International Democracy

BY PROF. M. VENKATARANGAIYA ¹

(Andhra University, Waltsair)

The extension of democracy into the international sphere is the crying need of the hour. It is the failure to recognise this that is really responsible for the release of those forces of war which are now threatening to destroy the very fabric of civilisation and introduce a new dark age into the world.

But what then is democracy? It is both an ideal and a method of achieving the ideal. The ideal is equality as distinguished from privilege. The method is responsible government as distinguished from despotism and arbitrary rule. Modern democracy originated about a century and half ago in countries like France as a protest against governments treating the nobility and the clergy in one way, and the common people in a quite different way. Taxes were collected mostly from the ordinary people, while the benefits of government went mostly to the privileged classes. It was under these circumstances that democracy proclaimed that all men and women, whatever be the class, the creed, the community or the race to which they belonged, were, by virtue of their humanity, fundamentally similar; that hunger and thirst, life and death, the feelings of pain and pleasure were common to all; and that all were equally entitled to expect and get from their governments equal opportunities for leading a happy life. This is the basic principle of democracy. And even though it has not yet fully triumphed any where, its acceptance by several of the nations of the West has resulted in the widening of the functions of the State. Governments have come to be valued for the services they render to the common man, and the expenditure on public health, medical relief, maternity and child welfare, parks and playgrounds, housing, schools and libraries, unemployment relief and old age pensions has considerably increased in consequence of this. These are the services which all men and women require, how ever much they may differ from one another in respect of race, religion or party allegiance.

Let us consider the significance of this ideal in the international sphere. The World is inhabited by peoples who differ from one another in innumerable ways. Some like the Finns are among the smaller powers, while some others like the Russians and the Germans are among the greater ones. Some people are white, while others are dark, brown or yellow. Some are Christians, and some not. Some, like the natives of Africa, are semi-civilised, while others like the peoples of Europe and Asia are highly civilised. Some are economically ward with a low standard of life while others are industrialised on up-to-date lines. All these have come into intimate contact in modern times. The question that arises is, what should be the nature of relations among them? Is it open for one people to establish their political and economic domination over another? Are the Finns, the Abyssinians and the rest of them all, not entitled to be as happy as the Russians and the Italians? For ages it has been thought that there was nothing wrong or improper in one nation conquering another, even though in that process several peoples were totally exterminated and several others reduced to slavery or serfdom. The democrat questions the propriety of all this. The introduction of the democratic ideal into the international sphere will give to the unprivileged peoples of the present day a title to an equal measure of happiness alongside of the privileged peoples.

In a democracy the government is ultimately responsible to the people at large. They choose the government and they keep it in power only so long as they are satisfied with its programmes and policies. Whenever they are convinced that the actions of one government are not conducive to their well-being they replace it by another government. All this assumes that the common people are the best judges of what policy is good for them and of what policy is harmful. And the assumption is generally correct because it is they that experience the good or bad effects of any action undertaken by government. After all, it is not the shoe-maker, however skilled he might be, but the wearer of the shoe that can say whether it pinches him or not. There is no room in a democracy for self-appointed leaders.

This principle that government should be responsible to the governed has an immense significance in the international world of today. Its acceptance will remove the causes for much of that friction that now exists between one great power and another, and between the great powers and their dependencies. It will mean the grant of self-government to countries like India, and the renunciation of the claims of Japan to rule over China, or of Germany to rule over Czechoslovakia and Poland. There is, of course, one difficulty in applying this principle all round. There are many semi-civilised peoples in Africa and elsewhere who are not as yet fit to govern themselves. Though it is injurious to their interests to be left under the sole control of an imperial power, the withdrawal of such control will certainly result in incessant tribal warfare and a relapse into barbarism. A way however out of this difficulty has been found in the system of mandates which forms a part of the covenant of the League of Nations. The ward area is under this system administered by some great power like England or France but it does this as a trustee for the welfare of its inhabitants; and in discharging this trust it is subject to the supervision and control of the League. The ultimate object kept in view is the training of the ward peoples to become fit for self-government. The mandate system is a beginning in the right direction. It gives to the semi-civilised peoples the best government possible under the circumstances. And the opinion is gaining ground that the extension of this system to cover all the colonial possessions of the great powers in Africa and in the Far East will go a great way in removing the heart-burning that Germany, Italy and Japan now exhibit towards England and France, and solve to a considerable extent the problem of the distribution of raw materials which are found in these areas, a problem which is another potent cause of war.

