Stresses of Indian Democracy

K. SUBBA RAO
Former Chief Justice of India

“Democracy is a form of Government where the citizens exercise the right to make political decisions through the representatives chosen by them and responsible to them through the process of free elections.” The expression ‘Democracy’ has gained so much prestige that countries with widely different ideologies adopted the said designation with varying qualifications, such as People’s Democracy, Basic Democracy, Guided Democracy etc. To avoid the confusion in terminology, it would be convenient to describe the Indian Democracy as “Constitutional Democracy.”

Broadly stated, the following are its main features: (1) Federation with bias towards the Centre; (2) Division of powers–territorial and functional; (3) Representative Government through adult franchise; (4) Responsible Government through parliamentary executive (Cabinet system); (5) Social control of economic power; (6) Social justice, that is, the right of the under-privileged to the States’ protection against ruthless competition; (7) The high concept of rule of law in which social justice and freedoms are inextricably integrated; (8) The conferment of power of the higher judiciary to enforce fundamental rights, to maintain a just balance between freedoms and social justice and to function as a balancing wheel of federation.

Under the said constitutional scheme the end and the means are equally important; together they form one ideology. The basic assumption underlining the Constitution is that the different parties seeking power thereunder should accept its philosophy; they must believe in constitutional democracy, free elections, fundamental rights, rule of law and social and economic justice. If any party does not believe in any of the said concepts, it has no place thereunder.

The stresses and strains on democracy arc many. The enemies of democracy are internal as well as external. Identification of destructive forces and their elimination is sine quanon for its success. The essential requisite for the flowering of democracy is the cultivation of the people’s emotional attachment to the nation’s Constitution. The Constitution of a country is its greatest unifying force. Power to amend it is a constitutional device to maintain its stability. It can ordinarily be exercised to solve unforeseen constitutional dead-locks. But for many reasons, the Constitution is fast losing its sanctity. Constitutional commands ceased to have any meaning. They have been at the mercy of transitory power. If power can amend it, opposition can equally demand it. Double standards cannot enhance its prestige. A stage has now been reached when every power-group in the country asks for the amendment of the Constitution to serve its purpose. Systematic and sustained attempt shall be made to instil in our younger generation an emotional attachment to our Constitution. Disrespect to the Constitution leads to the inevitable deflation of the rule of law. Agitational approach to solve problems is a new and dangerous trend. Bundhs, Gheraos and other violent demonstrations have become the order of the day. Discussion, persuasion and decision by majority votes are the life-blood of democracy. Agitation and violence are antithetical to discussion and majority decision. Democracy and violence cannot. stand together. Rule of law should become our way of life.

There is an insidious attack on the federal structure of our country. It is said that federation is not conducive to democracy and that it could successfully be worked only in a unitary State. Federation helps democracy. It is indeed a modern formula between fractionalisation which is destructive of national solidarity and centralisation which is destructive of local autonomy.

As different parties came into power at the Centre and States, there will necessarily be occasions for friction between them. The remedy is not to decry federation but to strengthen it by evolving conventional arrangements for mutual adjustment. The instruments designed to preserve it have to be maintained at the highest level.

Till now practically one party was in power both in the Union and the States. After the recent elections, there are different parties in power in different State. Hereafter the emphasis must be more on co-operation than on control, more on patriotism than on authoritarianism, more on health, competition in common interests than on regimentation, more on service than on power, more on well-conceived conventions than on expediency, and more on objective appreciation of State problems than on partisan approach.

The next defect is the lack of strong party system. It is axiomatic that without two or three strong parties, the experiment in democracy is doomed to failure. There could not be such parties unless there is a democratic procedure within the structure of individual parties. Absence of such procedure makes a party an instrument of emotional leaders rather than the voice of a broad section of the population holding similar political views. Each party should evolve some kind of self-regulating machinery for enlisting persons, believing in the ideology of the party, for preparing a list of such members and for preventing rigged up elections in the name of consensus.

There is a systematic stilling of the voice of intellectuals at the party elections and in the matter of setting up candidates for the legislature. Unless this is remedied, the standard of the legislature cannot possibly be raised.

National struggle brought compulsive cohesion between different ideologies and the common adherence to power continued the bond. Heroes of the national struggle caught the nation’s eye. It has kept the party in the office for 20 years. The concentration of economic and political power cleverly exercised, heralded the danger of one-party Government. Its perpetuation would have been the end of democracy in our country. The result of the new elections is that the pendulum has swung to the other extreme. There is now one party with different ideologies and coalitions of different parties with irreconcilable conflict of ideologies. The nation is on the horns of a dilemma. The political scene is in a fluid state. Paradoxically from this confusion the party system may evolve.

Every party should cleanse its stable. It shall only recruit members who believe in its ideology and expel those who do not believe in it but only attracted to it by the lure of power or profit or only roped in to support a particular personality. The main reasons for defections are (1) lack of belief in the ideology of the party; (2) corruption in its comprehensive sense; and (3) honest change of ideology. Defection is a necessary evil. It cannot be washed away. It cannot also be regulated by law. It is one of the processes by which crystallisation of party system may be effected. It is the only safety valve for misfits or the disillusioned ones to escape from the unwanted party. Defections, with a few exceptions, will stop automatically with the formation of parties based on definite ideologies or they can be controlled thereafter by inter-party conventions. A defector may then only be accepted subject to the condition that he resigns and gets elected on the recipient’s ticket.

