some of the king’s
power away and gave some rights and freedom
to the people. The Magna Carta which contains,
63 clauses, promising all freeman access to
the courts and a free trial, eliminating,
unfair fines and punishments and giving power
to the Catholic Church in England, instead
of the king.
So, the Magna Carta was an important milestone
in British law and would become the basis
for many international constitutions, including
the Australian Constitution. So, the Magna
Carta begins this process of asserting certain
rights, like the idea of free trial or removing
some arbitrary or unfair fines and punishments,
and so on, becomes the basis for the emergence
of modern democratic constitution.
The American Revolution was another milestone
in the making of modern democratic government.
So, in the Declaration of Independence written
by the American President, Thomas Jefferson
in 1776, many ideas were taken from two famous
philosophers, Jean Jacques Rousseau and John
Locke, which outlined freedom and equality.
And we have referred to their ideas in the
previous lecture. So, the guiding principle
of American Constitution was that the rule
is based on the consent of the people.
So, it is starts with ‘we the people’.
So, the legitimizing authority for the state
and its institution is the people of the United
States. And also, there are certain rights
of the citizens which must be protected. So,
this American Constitution becomes another
milestone in the making of modern democratic
states and constitutions.
So, modern democracy is developed throughout
the 20th century. Held, wrote that the historical
changes that contributed to the emergence
of modern liberal and liberal democratic thought
were immensely, complicated. Struggles between
monarchs and estates over the domain of rightful
authority, peasant rebellions, against the
weight of excessive taxation and social obligation,
the spread of trade, commerce and market relations,
changes in technology, particularly, military
technology, growing influence of Renaissance,
culture, religious strife, struggle between
church and state, all played a part in the
making of or in the expansion of democracy
throughout the 20th century.
So, this definition, by Held gives us a broader
social, political, economic and religious
struggle that was going on. And together,
these constitute a system of rule which we
now, call a democratic rule. So, this is the
result of the historical changes that contributed
in the emergence of modern liberal or liberal
democratic thought.
However, those were complicated and the struggles
between monarchs and estates over the domain
of rightful authority, peasant rebellions
against the weight of excessive taxes and
social obligation, the spread of trade, commerce
and market relations, changes in technology,
particularly, military technology and growing
influence of Renaissance culture, religious
strife; and struggle between church and state,
all played a part in the emergence of such
liberal thought or liberal democratic thought.
So, democracy has resulted from wars, revolution,
decolonization and economic circumstances.
So, many people, argue that the capitalism
or the prosperous society, produce the conducive
atmosphere for the functioning of democracy,
whereas, if a society is economically, backward,
it will lead to a lot of undemocratic, hierarchical
system of rules and governance.
So, there is the historical, sociological
explanation for the growth and expansion of
modern democracy in 20th century and through
Held, we get some of these sense. And other
things that we need to keep in mind that the
struggle for democracy is constantly, inclusive
and ever expanding. So, it does not limit
with you know, once for all. So, it is a kind
of constant in situation.
So, for example, in US the rule was based
on the people, but that people is regarded
as the white people. So, for the blacks, to
get political participation took a long time
to struggle and finally, after the struggle
of centuries, they get their right. And even,
when they get the legal, political right,
their social and economic equality took another
century and still that struggle is going on.
Similarly, for the women, to participate in
the political process in the country took
a long struggle. And the history of modern
democracies is a result of such struggles
which constantly, expand the political process.
So, John Dunn, coming back to this debate
on democracy, argues that all states today,
profess to be democracies because a democracy
is what it is virtuous for a state to be.
So, all states or modern state, will profess
themselves to be democratic because it is
virtuous, to be democratic to do. So, as I
said that democracy has acquired a legitimizing
capacity, where it is seen in negative sense,
if somebody is called undemocratic. So, all
states now, profess democracy or democratic,
because they are virtuous to be.
So, thus, now, it becomes easier to associate
everything that is good and virtuous to democracy.
And that makes the concept of democracy very
confusing. So much so that in 1960s, when
Robert Dahl tries to study, democracy scientifically.
He prefers, the term polyarchy, to democracy
because everything is seen or associated which
people or the community believes good or virtuous
with the democracy.
Democracy is often, interpreted in a sense,
where it seems that even, the contradictory
ideas and values are regarded as the essential
features of democracy. So, for example, the
majority rule or individual rights or limited
government or popular sovereignty, similarly,
private property or the collective ownership
of property, participation that means, direct
participation or through representation, collective
or the individual socialism or the capitalism,
these are some of these contradictory ideals.
But in democratic theorization or understanding,
all these contradictory elements are often,
seen as the essential feature of a democracy.
And therefore, George Bernard Shaw, once,
proclaim that democracy seems to be everywhere
and nowhere. So, what is real democracy? When
one when one professes themselves or when
the state profess, itself to be a democratic
state, is it really, democratic and how far
it is democratic, and that remains and opens
up a lot of contested arguments questions
and challenges. And George Bernard Shaw, gives,
a sense of this dichotomy, this confusion
about this term democracy, where everyone
seems to profess democracy, even when any
of them is not practicing it in reality.
