Chapter 1 What Is Democracy? Why Democracy?

This chapter aims to define and understand democracy. It starts with a simple definition and progressively elaborates on its meaning by examining the key terms involved. The goal is to identify the fundamental characteristics that distinguish a democratic government from a non-democratic one. Towards the end, the chapter expands the concept to include a broader understanding of democracy.

Democracy is currently the most common form of government globally and continues to spread. The chapter also addresses the crucial question of why democracy is considered better than other forms of government.

---

What Is Democracy?

The discussion on defining democracy often starts with a simple understanding: it is a form of government where the rulers are chosen by the people. However, different perspectives exist on how to arrive at this definition.

Some might suggest relying on the word's etymology. The term 'democracy' originates from the Greek words 'demos' (people) and 'kratia' (rule), suggesting 'rule by the people'. While this provides a helpful starting point, the meaning of words can evolve over time, just as the function of 'computers' changed from purely mathematical computation to various other uses. Therefore, relying solely on origin might not be sufficient for a clear understanding in the modern context.

The need for a precise definition arises because the term 'democracy' is used in diverse ways, and various governments, even those clearly not democratic, claim to be democracies. A clear definition is necessary to avoid confusion and accurately distinguish democratic governments from others.

While famous definitions, such as Abraham Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people and for the people," are often quoted, simply accepting them without critical thought might be limiting. Understanding democracy requires examining its actual workings and features.

Features Of Democracy

Starting with the simple definition – democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people – raises several critical questions that need clarification:

• Who exactly are the rulers that must be elected? Which specific officials need to be elected for a government to be called democratic? Are there any decisions that can be made by non-elected officials?
• What constitutes a democratic election? What conditions must be met for an election to be considered free and fair?
• Who are the people eligible to vote or be elected? Should this right extend to every citizen on an equal basis, or can a democracy exclude certain groups?
• What kind of a form of government is democracy? Do elected rulers have unlimited power, or must they operate within certain boundaries and respect citizens' rights?

Examining examples from different countries helps clarify these points and identify the key features of a democratic government.

---

Major Decisions By Elected Leaders

The simple definition states that rulers are elected, but who holds the *final* decision-making power is crucial. In some seemingly elected governments, the real power lies with non-elected individuals or groups.

Consider the case of Pakistan under General Pervez Musharraf. In 1999, he overthrew a democratically elected government through a military coup and declared himself 'Chief Executive', later changing his title to President. In 2002, he held a referendum to grant himself a five-year extension, which was widely criticised for alleged malpractices.

In August 2002, he issued a 'Legal Framework Order' that amended the constitution. This order empowered the President to dismiss national and provincial assemblies. A National Security Council, dominated by military officers, supervised the civilian cabinet.

Elections were held after this law was passed, resulting in elected national and provincial assemblies. However, the final power remained with military officers and General Musharraf himself, none of whom were elected by the people. Elected representatives had some powers but could not make the ultimate decisions.

This example highlights that in many dictatorships and monarchies, while elected bodies might exist, the actual power resides elsewhere. Therefore, the first feature of a democracy is:

In a democracy, the final decision-making power must rest with those elected by the people.

---

Free And Fair Electoral Competition

Simply holding elections is not enough for a government to be considered democratic. The elections must provide a meaningful choice and a fair opportunity for people to change their rulers.

In China, elections are held regularly for the National People's Congress (parliament), which appoints the President. It has nearly 3,000 members, some elected by the army. However, before contesting, candidates need the approval of the ruling Chinese Communist Party. Only members of the Communist Party or its eight allied parties are allowed to run. As a result, the government is always formed by the Communist Party.

This system means the elections offer no serious choice; people can only vote for candidates approved by the ruling party.

In Mexico, the country has held elections every six years since independence in 1930 and has not been under military or dictator rule. However, until 2000, every election was won by the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party). Opposition parties existed and contested, but never won because the PRI employed numerous unfair tactics to secure victory. Government employees were forced to attend party meetings, school teachers pressured parents to vote for the PRI, media coverage largely favoured the PRI and criticised the opposition, polling booth locations were sometimes changed last minute, and the PRI spent vast sums on campaigns.

While people in Mexico technically had a choice on paper, in practice, the ruling party could not be defeated due to these unfair means. These were not fair elections.