What is more at the present juncture, democracy itself is in danger, and there is urgent need to stop the rot. The entire party system is now in a fluid state. Any false step may lead us to totalitarianism and all the sacrifices of the pre-independent generation will go in vain. This is not the time for internal squabbles or jockeying for positions. The true call for sacrifices, statesmanship and patriotism. Broadly stated, there are two conflicting forces, one democratic and the other authoritarian one–one for individual liberty subject to social control and the other for statism. These two forces may be crystallised into two different parties. The best way–and it appears to me to be the only right way–is to form coalitions at the Centre and the States of parties with ideologies nearer to each other which enable them to implement an agreed programme. Such coalitions will not only give stability to our country during these difficult days but it will help in the building upof a two-party system. Such parties by working together may find that there is more in common between them than their difference and they may ultimately merge in one party.

We are working democracy on an illiterate basis. Universal education is a distant cry. But the political parties shall educate the rural electorate through mass media on the fundamentals of different ideologies, instead of projecting the images of personalities. That apart even the members of the legislature should form study circles to equip themselves on the burning questions in the different fields of legislative activity. In course of time, this will help not only to raise the stature of the legislative assemblies and make them useful instruments of national development, but it will also help the people to judge the calibre of its representatives by their performance.

The category of independent members is not conducive to the development of party system. They come to legislature with open mind; they upset party calculations; if the margin of the majority party is slight they hold it to ransom. More often as not they join the party in power. Sometimes they join the opposition. Law should prohibit the candidature on an independent ticket.

Sub-casteism is a divisive force. It vitiates the electoral system. Though our Constitution excludes castes and sub-castes from the affairs of the State, in some States they have become strong political groups. It pollutes the springs of elections. Candidates are selected, votes are given, proportion of ministers is fixed on the basis of sub-castes. Members of small castes are no where in the body politic. Indeed they have become second class citizens. Law and social reform should join hands to exercise this evil spirit therefrom.

The language issue threatens to divide our country. Lack of sense of priorities is the root cause of trouble. Problems economic, social and political are demanding the country’s urgent attention. The language issue could have been safely postponed till the said problems have been adequately solved and the country has been stabllised. But the problem has now been artificially inflated. It has thrown up divergent and conflicting views. Language is a sensitive area and any further drift in this regard will affect the unity of our country and our democratic processes. This problem cannot be solved on party basis or on the foot of majority votes. This can only be tackled by a high power committee of intellectuals on a non-party level.

Poverty is the greatest enemy or democracy. It is a fertile field for the enemies of democracy to sow the seeds of disruption. It is agreed that we are now in a bad way. But we have the resources, man power and intellect. With determination and pragmatism we can and shall improve on our past performance. The problem should be tackled at national level. Political power should acquire national outlook. The entire energies of our nation should be canaised to eradicate poverty. We have friends that have been helping us and will help us provided we help ourselves. Every political party hears the agonosing call of poverty, but unhappy dissensions and conflicting economic slogans are neutralising their efforts. Before it is too late some way should be found for concerted and effective action.

Corruption is corroding the democratic polity. Prosperity and adherence to values of life may gradually control it. But that is a long process. The expression “corruption” has a comprehensive meaning. It takes in bribery, nepotism, favouritism and other unhealthy practices deviating from right conduct. Corruption cannot be controlled if it is connived at the highest echelons but tackled only at the lowest political or administrative levels. The Press, irrespective of personalities and political affiliations, should expose corruption and create public opinion. Press, public opinion and law should co-operate in this regard.

The real attack on democracy may come from unexpected quarters, through the exercise of discretionary powers by the Governors. It is therefore necessary that the said power should be controlled by conventions. I would suggest the following guide lines for the control of the powers of Governors:

1. Governor is a constitutional head and must function in terms of the Constitution. He is not an agent of the Central Government.

2. Except in regard to matters specifically entrusted to his discretion, he must discharge all his functions after taking the advice of the Ministry.

3. As a constitutional head in exercising his powers in the matter of appointment and dismissal of the Ministry and the dissolution of the Council he should follow the following conventions:

(a) If a leader of the party has majority in the House, he should ask him to form Ministry;
(b) If no party has a majority but a coalition of the parties is formed and elected a leader, he should call upon him to form a Ministry;
(c) If no such coalition is formed, the leader of the largest group should be called upon to form Ministry subject to the condition that he should get the confidence of the legislature within the shortest possible time.
(d) If he fails he should be given an opportunity to the leader of any other party who offers to form a Ministry. If all the attempts fail then only there is a case for dissolution and new elections.

4. In the matter of dismissal of a Ministry greater care should be taken and more stringent conventions should be developed.

(a) he shall not dismiss a Ministry unless it is defeated in the Assembly and it refuses to resign;
(b) he shall not take note of “the crossings of the floor” or the claims of deserters between the two sessions;
(c) deserters shall wait till the next session is held in the usual course and then move a no confidence motion in the Ministry. So too the discretionary powers of the President in regard to the appointment of the Ministry, dismissal of the Ministry and the dissolution of the Parliament should be governed by similar conventions.

Scientific materialism is engulfing the young mind. Unless it is tempered by spiritualism, it will lead to the deterioration of the values of life. Democracy cannot function in the vacuum caused by atheism or agnostism. There is a wrong impression that our Constitution is against religion. The State no doubt has no religion, and religion has no place in the affairs of the State. There is a constitutional declaration of the doctrine of tolerance, but it enables the State to create the necessary secularconditions so that every person in India has the freedom of conscience. All the great religions by healthy competition should instill in the young minds the eternal truths. Without this, democracy will not succeed, and it will give place to sheer materialism.

I have great faith in the institution of Democracy. The intellectual level of our country is comparatively high. We have had experience in the working of democratic institutions, for a long time. Let us work our democratic institutions in accordance with our genius and in terms of the Constitution. With God’s help, we shall succeed by evolution and save our people from passing through the indescribable horrors of the so-called period of transition to Utopia.
(By the kind courtesy of the All India Radio)