The Role of the People in a Democracy: Some Reflections

THE ROLE OF THE PEOPLE IN A DEMOCRACY:

SOME REFLECTIONS

PROF. M. VENKATARANGAIYA
Formerly of the Andhra and Bombay Universities

There are several misconceptions regarding the role of the people in a democracy. It is often stated that their role is supreme and sovereign and every other organisation which functions in it–Parliament, the Council of Ministers, political parties, the Civil Service–is the servant of the people. This is too general a view and it has its origin in the definition given by Abraham Lincoln, the great American statesman, who said that democracy is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. This is, however, a mistaken definition. All governments are governments of the people. It is not a special characteristic of democracy. In all political systems, there is the primary distinction between the Government and the governed. The former consists of an extremely small part of the people who are governed by them. Secondly, all governments claim to be governments for the people–for promoting their welfare and prosperity. This is not therefore the special characteristic of a democracy. It is the last three words in Lincoln’s definition that are most misleading. No democracy at the present day is a government by the people. There are two reasons for this. One is that all states are big in size and contain large populations. It is not possible for all the people to meet in one place in an assembly as the people in city states like Athens or Rome did in ancient times. In our country also it was only in villages that all the people met to transact governmental business. The system did not extend to districts, provinces and other bigger divisions of a state. The second defect in Lincoln’s definition is that governmental work today is highly complicated and technical and most of it is beyond the comprehension of an ordinary citizen. To carry it on in all its forms–the enactment of laws, their administration, and the adjudication of disputes–demands a high standard of education, understanding and expert skill. Moreover ordinary people are generally under the influence of emotion. They cannot think rationally. Psychologists have told us how people behave especially when they meet in large crowds. This is a special reason why even in a democracy, Government cannot and ought not to be a government directly by the people. Their role is quite different.

Even in ancient Athens, there were critics of democracy inthe sense of government by the people, the most eminent of them being Plato. In his book entitled, “The Republic” he said that philosophers or men of wisdom were the only people fit to govern a state. He divided the people into three categories–the artisans and workers, the warriors and philosophers–and made it clear that the first two categories were unfit to govern. The ideal state is one where philosophers are kings. This is in a way the creed of modern Communist states like Soviet Russia. It is their belief that Government should be in the hands of those well-versed in Marxism–Leninism.

What then is the role of the people in a modern democracy? Their primary role is to elect those who are to govern them. All modern democracies are representative democracies. The election of representatives who are to govern them is the most important function of the people in a modern democracy. They exercise other functions also but this is the primary one. Elections thus occupy a central place in a modern democracy. A democracy has, therefore, to be defined as a political system in which government is carried on by representatives who are periodically elected by the people.

Even today, there is the democracy in Switzerland and in some states in the United States where a limited provision exists for the direct participation of the people in government. Under the system of “Referendum” bills approved by the Legislature are referred to the vote of the people before they become laws. Under the system of “Initiative”, people are given an opportunity to frame bills and submit them for the consideration of legislatures. But these provisions regarding “Direct Legislation” should be regarded as exceptions to the general rule. Even where these provisions exist representative legislatures are not dispensed with. So the definition of democracy given above holds good. 

It may be incidentally noted that recently the Janata Party and the Opposition parties in our Parliament came to an understanding that the “basic features” in our Constitution should not be amended by the procedure followed in respect of other amendments but should be supplemented by a vote of the people in a Referendum. The question whether the electorate has the necessary competence to judge about the wisdom of such amendments is a matter for debate but this appears to be a practical way of putting an end to the controversy whether the Supreme Court should have the final say in deciding the validity of such amendments. There are always situations in private as well as public life where strict logic should yield place to practical considerations.

We have spoken above about the role of the “people.” We have now to consider what we mean by “the people.” In its literal sense the people are those who are resident in the country. But in our present context it means those who have the right to participate in the election of representatives; they are the body of voters. Aliens are naturally excluded from the list of voters though resident in the country because they owe their loyalty to another state. In all democracies today there is provision for universal adult suffrage under which the right to vote is given to all citizens–men and women of the age of 21 years and above. There are some democracies where the age has been lowered to 18. In our country there is a section of people who advocate the lowering of age to 18 on the ground that they became “majors” by this time and are declared competent to manage their private affairs and they are therefore equally competent to participate in public affairs. It is quite possible that this plea will be accepted in due course as we are living in what is called the age of “populism”, when most politicians think that their duty is to do whatever pleases the people and not what the people really need. They do not care to recognise the distinction between what people wish and what they actually need.

