In this essay we will discuss about the future of democracy in India.
India has adopted democracy as a form of government. There is no institution in the country which today is not run on democratic principles. Right from the top to the bottom every institution and every system in India is professed to be run by democratic means and methods.
There was a lot of controversy, soon after independence, whether India was fit for democracy or not. Constitution makers preferred parliamentary system of democracy over that of Presidential system.
Quite a vast majority in Indian leadership believed that India was not at all ripe for democracy. According to them vast majority of the electorates was illiterate and uneducated and did not know even 3 R’s. To expect that they will understand complex and complicated international problems and cast their vote after taking into consideration social, economic and political aspects was to hope for the impossibility.
They pointed out that literacy was first essential pre-requisite for the success of democracy.
Not only this, but it was also argued that poverty was written writ large on every face in India. More than 10% Indians lived below poverty line. They did not earn sufficient to make their both ends meet. Such electorates could easily be swayed by money temptations, which might be offered by the rich few who will contest elections. Money will, therefore, play a decisive role in all elections.
Another way in which money role was anticipated was that elections are always a costly affair. Constituencies being big, each candidate is expected to hold election meetings in all parts of the constituency, for which money is required to be spent. Poster war, transportation charges, entertainment to parties and other workers, are other charges, which each candidate will be required to bear.
Thus not the poor many, but rich few will contest elections and elected representatives will not represent the nation as a whole but only the elite or at the most upper middle class people of the society. Both the poor and lower middle class people will have no say in elected bodies.
The legislatures will be elite clubs and legislators will not be in contact with the poor and down-trodden. They will not understand their problems.
Then there was another apprehension in the minds of those who did not think India fit for democracy. For them democracy can be a success only when the people rise above narrow considerations of casteism, linguism and so on. But in India casteism is very deep rooted.
In fact, caste has become the basis of India’s social structure. It is well neigh impossible to think that the people of India will give up caste system or leave caste consideration or they will soon rise above narrow regional considerations. According to them forces of integration in the country are very weak and those of disintegration very strong.
They, therefore, felt that under the circumstances consideration of language and local culture, sub-regionalism are bound to play a big role and these are not conducive for the success of democracy.
Then another weighty argument put forth being that a democratic system can succeed only when the people are constantly vigilant and have both time as well as understanding of the problems and pull up erring representatives. They should not allow their wrong actions go unnoticed. But in India where the people are struggling for food, clothing and shelter and for getting their basic needs met it is difficult for them to spare time to evaluate the work of their elected representatives, even in a small way, let alone such a supervision being detailed and thorough.
This school of thought also held the view that India was not ripe for democracy in another way also. According to them democracy means political equality. But such an equality without economic equality has no meaning. In a country like India where wealth has got concentrated in only few hands and where income gap between the rich and the poor or between haves and have-not is very wide and economic disparity very glaring, there can be no hope of democracy succeeding in such a country.
These people were sceptic about the success of democracy because in their opinion India is traditionally not wedded to democratic way of life. Of course, in ancient India democratic institutions flourished and in those days democracy was a success, being at a grassroots.
But even in those days the rajas used to be autocrats. They were not elected by the people and equally not bound to accept the advice of those who were around them as Ministers.
Then came the Muslim period, during which again there was no democratic way of functioning at any level. The Britishers who claimed themselves as the most democratic nation in the world, did not introduce democratic institutions in the country. They argued that the people of India were not exposed to democracy and democratic system of government and it would be dangerous to expose them to a system to which they were unfamiliar.
Their still another argument being that the people of India are yet to be disciplined in many walks of life and made to realise their duties and responsibilities. The press is yet to feel its responsibility and realise role which it is to play in the new set up and system.
Being important maker of public opinion, it is to be tuned to the new situation and made to realise that it is to voice the views of the masses and not of the vested interests and monopoly houses, which have established themselves fully in India.
Their another doubt being that democracy wants very able political administrators, who can guide bureaucracy, which is always prepared to strengthen its hold over political bosses. It is more so in India where bureaucrats have deep roots and been trained in an atmosphere to govern and not to subordinate themselves to political bosses.
The people belonging to this category do not lack in arrogance. On the other hand, political leadership lacks experience. They have never occupied ministerial berths. They are good freedom fighters and have both power and capacity to understand the problems of the people and motivate them as well.