These examples lead to the second feature of a democracy:

A democracy must be based on a free and fair election where those currently in power have a fair chance of losing. Elections must offer a real choice between political alternatives, allowing people to remove existing rulers if they wish.

---

One Person, One Vote, One Value

The principle of universal adult suffrage (every adult citizen having the right to vote) is a fundamental aspect of democracy and was a key demand in many struggles for democracy. While widely accepted globally today, there are still instances where equal voting rights are denied:

• Until 2015, women in Saudi Arabia did not have the right to vote.
• Estonia has citizenship rules that make it difficult for members of the Russian minority to obtain voting rights.
• In Fiji, the electoral system is structured so that the vote of an indigenous Fijian holds more weight or value than that of an Indian-Fijian.

Democracy is founded on the principle of political equality. This means that every adult citizen should have an equal say in choosing their representatives.

This gives us the third feature of democracy:

In a democracy, each adult citizen must have one vote and each vote must have one value.

---

Rule Of Law And Respect For Rights

Beyond elected rulers, free and fair elections, and equal voting rights, a democratic government must also operate within limits and respect fundamental rights. Popular approval alone is not a sufficient condition for a democracy; popular leaders can become autocratic.

The example of Zimbabwe illustrates this. Since independence from White minority rule in 1980, Zimbabwe was ruled by ZANU-PF, the party that led the freedom struggle, and its leader, Robert Mugabe. While elections were held regularly and won by ZANU-PF, President Mugabe increasingly used unfair practices.

His government amended the constitution multiple times to strengthen the President's powers and reduce accountability. Opposition party activities were suppressed, protests were declared illegal, and there was a law limiting criticism of the President. State-controlled media presented only the ruling party's view, and independent journalists faced harassment. The government disregarded court rulings against it and pressured judges. Mugabe was eventually forced from office in 2017.

Zimbabwe's case demonstrates that assessing a democracy requires looking not just at elections but also at the environment surrounding them. There must be space for normal political activity, including opposition, before elections. This requires the state to respect citizens' basic rights, such as freedom of thought, expression, association, and protest. Everyone must be equal before the law, and these rights should be protected by an independent judiciary whose decisions are binding.

Furthermore, a democratic government, even after winning an election, is not free to do anything it pleases. It must adhere to basic rules, including respecting guarantees for minorities. Major decisions should involve consultation, and all office bearers have responsibilities defined by the constitution and law, being accountable to both the people and independent officials.

These aspects lead to the fourth and final feature of democracy:

A democratic government rules within limits set by constitutional law and citizens’ rights.

---

Summary Definition

Based on the exploration of these examples and questions, we can refine the initial simple definition of democracy. Democracy is understood as a form of government with the following four key features:

1. Rulers elected by the people take all the major decisions.
2. Elections offer a choice and fair opportunity to the people to change the current rulers.
3. This choice and opportunity is available to all the people on an equal basis.
4. The exercise of this choice leads to a government limited by basic rules of the constitution and citizens’ rights.

Why Democracy?

While the definition and features of democracy help identify it, the question remains: why is democracy considered better than other forms of government? This often leads to a debate weighing its advantages and disadvantages.

---

Debating Merits Of Democracy

Arguments for democracy often highlight its popularity and global spread, suggesting it is self-evidently the best. However, it's important to question popular opinion and assess if democracy truly delivers beneficial outcomes.

Criticisms arise based on perceived failures, such as persistent poverty in democratic countries. This sparks discussion on whether poverty exists *because* of democracy or *despite* it.

---

Arguments Against Democracy

Common criticisms or arguments against democracy include:

• Instability: Frequent changes in leadership due to elections can lead to instability and hinder long-term decision-making and efficiency.
• Focus on Power Play: Democracy is seen as primarily driven by political competition and power struggles, with little regard for morality.
• Delays: Decision-making processes involving consultations and discussions among many people can be slow.
• Poor Decisions: Elected leaders may not fully understand or act in the best interests of the people, leading to bad decisions.
• Corruption: The reliance on electoral competition is seen as promoting corruption.
• Ignorance of Ordinary People: The belief that ordinary citizens lack the knowledge or judgment to make important decisions.