In the mature democracies of the West, adult suffrage was introduced only in recent times. At one time, suffrage was restricted to men with a certain amount of property or income. It was also after a great deal of agitation that it was extended–and that also gradually–to others. In England, for instance, the process began in 1832 and was completed only in 1928 when women were enfranchised. In our country, direct election to legislatures was for the first time introduced under the Government of India Act of 1919 and franchise was then restricted to those who had some property or income. They constituted two per cent of the total population and nine per cent of adults. Under the Government of India Act of 1935 the franchise was widened but even then it was conferred only on those who had property and a certain amount of income. Education was however made an additional qualification and the result was that thirty million people secured the right to vote. It was only under the present Constitution which was framed after the country became free in 1947 that adult franchise was introduced.

There are still many who think that it was unwise to have introduced adult franchise all at once without the people asking for it. According to them people do not realise the value of the vote because they got it without their fighting for it. But there are several considerations in favour of universal suffrage. There are no valid criteria on the basis of which any section of the people may justifiably be excluded from the category of voters. Even literacy or education cannot be a criterion. Students of electoral behaviour have pointed out: “Degrees in Geology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Botany, etc., in themselves contribute nothing to political education. The university franchise which existed in Britain till recently disclosed no greater wisdom or judgment on the part of university graduates than that shown by any other constituency.” The irrational behaviour of which the illiterate and uneducated voters are accused is quite as common among the literates and the educated. This is borne out by the voting in graduate and teacher constituencies which elect members to legislative councils of states in our country.

A much more important consideration which justified universal suffrage is the lesson of history that those who are denied the right to vote and to influence the policies of the Government are also denied a share in the benefits of good government. Representatives elected to legislatures and governments responsible to them care more for those on whose vote their tenure depends. It is only after democracy and universal suffrage became a reality that even in the rich countries of the West, social welfare and social security schemes benefiting the working class and the lower income groups were initiated. In our country steps to provide for the welfare of weaker sections of society and of the Scheduled Castes (Harijans) and Scheduled Tribes are being taken because they have voting rights and the victory of any party which seeks to secure a majority during a general election depends on the vote of these classes. There is thus an indisputable case for universal adult suffrage.

It was from the West that we borrowed the idea of democracy in the days of the British rule which through the introduction of English education brought us into contact with western democratic culture. The idea of human equality was basic to the concept of democracy as it developed at the hands of revolutionary philosophers in England, France, the United States and other countries. Along with the philosophers, there were the bourgeoise middle classes–the merchants and industrialists–who became the new rivals of the feudal landlords and who protested against the monopoly of political power by the feudal aristocracy. They spoke the language of human equality with a view to get a share in this power. It is in this way that the idea of democracy became closely associated with the idea of human equality and led to universal adult suffrage though gradually.

There are several implications of this suffrage. The first is that one man should have only one vote. All plural voting which existed in some form in Britain and which is today existing in some African states goes against the principle of equality on which democracy rests. Some thinkers like John Stuart Mill advocated plural voting–the conferring on educated persons more than the vote–on the ground that it would be a remedy for the evils of mass democracy–the possibility of the rich being plundered by the poor and of men of mediocre ability coming to power. One century of experience has shown that there is no ground for such fears. This is the reason why plural voting finds no place except in a few countries. It should also be noted in this connection that even without plural voting rights, the rich have in practice an advantage over the poor as with their money power they are able to exert more influence in an election than the poor. Where bribery and corruption prevail on a large scale, where the mass of voters are illiterate and do not understand the value of the vote and where elections are highly costly as in our country the rich are able to influence the outcome of elections to a great extent even though the poor are in a majority. Thisis why the Communists decry democracy in a society where class distinctions and private property exist. The ground of their attack is that with their riches, the capitalist class dominates the election scene. It is only in a classless society that real democracy based on equality can exist.

A second implication of “one man, one vote” is that constituencies into which a country is divided for electoral purposes must be of equal size in the sense that there should be no wide disparity between the number of voters in one constituency and those in another. It is only then that the value of one man’s vote in one constituency will be equal to that in another. This principle is recognised in our Constitution in delimiting the constituencies for the Lok Sabha and for State Legislatures and in distributing seats among the different states. This is why there is the constitutional provision that after every census there must be a fresh delimitation of constituencies.