But there is every fear that instead of guiding bureaucracy, they will be guided by the bureaucrats who will work under them but will take advantage of their inexperience.
Truth of Apprehensions about Success of Democracy in India:
In fact, what this section of our leadership felt came true to a large extent. Due to illiteracy the people have not appreciated great power of vote, which has been given to them.
It is evident from the fact that even in spite of the fact that democracy is about 45 years old in India percentage of electorates who go to polls at the time of each election is not more than 45 per cent, and in many constituencies it is around 35-40 per cent. Candidates are elected and votes cast taking into consideration caste of the candidate and not his ability.
In fact, as the time is passing with that the role of caste and region is unexpectedly increasing. In addition, still in our elections money plays big role. It is a fact that without heavy purse no election can be contested. Efforts so far made to check the role of money in elections have not much succeeded.
Regionalism and lingualism still play big role and there are at times communal riots, which show that two major Indian communities are not living in a spirit of toleration, which is very essential for successful working of democracy.
There is mushroom growth of regional parties. Quite often there are charges that press in India does not voice view point of the people, but on the other hand it represents opinion of monopoly houses which control it. It also quite often sides with the ruling party. In the elections caste and religion is very badly exploited. Anti-social elements are hired by political parties to create awe.
There are instances of booth capturing and not allowing the weaker sections of society Jo go to the polling booths to cast their votes. Criminalisation in politics has increased and has become a matter of serious concern. Efforts are made to create vote banks and the votes of the poor are purchased. The ruling parties get much less percentage of votes than the number of seats captured by them in the elected bodies.
The poor have almost found it impossible to contest elections. In addition the number of women candidates put-up for contests is much less than their population. The plague of defection politics is rapidly spreading and anti-defections laws have practically failed to check it.
Not only what this section of our leadership had said at that time has come true to a large extent, but with the passage of time, in India, many other unhealthy trends have too developed, which are definitely not conducive for successful working of democracy in India.
One serious problem which endangers democracy as said earlier is that of political defection. In democracy representatives are elected on the basis of certain policies and programmes and they are supposed to adhere to these.
But unfortunately in India political defection has come to stay. After getting elected to a House of legislature, the legislators change their political loyalties and join any political party which provides them some temptation. Thus, there is unprincipled defection.
In this way democratic system has received serious set back. Else-where it has been discussed how political defections in India have created problem of political instability. Since electorates do not punish such defectors even at the time of next elections, therefore, political defections continue and have begun to eat democracy from the very roots.
Then another potential serious danger to democracy in India is growing personality cult. Democratic institutions can run on the basis of clear cut policies. Leaders may come or go, but parties go on and continue to function on the basis of those programmes.
But in India there is growing tendency and inclination towards personality cult. Political parties come into existence after the names of the individuals, who give programmes and ensure that these are implemented. As soon as individual is away from the scene, the party becomes shaky and quite often even goes out of political scene. This is not sign of good health of democratic system.
One of the significant features of parliamentary democracy, which is followed all over the world, is that there should be joint and collective responsibility of the cabinet. But in India this too has not been adhered very strictly. In 1962, when China invaded India and Indian armed forces had to face a debacle, but the cabinet as a whole did not resign and fresh mandate of the people was not sought.
On the other hand, the then Defence Minister V.K. Krishna Meiion was made a scape goat and asked to leave the cabinet. Similarly when LIC deal with Mundra group of industries came to light and it was clear that something fishy was there, again the cabinet as a whole did not own the responsibility and there was no decision to resign. But the then Finance Minister T.T. Krishnamachari was made to resign from the cabinet.
Not only this, but when schemes of compulsory deposit or gold control which had the approval of the cabinet, became unpopular among the masses, the then Finance Minister Morarji Desai was held responsible for the measures taken and not the whole cabinet. It was also argued that Morarji Desai, as Finance Minister, was standing on the way of bank nationalisation programme.
This in no way can be considered as a healthy way of working of a parliamentary democracy. Then recently when J.P.C. found lapses in Harshad Mehta’s financial dealings in what is known as Security Scam, some Ministers of Narshimlia government resigned and not the government as a whole.