There is another aspect of responsible government to which we have now to turn our attention. We have already seen that its essence is that those who are affected by the actions of a government should have control over it. It has now become a platitude to say that we are living in an interdependent world. The growth of science and the introduction of rapid means of transport have transformed the economy of each and every country. The whole world has now become a single market. The prosperity, for instance, of our peasants, workers and manufacturers depends much more on what happens outside our country than on what happens here. A revision of the scale of duties on exports and imports, a change in the currency policy or a modification of factory laws in Japan, the U. S. A. or Belgium may cause ruin to our industries or agriculture; and similar action taken by our government here may cause unemployment and acute distress elsewhere. Under these circumstances it is no exaggeration to say that each government owes a responsibility not only to its own subjects but also to the people of different countries in the world in very many matters. And it follows from this that all such matters should be regulated by an international body representative of all countries and not by each of the governments separately and independently. We have arrived at a stage when the creation of such a body has become an absolute necessity. It is then only that we can take full advantage of the scientific inventions of the modern age. It is the unwillingness of the world to invent new political institutions corresponding to the new material inventions that is responsible for the chaos and anarchy that we find today in the international world.

The establishment of a responsible international organisation for the purposes referred to will be found to be a matter of immediate urgency if we take note of another feature of democracy. Democracy implies that political differences arising between parties within a State should be decided not through an appeal to force but through an appeal to reason. Discussions, consultations and compromise are the essential features of its working. In every democratic community those who want to bring changes into the existing order of things organise themselves into political parties. They do not however carryon a physical fight among themselves to achieve their aims. Each party tries to educate the electorate in favour of the programme and the policy it advocates. Through the press and on the platform, propaganda is carried on. Pamphlets and books are published in support of or against particular causes. And in course of time public opinion gathers in volume and in intensity in favour of the views held by anyone party. That party then comes into office. It brings about the necessary changes and embodies them in law. All this is possible because democracy does not regard the existing order of things in a society as sacrosanct. It welcomes change. It permits parties to be formed for this purpose. It gives equal opportunities to each party to bring to the notice of the people the kind of changes it considers necessary. Under these circumstances the need for the use of violence or force becomes absolutely uncalled for. Democracy and violence never go together. This does not however mean that democracy dispenses entirely with force. It keeps it in reserve; and it uses it not to make the law or opinion as the Nazis, the Fascists or the Communists do. It is brought into use only to punish the law-breakers. Law itself is changed with the consent of the people obtained through peaceful persuasion.

All this is quite in contrast with the situation as we find it in the international world. In the settlement of differences arising between one State and another, an appeal to the sword is regarded as a perfectly justifiable course. War is defended in the name of national honour, prestige and glory, as if all these consist in killing other men. A halo of romance surrounds it. It is forgotten how it is all one system of organised violence; how it diverts the rich resources of the world to the preparation of weapons of destruction when they are more urgently required to produce food, clothing, shelter and the thousand and one other things that are so necessary to give comfort and happiness to the millions of ill-fed, ill-clad, shelterless and poverty-stricken peoples in all countries. Most of the war-mongers of the present day shut their eyes to its hideousness. They forget how, in using its weapons of destruction, it makes no discrimination between the military and the civilian population, how it shows no mercy even to women and children, and how it wipes whole cities out of existence. War takes toll today not of the lives of a few professional soldiers, but of the whole of the flower among the youth and manhood of nations. It brings ruin as much to the victor as to the vanquished, and its elimination from the international sphere has become today a matter of supreme importance.

The first essential however to be recognised in this connection is that the existing order of things in the world is not satisfactory from the point of view of all the peoples. Some get too much of advantage from it and others too little. While some countries are suffering from excessive numbers of population, there are vast vacant spaces under control of other governments with no inhabitants to make use of them. Some nations have huge markets for disposing of their surplus products while others have few or none. Some have easy access to the sources of essential raw materials while others are barred from admission into them. These and similar other conditions have to be changed so that all the peoples of the world may have equal opportunities for growth and development. If all this is to be brought about in a peaceful manner, there should be set up an international body representative of all the peoples with power to examine the conditions as they are existing today and bringing about the adjustments and changes required in the interests of the whole world. It must function just as a democratic parliament within the nation State is functioning. There will then be no need for nations to resort to arms to obtain the changes they desire. They will be more or less in the position of political parties within a democratic State.

The first step in this direction was taken at the close of the last World War when the League of Nations was organised. It was entrusted with the work of bringing about a peaceful settlement of issues like immigration and emigration, frontiers, tariffs, currency, conditions of factory labour, distribution of important raw-materials and international movements of capital, which are at the root of all modern wars. But owing to some serious defects in the machinery of the League Constitution, and, much more, owing to the unwillingness of some of the great powers to make use of the League for the purpose for which it was intended, it was not able to accomplish much. Experience however is the great school of life; and we learn more from our failures than from our successes. Now that we know why the League failed, and on what lines it should be reformed, there is a possibility of a better and a more effective League being created. At the end of the present war, nations will be in a better and a more chastened mood to listen to the voice of reason, and we may confidently look to a future when international democracy will be as much of an accomplished fact as democracy within the national State.

1 By kind courtesy of the All-India Radio (Lahore Station)