A third implication of “one man, one vote” is that in determining the shape of constituencies–the geographical shape as it may be called–gerrymandering should be avoided. Gerrymandering consists in drawing the boundaries of constituencies so as to give special advantage to a particular political party to the disadvantage of another party. Take, for example, two constituencies A and B each having 1,00,000 voters of whom 80,000 in A and 40,000 in B support the Congress and 20,000 in A and 60,000 in B normally support Janata. A returns a Congress member and B a Janata member. Suppose, however, that areas in A containing 20,000 Congress supporters are deliberately transferred by the Delimitation commission to B and areas containing 20,000 Janata supporters are tansferred from B to A. The result will be that in both the constituencies the Congress will have a majority of supporters and Janata will secure no seat in the elections. This is the reason why it is absolutely necessary that Delimitation Commissions should be quite impartial and all kinds of gerrymandering should be avoided.

Universal adult suffrage becomes meaningful in practice only when all those who are eligible to vote get their names correctly in the electoral rolls and when the names of those who are ineligible to vote do not find a place in them. This does not always happen. It is provided that after the publication of  preliminary rolls any voter who does not find his name in them may apply to the electoral authority to get his name entered but in a country like ours where the majority of people are illiterate and where there are no good means of communication, it is impossible for most people to take advantage of this provision. Illiteracy brings many disadvantages to voters and this is one of them. In advanced countries political parties are well organised and have branches even in remote rural areas. They see that the names of all voters and especially of those whose support they expect during an election are entered in the electoral rolls. But in our country parties have not yet taken seriously to this kind of work. The result is that on the election day many eligible voters return disappointed from the polling booths as they do not find their names in the electoral rolls.

It is not enough that electoral rolls are correctly prepared. Voters should be ready to vote. This, no doubt, involves some trouble. They may have to walk a long distance to reach the polling booth. But today the Election Commission takes steps to arrange for polling booths within short walking distances. The increase in the number of booths makes it possible for voters to vote without the need for waiting in long queues. But such mechanical devices are not of much use unless the voters take interest in elections and are ready to exercise their vote. This does not always happen. In all countries including the advanced ones there is a great deal of non-voting. In our country also the same is the case. In the general elections for Lok Sabha in 1951-’52, 1957 and 1962 the percentage of non-voters was 39.7, 37.4 and 47.4 respectively and the situation has not improved in subsequent elections. This deprives universal suffrage of much of its value. Moreover it undermines the value of democracy. Governments coming to power under these circumstances cannot claim to have a majority behind them. If, for example, 60 per cent of the voters vote in an election and half of them vote for the party which comes to power, it really means that only 30 per cent of the total electorate support the Government. Such a Government cannot be said to be based upon the consent of the people which is implied in the term democracy. It is only a minority government. All governments which came to power in our country after we achieved freedom are practically minority governments. It means that the people have not yet learnt to play their proper role in our democracy.

The role becomes meaningful when voters have freedom of choice. This is possible only when there are at least two candidates to choose from. There are elections in communist countries but there is no choice for voters as the Communist party which is the only party in such countries puts up only one candidate for each seat. The situation in our country is entirely different. We have a large number of political parties and earn of them puts up its own candidate in as many constituencies as possible. Besides them there are independents who stand for election and choice becomes difficult when there is a plethora of candidates. Moreover as in our system of voting a candidate is able to win victory if he gets the largest number of votes–many get elected on a minority vote. Suppose, for example, there are five instead of two candidates in a constituency with 1,10,000 voters casting valid votes and the votes cast for them come to 40,000; 30,000; 20,000; 15,000 and 5,000 respectively. The candidate getting 40,000 votes, which is a minority of the total number of valid votes cast, is declared elected and the 70,000 votes cast for the defeated candidates come to have no value. A representative elected on a minority role becomes the representative of the constituency as a whole.

We have borrowed this system from Britain. But as there are only two main parties in that country–there are, it is true, a few third parties–such anomalies always do not arise. Very few independents stand. On the continent of Europe various devices have been adopted to prevent an anamoly like this though they have multi-parties.

Some political parties in our country have advocated the proportional system of representation so that the votes cast for them may not become valueless. Under this system each party gets representation in proportion to the number of votes cast for it. No party goes without representation. Public opinion is better reflected under this system. Parliament becomes more representative than under the present system. But on the ground that under the proportional system no party will gain a majority strength in Parliament or State Legislatures, and consequently all cabinets will have to be coalition cabinets which are proverbially unstable, the plea for this system has not received much support.