Then another potential danger to the working of parliamentary democracy in India is the issue of large number of ordinances being promulgated by the President of India. Under the constitution, the President is empowered to issue ordinances when the Parliament is not in session and a situation has arisen which needs immediate tackling.
The constitution fathers very much wanted that this measure should be taken only to deal with extra-ordinary situations, which could not wait the meeting of Parliament.
But in India quite a large number of ordinances are issued every year. Each ordinance by passes the authority of Parliament and both the Houses are faced with a situation of fait accompli, in which step already taken is but to be approved, otherwise the government will be placed in an embarrassing situation. Several ordinances which aimed at collecting revenue and imposing taxes in the past have been issued at a time when the Parliament was about to meet.
The opposition has always been alleging that in India ordinances are promulgated as a matter of routine. Each ordinance means taking away of some legislative power of the Parliament, which again is dangerous for the successful working of democratic institutions and parliamentary system.
Then another cause which is endangering democracy and making its successful working difficult is that some very far-reaching decisions are taken by the executive government without getting any mandate from the public. Gold Control Order, Compulsory Deposit Scheme, Bank Nationalisation, Abolition of Privy Purses, etc., were introduced without consulting the masses.
Similarly Forty-Second Constitutional Amendment Act, which had introduced very far-reaching changes in the constitution, was passed without getting the verdict of the people. When the people are not consulted on changes of very far-reaching importance, how can it be hoped that democracy in the country will be a success?
Democracy in India came under heavy strains in 1974 when many MLAs, duly elected by the people were gheraoed and made to resign. In Gujarat Morarji Desai went on fast to press his demand for the dissolution of Legislative Assembly. In the country emergency was declared in 1975 when many opposition leaders were put behind the bars without caring that opposition is an integral part of successful working parliamentary democracy.
It was during this period that Western press cried that in India democracy had come to an end and that the country shall never again have elections based on universal adult franchise. In fact, when elections were held in 1977, the whole issue was that of democracy Vs. dictatorship.
Newly formed Janata Party proclaimed itself to be the champion of democracy and charged that Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi was trying to kill democracy in India and making every effort to have dictatorial powers and dynastic rule in the country. It fought and won elections on the plea that if returned to power, it would restore democratic rights of the people along with freedom of press and judiciary.
Then another threat to democracy is behaviour of elected representatives of the people both inside and outside the House. It is unfortunate that in our Parliament and state legislative Assemblies at times members behave in such a way which lowers their own dignity in the eyes of the people. Their actions do not reflect good on them. This is real and potential danger to our democratic system.
As regards tendency of die people, there are still few in the country who plead that India should have presidential rather than parliamentary form of government. It was very burning issue for quite sometime about a decade back, though now debate on the issue is somewhat in low key.
If taken in this background one could argue that future cf democracy in India is not bright. Democracy has dark days in the country and what had been anticipated by some of the leaders in the past has come true. But that is only one side of the picture. There is equally the other side of the picture as well.
Other Side of the Picture:
India is today the biggest democracy of the world. In the country elections have been held several times in every state and for the Lok Sabha. Elections are hold for Panchayati Raj Institutions as well. Each election is arousing more and more interest of the people who have started casting their votes after good deal of thinking, and are shedding away narrow caste and regional considerations.
They now cast their vote keeping into consideration ability of the candidate and his capacity to deliver the goods. Not only this, but the people have started taking performance of political parties into consideration. During 1967-71 period several political parties in different states were provided an opportunity to form governments.
But when the electorates found that due to infightings their performance was below their expectations, they did not hesitate to disown them when elections were held in 1971. Similarly the electorates did not hesitate to disown Congress party both at the centre and in many states when elections were held in 1977 and people showed their anger on account of excesses committed by that party during emergency.
But with equally strong measure they gave a rebuff of Janata Party in 1980 elections when it was dislodged from power. Resentment this time was against their infighting and slow implementation of election promises.
Similarly in 1989 the electorates disowned the same Congress (I) to which they had returned to power in 1984 with almost three-fourths majority in the Lok Sabha. It will be improper to think that such enlightened electorates are not fit to preserve democracy.
As regards the role of money in elections, there is no country in the world in which elections are contested without money. Then why to single out India? But credit goes to Indian democracy that the electorates have to a large extent not allowed money to play its part.
