Events
& Issues
New Delhi, 4 February 2021
Representative
Democracy
REFORM OR FIND
ALTERNATIVE
By Dr S. Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi)
The Budget session of
Parliament has commenced and 20 Opposition parties joined together to boycott
the Presidential Address without falsifying the prediction of many political
analysts closely watching the performance of Indian democracy. The boycott is
publicised by members assembling outside Parliament and raising anti-government
slogans.
A settled pattern of functioning
of representative system of democracy seems to have established itself, but its
future course is unpredictable today. What seems most probable is that the
pattern will continue even if the government changes after next election, for
it is an unavoidable stage in transformation of representative democracy that
is already overdue.
Democracy, once
considered government of the people, by the people and for the people, is
recently undergoing challenges even in countries reputed as most democratic, putting
a big question mark over its existing form in many countries. Its enemies are
not all and not always from external forces, but from within, in many parts of
the world, including India.
Chances of degeneration of the representative system of
democracy was not foreseen when India got independence and enthusiastically
adopted a parliamentary system with a federal set up, universal adult suffrage and periodical
elections, framed a lengthy written Constitution, and above all encouraged a multi-party
system. Elections have been held, governments have changed peacefully, and
several political parties have been formed and participated in elections.
Textbook
classification of governments as monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy requires
revision. Democracy itself consists of many types and keeps evolving. The
representative system that India has adopted is going through several hurdles.
Elected representatives not voted to hold power, and groups of voters unable to
win enough seats in the legislature proportionate to their size are not happy
with the existing system.
Rule by majority is
the principle that underlies the Westminster Model of parliamentary democracy
of India. Legislative bodies are composed of members getting majority votes in
the election; governments are formed by the party or combination of parties
occupying majority of seats; decisions are taken by majority support. The
minorities left out are unable to reconcile to the domination of the majority
and tend to rebel against it in various manner. It seems that our system itself
is seeking to find a remedy for the growing rift between the two.
Global expansion of
democracy in the 20th century is accompanied with some amount of degeneration in many aspects. Forms of
democracy have been adopted, but the spirit is missing in functioning. This
trend was noticed by many scholars towards the end of the last century. Widespread and intense disenchantment with
democratic politics has gripped failing politicians in many countries who
increasingly resort to sabotaging democratic institutions from within.
Should we look for
reform of representative democracy or devise an alternative system better
suited to the present situation?
In a democracy,
citizens are both the rulers and the ruled. Any change intended for a better
governmental system must come from them. Pro-changers have to confront those
having a vested interest in the status quo if they want to bring about changes.
Indeed, confrontation
with adherents of status quo is unavoidable for any reform – be it social,
economic, or political. For, reforms in any matter are for changes - call them
adjustments, alterations, improvements or alternatives. Nationwide awareness of
the need for reform is he starting point.
Parliament Houses
very often fail to function even for whole sessions silenced by the noise
raised by members. It worries the public, but not the members elected to
perform certain law-making functions. Loss of faith in democratic institutions
openly expressed is a big challenge to democracy.
Paradoxically, the
political classes join hands to undermine the importance of legislatures, commissions
and committees, constituted by governing authorities, and don’t hesitate to
criticise the functioning of constitutional offices and office holders, but are
keen on joining political parties and become members of the same political
institutions and agencies they decry. The number of political parties in the
field has grown by hundreds. There is scramble for party tickets to contest
elections, but not for participation in debating issues.
The system, as it
works in India, does not encourage MPs and MLAs to have and to express publicly
independent opinion on issues. They follow their leaders and their group plays
only alliance politics. When the group breaks up, re-alignment takes place with
an eye on political advantage.
How democratic is a
democracy can be evaluated by two tests – one in the formation of the
government and its various organs and agencies, and the other in the
decision-making process of the government. Both are presently facing huge
challenges in India.
It is a common
fallacy to think that slender majority and dependency on the support of allies
are major obstacles in the path of a government whereas clear majority helps
the government to take decisions and implement these. It is not so in reality.
Parliamentary majority is not enough for a party to govern and carry out its policies.
Minority support is indispensable. The nation is made up of citizens and cannot
be divided as majority and minorities.
India started its
democracy as a champion of values like harmony, hierarchy, solidarity,
cooperation, and consensus in decision-making. Indian democracy, in the first
two decades after independence, was known for taking governmental decisions
broadly by consensus.
This has weakened
gradually due to rise of multiple parties and pressure groups, consciousness of
rights and freedom for all, and competition for power and positions with the
result that consensus is hard to build today and cooperation is a lost concept.
Consensus need not
mean unanimous decisions, which is hard to achieve in a plural society divided
by several inequalities. It means only agreement by consent to settle an issue.
It cannot be achieved without willing cooperation of concerned people, without
discussion of details of issues and without ascertaining different views. It is
never possible to accommodate antagonistic views at the same time, but it is
possible to arrive at agreements for the sake of order and moving forward. But,
if the will to arrive at an agreement is lacking, conflicts will deepen and
weaken democracy. The lesson is equally true for rulers and the ruled.
Consensus, which had been India’s unique contribution to democracy, must bounce
back to save our democracy from the crisis it is facing.
Arriving at consensus
presupposes consideration of different opinions and also accommodation of
varied interests. Democratic political decisions and actions cannot always be
arrived at collectively, but are for collective welfare. These are possible
only when opinions of minorities and the majority are respected and listened
to. Just as the majority has no right to trample the minorities, the minorities
cannot bully the majority in unparliamentary ways. Ultimately, what is urgently
needed is building mutual trust and cooperation. There can be no opposition to
this if we think and act positively.
Representative system
of democracy in India is in deep crisis and sooner it finds a solution to patch
up the deep cleavages, the better for its future. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature
Alliance)
|