The representative character of Parliament and State Legislatures may also be distorted if through intimidation and violence voters are prevented from voting. There is a general complaint that Harijans and the ward sections in the country are so prevented, Governments in power may also use their official machinery to distort the reality of popular opinion by compelling people to vote in a particular way. Such rigging of elections is not unusual. Voters may also vote under the influence of bribery and corruption. In such cases people play their role but it is not the role expected of them. Democracy is new to our people. They have not yet learnt to appreciate its value. Moreover the moneyed classes have no scruples in the matter of buying votes. Electoral laws are too inadequate to prevent corruption. The only remedy for this state of affairs is the growth of political morality and of public opinion in support of such morality. It is however a slow process as experience shows.

So far we have dealt with the primary role of the people in a modern democracy–that of electing their representatives to the highest organs of Government, viz., the legislature and indirectly the executives which are to function in a parliamentary democracy like ours. Though the judiciary is also an important organ of Government election by the people is not considered to be a satisfactory method of appointing judges. The same is the view regarding the recruitment of the members of the civil service who playa crucial role in running the administration. It is because the legislatures are to reflect public opinion that they are constituted through a system of fair and free election. We have considered above what the ingredients of such ejections are.

The people have also an important role in the period between one election and another. A great political scientist observes that vigilance is the price of liberty. It means that the people should keep a watch over what their representatives actually do after they are elected to power. Power often corrupts its holders and it is the responsibility of the people who are ultimately affected by the way in which power is exercised by their representatives to prevent the abuse of power by those in authority. They do this by shaping public opinion on all issues which are taken up for consideration and decision by legislatures and the council of ministers. There may be inaction in the solution of the country’s problems by people’s representatives. This is as bad as pursuit of unwise and unsatisfactory policies. It is a mistake to think as Srimati Indira Gandhi thought before she imposed the emergency that when all the representatives are elected they should be left free to carry on government in whatever way they like.

Fundamental rights which secure freedom of speech and freedom of association to citizens are enshrined in the Constitution to enable people to exercise vigilance in watching the conduct of those elected to exercise power. Individuals singly and in isolation cannot do this. It is only when they are free to organise themselves into associations that they can do this effectively. It is mainly political parties which are associations of a more or less permanent character that play an important part in shaping public opinion and expressing it inside and outside legislatures. They serve an educative purpose by removing the apathy of the public who are generally immersed in their private and personal affairs and spend their leisure time in play and pastimes. They also educate the public on important issues which deserve consideration. They discharge equally important functions during elections. It is they that nominate candidates for election, canvass in their favour and finance candidates who are unable to bear out of their pockets the expenditure involved in electioneering. In short, it is the parties that supply the energy needed to enable democracy to effectively function. This is the reason why in every democracy political parties automatically come to existence. There are persons of great eminence like Jaya Prakash Narayan in our country who advocate “partyless” democracy but they are unable to suggest any other organisation which can effectively discharge the functioning which parties now discharge. “Partyless” democracy is an utopian idea.

Next only to parties are the Press and other media of mass communication which play an important role in educating the public and shaping their opinions. The Press should be left free and no censorship should be exercised over it. This is why the Constitution recognises freedom of expression as a fundamental right. All freedoms are liable to be abused and the Constitution itself lays down the limits within which freedom of expression and freedom of association and meetings should be exercised. It also lays down that whenever people think that Parliament or the executive makes laws in excess of these limits, the individuals or groups affected can make an appeal to the Supreme Court. We rightly condemn the authoritarianism established by Srimati Indira Gandhi because she deprived the people of these freedoms, imposed strict censorship over the Press and took away the powers of the Supreme Court to go into the validity of the action taken by Parliament and the executive. We have learnt the lesson that, subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution itself as interpreted by the highest judiciary, people should enjoy fundamental freedoms they are to exercise vigilance over the conduct and exercise of power by the elected representatives and shape public opinion. The role of the people in exercising this vigilance and in shaping public opinion and giving effect to it is as important as electing representatives.

Democracy has been praised as a method of changing peacefully the personnel of government and its policies without the for a bloody revolution. There is much truth in this observation and the elections of 1977 in our country which overthrew the authoritarianism of Srimati Indira Gandhi which enslaved the nation for nineteen months and which recalled the worst days of British rule and the Fascism of Hitler and Mussolini illustrates truth of the above observation.

It follows from this that violence has no place in democratic politics. When through elections it is possible to bring about all necessary and desirable changes in the nature and functioning of government, taking resort to violence is counter-productive. It is open to the people to record their protest against the evil deeds of government and even stage peaceful Satyagraha to effectively voice their protest. This was the lesson taught to us by Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation. Through non-violent, non-co-operation he brought the masses into the freedom movement and made it impossible for the British to continue their despotic rule. The lesson we have to learn from the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and from the history of our freedom struggle is that people need not resort to violence to achieve their objectives.