Indian Parliament has a vast majority of such members, who do not belong to the elite of the society, but are a poor lot. They are labour leaders and represent middle classes. There are many who have risen to hold important ministerial posts, though they had humble origin.
Then future of democracy in India is safe because all national political parties, have univocally condemned violent means and methods in elections. All political parties accept the principle of amicably solving their problems and capturing power with the help of ballots and not bullets.
Even the communists, who believe that those in power will not leave that without violent means, in India have accepted that power can be captured with the help of ballot boxes. As long as people have tolerance to wait for next elections, the future of democracy can be said to be very safe.
One essential feature of successful democracy and democratic institutions is freedom of press. In India there has all along been freedom of press. Members belonging to all political parties have free access to press and its coverage to all political events is quite wide.
With a little tilt here and there which is unavoidable too, on the whole the press and mass media in India is playing the same important role which it plays in other advanced free societies with a democratic way of life. As long as freedom of press is not crushed, it can be hoped that future of democracy in India is not in danger.
Independence of judiciary goes a long way in securing future of parliamentary democracy everywhere, India being no exception to that. In India it has always been accepted that judiciary should be free. It should be watch dog of the rights of the people and hold a balance between the executive and the legislature. It is also agreed that it should be allowed to work independently and impartially without any hindrances.
The people of India did not tolerate curbs on independence of judiciary imposed during emergency period and voted Janata Party to power which professed to give back judiciary its independence.
Political stability and instability in the country very much depends the future of democracy. Fortunately in India there has all along been political stability, both at the centre and in the states, except of course during the years 1967-71 when S.V.D and UF governments came to power in some of the states and again during 1977-79 when Janata Party came to power at the centre and in some North Indian states and in 1989 when National Front government came to power at the centre.
Except these short intervals there has been comparative political stability in the country and Congress party has been ruling all over the country. When there is political stability how can it be thought that in India future of democracy is not safe.
With the passage of time our politicians have proved themselves administrators par excellence. They have given good guidelines and guidance to bureaucrats and ensured that policies finalised by the cabinet are fully implemented, without brooking of murmurs or delays. Today our bureaucrat look towards our politicians for all policy decisions and guidance. Those who do not listen to politicians are suitably dealt with, as per the rules.
For the successful working of democracy in any country, it is very essential that the, sovereign people, who are ultimate masters and rulers of the country should have full freedom of speech. This has not only been guaranteed as a Fundamental Right but in practice this freedom has not been unnecessarily restricted.
Of course, there are certain communal riots now and then, but in a big country like India some untoward happenings cannot be ruled out. On the whole the people of India have shown a sense of national integration, may that be the, time of invasion of China or Pakistan.
In case it is accepted that democracy has failed in India, then what is the alternative? Is any alternative like dictatorship, monarchy or even limited monarchy better? The reply is definitely in the negative and the people of India will never be prepared to accept either of these forms of government.
Then it can be argued that the present parliamentary system can and in fact should be replaced by presidential system. Many voices were raised in favour of this system during 1975-77 as well. But it cannot be denied that this system is also not without its own problems and drawbacks. Then why to replace on faulty system with another defective system? The people of India on the whole have not supported it but are satisfied with the present system.
Then which country and which form of government does not have not its own problems. Each country with its form of government is faced with its own problems. Some people who are not satisfied with the existing system are found everywhere and in every state all over the world.
On the whole it can be said that the future of parliamentary democracy ill India is quite safe. Both fears and apprehensions of the people that in India experiment of universal adult franchise will not succeed, have not come true.
Roger Bernheim has rather rightly pointed out about future of democracy in India, “Measured by the existing obstacles, the size of the country, the variety of its people and languages, the inertia of Indian mind, the oppressive weight of economic problems measured by all this, the progress made is tremendous.”
The people of India feel, that next general elections are not very far away. They have started feelings that violence does not provide any permanent solution. As the time is passing with that democracy and parliamentary system in India, in spite of all its problem is getting deeper roots.
The people have developed love for it and thus its future is quite safe. But to make it safer electoral reforms in the country should be introduced without delay, before it is too late. In fact, the people are clamouring for it.