Now, if you look, at the key features of or
characteristics of democracy, we find that
the defining feature of democracy is that
in the system of rule, it is the people which
are regarded as supreme. And according to
Anthony Ablaster, democracy refers to a situation,
where power and authority ultimately, rests
with the people and not with the government,
so that is, the defining feature of democracy,
that is a system of rule, it regards people
as the supreme authority or holder of power.
So, government therefore, then is based on
the consent of the people.
So, the main basis of democracy is liberty
and equality. The people enjoy maximum liberty
and equality because criticism of people is
not only, tolerated in this system, but it
is also, encouraged. So, the democracy is
a system of rule, which provides the citizens
scope to criticize the action of the government,
no other autocratic or undemocratic government
will allow the citizen to criticize their
government, because they must obey, or their
existence depend on their loyalty to the monarch
or to the dictator.
But democracy as a system of rule permit and
also, encourage the citizen to criticize the
government. In Monarchies, Dictatorship, Aristocracies
and Oligarchies, the people and the opposition
party have hardly, any rule or no, say at
all in the matters of national importance.
Whereas, in a democracy, you have them, scope
for such criticisms, and even the rule of
opposition parties in the national importance.
In democracy, also, they emphasis on this
idea of political equality where every citizen
is granted this right to vote and that granting
of right to vote do not discriminate between
educated or uneducated literate or illiterate,
propertied or not propertied, and so on.
So, this Adult Franchise is based on this
idea of ‘one man one vote and one vote one
value’ is the basis of political equality
in a democracy, where public offices is open
for. Also, this gives the other characteristic
of a democratic state. And citizen in a democracy
is given certain rights which must be protected
and the functional democracy, promote diversity
of opinion and interests, freedom of speech
and expressions, and also, the right to protest
and resist, and independent judiciary is the
hallmark of a democratic government. So, these
are some of the characteristics.
John Austin, James Bryce, A. V. Dicey, John
Seeley and A. L. Lowell classify, democracy,
chiefly as a form of government. Lowell, for
instance, argues that democracy is only an
experiment in government. Seeley, describes
it as government in which everyone has a share.
Dicey, in his famous work, Law and Opinion
in England, treated democracy as a form of
government under which majority opinions determines
legislation. According to him, it would be
unwise in a democracy to enforce law not approved
by the people.
So, in all of their argumentations, the democracy
is seen as a system of government or as a
system of rule. Now, the system of that rule
is based on the people and their participation
and the Dicey goes on to explain that even
the legislation and the law which do not have
the approval of the people, it will be unwise,
to enforce them on the people. So, the sanction
or the approval of people is necessary, for
the making of the government, for making of
the laws and implementing those laws in a
society.
Now, the other dimension or the feature of
democracy is it is ever expanding process.
So, the democracy, in modern times, emerged
from a limited and restricted government and
from that limited and restricted government.
It becomes ever inclusive and ever expanding
form of government. So, let us take the example,
of this vote when modern democracy started
this right to vote were given to only, white
male or educated member of the community;
white male or the educated and propertied
member of the community. But there was the
struggle for expanding or making the democracy
more inclusive, and now, it includes the female
unpropertied, illiterate, marginalized, such
as Dalits.
So, the other dimensions and that is the most
crucial dimension of democracy is it started
with a limited and restricted form of government
and now, it is ever expanding, or ever inclusive
those groups who were excluded from the process
of governance or from the participation in
the decision making. And therefore, it includes,
newer and newer group such as female unpropertied,
illiterate or the marginalized sections in
the society. Now, very briefly, we will discuss,
direct and indirect forms of democracy and
finally, procedural and substantive notions
of democracy.
So, modern democracy, largely, works through
its representatives in situation, so that
means, people in a large country. And with
a vast number of people cannot take direct
participation in day-to-day, basis in governing
themselves. So, they govern through their
representative. And representatives are accountable
to the people and this form of government
called indirect government. But we also, have
the instances, where people directly, participate
in the making of collective decisions. So,
modern democracy, largely, works through its
representatives in situation.
In order to understand its functioning, it
is essential to distinguish between direct
and indirect democracy. So, direct democracy
means, the rule by the people of state on
or other political community, by means of
direct participation. So, physically, people
go and participate in the decision-making
themselves and not through their representatives.
So, some examples, of direct democracy are
found in ancient Greek city-states also, in
ancient India, some Buddhists, Sanghas or
Republics did practice this direct democracy.
The Gram Sabha, in modern times, in the village
panchayat is the example of direct democracy,
where every male member who has the right
to vote is also member of the Gram Sabha.
So, Gram Sabha, taking collective decision
is the example of direct democracy in contemporary
times in India. So, this system can obviously,
operate in a area having small number of citizens,
who can periodically, meet at one places.
Today, when large and complex societies have
emerged, when area is very vast and extensive,
direct democracy is impracticable or impossible
and this system, here, means direct democracy
prevails only in the four cantons of Switzerland.
Indirect democracy in a representative or
indirect democracy, the will of the state
is formulated and expressed not directly by
the people themselves, but by their representatives.
