Democracy PDF

# Democracy ## Introduction The concept of democracy is at the center of fierce debates in political theory as well as commonplace discussions on politics. This chapter examines the ways in which democracy has been conceptualized, defended and critiqued. It discusses the evolution of democracy as...

# Democracy ## Introduction The concept of democracy is at the center of fierce debates in political theory as well as commonplace discussions on politics. This chapter examines the ways in which democracy has been conceptualized, defended and critiqued. It discusses the evolution of democracy as a concept, the various criticisms leveled 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 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. 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 increases 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 judgements. A **democratic decision** 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 talking to 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 the members of the concerned group is a legitimate one. Democracy is, thus, both a method to arrive at collective decisions, and a set of values and behavior 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 accorded 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 arrangement? 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 government and the people, and elections allow the people to control the action of these 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**. 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 specifically anti-colonial character, and the peoples 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 state. 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, does not mean that everyone manages to have equal influence on the policy. 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 model. 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 practised in the Athenian city-state of ancient Greece during the 5th and 4th centuries BC. Athenians prided themselves on the 'happy versatility of citizens' and their ability to perform all tasks of governance, ie in enacting, implementing, and adjudicating of laws. They met in open assemblies to debate and deliberate on all matters and shared magistracies 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 by the 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 a 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 did not 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 civuc virtue as being of higher value than private individual interest. 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 did not mean the absence of constraints on the individual's pursuit of self-interest. Instead, he articulated a **positive notion of freedom** (See Chapter 3 on liberty for the distinction between negative and positive 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', ie 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 practised 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. (We shall examine Plato and Aristotle’s critique of democracy in a later section). 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 comprise 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 the dominant form of **democracy** as most countries seem to practice 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. (See the chapters on Liberalism and the State). 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, ie his/her own conception of a good life. What individuals require are the basic conditions to pursue these self-defined goals. Liberals identify these conditions 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 **capitalist** 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 do not 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 hierarchical system or a divine plan. Thus, liberalism’s lasting contribution 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 conflicts 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 U.S. Constitution and the Fundamental 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**, the 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. Even John Stuart 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 keeps a check on the activities of those in positions of power. It is of no intrinsic value in terms of the self-development of the individual. James Mill controversially claimed that since individuals find political activity 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 John Stuart 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 thorough 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. ## 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 **democracy** as a 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 a matter of skill and expertise, and therefore should be left to experts. Human beings are, by nature, fundamentally unequal. However, **democracy** presumes that every-one 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**. Here 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 means ensuring that everybody else performed 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 is often made between films for the ‘masses’ and those for the ‘classes’, or between ‘popular’ and ‘art’ films. Even J. S. Mill, for all his defence of democracy and political participation, considered majoritarianism and mediocre government as the biggest weaknesses 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 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 did not 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 views, **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 elites 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 socio-economic 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 governments 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 inequities 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 classes. This includes telling the poor that the reasons for poverty are because they are not **hard-working** enough. (See Chapter 9 on power for the concept of hegemony). **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 cornerstone of **liberal democracy**. Marx terms these the 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 labor informs socialist conceptions of **economic democracy.** Communist countries seek to achieve socialism 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** do not 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 rise 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 the Third World 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 socialist** 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 debates 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, ie fundamental **political** and **civil rights