So, the people governed themselves in indirect
democracy through their representative. John
Stuart Mill had said in this regard that indirect
or representative democracy is one in which
the whole people or some numerous portion
of them exercise the governing power through
deputies periodically, elective. So, this
idea of periodic election of the representatives
of the people is to ensure that the representatives
represent the will of the people or the voice
of the people.
Another writer Bluntschil has said in the
representative democracy, the rule is that
the people govern through its officials, while
it legislates and controls the administration
through its representative. So, it is basically,
modern nation-state which is also, a democratic
state, where we represent the ministers, but
we govern ourselves in day-to-day basis by
recruiting the officials. And these officials,
which we can call bureaucracy, which is permanent
executive in a sense that we do not elect
them, periodically, we recruit them. But overall,
these bureaucracy or the officials, functions
in the overall supervision of the elected
representatives like ministers and so on.
So, Bluntschli, characterized this representative
democracy, where people govern through its
officials, while it legislates and controls
the administration through its representatives
the MPs or MLAs that we elect. So, this type
of government was established in England in
17th century, in France in 1830 and Italy
in 1941. In Germany, it was established after
the First World War, according to the Weimer
constitution. Again, this system was established
in the West Germany after the Second World
War.
And today, this system is seen in many countries
like Japan, Sri Lanka, India, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, United States of America, West
Germany, Italy, France, Holland, Denmark,
Sweden, Norway, Austria and Belgium. In modern
times, the term democracy is also, used as
synonym of two representatives. So, this form
of government prevails in most of the countries
in modern times.
Now, finally, the procedural and substantive
forms of democracy, there are broadly, speaking
two ways of defining democracy. One is procedural,
the other is substantive. Procedural democracy
is about free and fair election, fair competition
among political parties and political equality.
And so, the procedural democracy is about
a set of procedures followed by any country,
such as free and fair election, fair competition
among the political parties and political
equality.
Whereas, substantive democracy is about a
system of government, whereby, the people’s
will included into the programmes and for
the functioning of the government. So, it
may be possible that a country has procedural
democracy, but it lacks substantive democracy.
So, and it is also, possible that it may lack
both and yet it may process, itself as a democracy.
Suppose, if a country is governed by one party,
and there is no competition in election. So,
what kind of democracy that country is. So,
those are some of the challenges which we
will discuss in the next lecture.
But, here, in the procedural democracy, we
understand and there are certain procedures
such as free and fair election, fair competition
among the political parties and political
equality, freedom of press and so on, is regarded
as them as characteristics of procedural democracy.
Whereas, substantive democracy, talks about
whether the functioning of the government
or the programmes of the governance reflects
the will of the people or not or empower or
strengthen the will of the people or not.
So, procedural democracy is a democracy, in
which people or citizens of the state have
less influence than in the traditional liberal
democracy.
This type of democracy is characterized by
voters choosing to elect representatives in
free elections. Substantive democracy is a
form of democracy, in which the outcome of
election is representative of the people.
So, in other words, substantive democracy
is a form of democracy that functions in the
interests of the governed. Although, a country
may allow all citizens of particular age to
vote, this characteristic does not necessarily,
qualified as a substantive democracy. So,
merely, by fulfilling those procedural criteria,
a country cannot be regarded as a democratic
country.
In substantive democracy, the general population,
face a real role in carrying out its political
affairs. For example, the state is not merely,
set up as a democracy, but it functions as
one. So, it is not just enough to have free
fair and periodic elections, but it is also,
necessary, to ensure that the decisions are
taken through discussions and there are popular
participation in decision-making. And the
decision that is taken is interest of the
governed and also, reflects the will of the
people.
So, democracy, may have elections procedural,
but may lack the rule of law and civil liberty
which is involved in the substantive democracy.
So, this is common, in many dictatorships,
where elections are held or even rigged and
the dictator is conveniently, elected. So,
it is easy, to have law and constitution,
the framework or the procedures which proclaim
democracy as the guiding principle of government,
but that does not mean a country, actually,
operates democratically, that is the country
is democratic in substance. So, that is something,
about the substantial notion of democracy
which is far more than merely, the procedural
democracy.
All substantive democracy, therefore, are
procedural democracy. So, in all the substantive
democracy, you have free and fair election,
besides, the functioning of the government
on the basis of will of the people, but not
all procedural democracies are substantive
democracy. So, election, may be held but there
will not be independent judiciary and there
will not be any civil liberties.
So, it is possible, to have a procedural democracy
without substantive democracy, but all substantive
democratic countries is also, a country which
follow the procedural democracy that means,
free and fair election, open competition for
positions or independent judiciary, free press,
so on and so forth, of the procedural notion
of democracy.
So, that is all for today’s lecture. You
can refer to some of these books like Janaki
Srinivasan, “Democracy” in Rajeev Bhargava
and Ashok Acharya’s Political Theory: An
Introduction. And these are also, the books
which we have been referring to in other topics,
which you should also, look at if, you want
to study more on the topics which we have
covered in this lecture. So, that is all for
today’s lecture. Please, write to us your
feedback, your queries and comments. We will
be happy to respond.
So, thanks for listening. Thank you all.