These points highlight that democracy is not a perfect solution and does not automatically eliminate problems like poverty. It grants people the power to make decisions, but these decisions may not always be optimal, and involving many people can cause delays. Leadership changes can also impact efficiency.

However, the crucial question is not whether democracy is ideal in absolute terms, but whether it is better than the alternative forms of government available.

---

Arguments For Democracy

Despite its flaws, democracy offers significant advantages over other forms of government:

1. More Accountable and Responsive Government: Democracy is better at responding to the needs of the people. The 1958-1961 famine in China, where millions died, is often contrasted with India's experience during the same period. Economists argue that India's democratic government was compelled to respond effectively to food scarcity due to the presence of multi-party elections, an opposition, and a free press that could criticise the government. No large-scale famine has occurred in an independent, democratic country. Non-democratic governments can choose to ignore people's needs; a democratic government must attend to them because it is accountable to the electorate.
2. Improves the Quality of Decision-Making: Democratic decisions involve extensive consultation, discussion, and meetings among many individuals. This process allows for identifying potential errors in decisions, reducing the chances of rash or irresponsible outcomes. While it takes time, the thoroughness enhances decision quality.
3. Provides a Method to Deal with Differences and Conflicts: Societies inevitably have diverse opinions and interests, particularly pronounced in diverse countries like India with varying regions, languages, religions, and castes. These differences can lead to conflict. Non-democratic systems might resolve this through brute force, with the powerful group dictating terms, leading to resentment and instability. Democracy offers the only peaceful means of resolution. In a democracy, no group is a permanent winner or loser, allowing different groups to coexist peacefully. In a diverse nation like India, democracy is crucial for holding the country together.
4. Enhances the Dignity of Citizens: This is arguably the strongest argument. Democracy is based on political equality, recognising the equal status of all citizens, regardless of wealth or education. Citizens are not subjects but rulers themselves. Even when they make mistakes, they are responsible for their actions, which empowers them.
5. Allows for Correction of Mistakes: No form of government is immune to making mistakes. However, in a democracy, mistakes are less likely to remain hidden for long due to public discussion and criticism. There is a mechanism for correction: either the rulers can change their decisions, or the rulers themselves can be changed through elections. This process of self-correction is generally absent in non-democratic regimes.

In summary, while not a perfect panacea, democracy is demonstrably better than other known alternatives. It offers a higher likelihood of good decisions, is more likely to respect people's wishes, and facilitates peaceful coexistence in diverse societies. Importantly, it provides a mechanism to correct its own shortcomings and upholds the dignity of its citizens. These reasons underpin why democracy is considered the superior form of government.

---

Broader Meanings Of Democracy

The discussion so far has focused on a narrow, governmental definition of democracy – specifically, representative democracy, which is the most common form today. In representative democracies, people do not rule directly. Instead, a majority takes decisions on behalf of everyone through elected representatives.

Representative democracy is necessary for practical reasons:

• Modern populations are too large for everyone to gather and make decisions collectively.
• Even if they could, individual citizens often lack the time, desire, or expertise to participate in every decision.

This minimalist definition is useful for distinguishing democracies from non-democracies but doesn't differentiate between a basic democracy and a 'good' or ideal one, nor does it capture democracy's operation outside of government.

The term 'democracy' is also used in a broader sense, referring to a method of decision-making applicable to various organisations beyond just governments. At its core, a democratic decision involves consultation with and consent of all those affected. In this sense, power dynamics are minimised, and everyone, regardless of their inherent power, has an equal say. This principle can be applied in contexts like families, schools (teacher-student interactions), or political parties (internal decision-making).

Furthermore, 'democracy' can represent an ideal standard that existing democracies should strive towards. Statements like aiming for a country where "no one goes hungry" or where "every citizen can play an equal role in decision making" (requiring equal information, education, resources, and commitment) reflect this ideal.

No country fully embodies this ideal democracy. However, understanding democracy as an ideal highlights the values it represents, allows for evaluating existing democracies and identifying their shortcomings, and helps distinguish between a minimal and a more developed democracy.

While this chapter focuses on the minimal institutional features of democracy as a form of government, it acknowledges that democracy can manifest in various forms and spheres of life. Decision-making can be democratic as long as the basic principle of equal consultation is upheld. In small communities, direct democracy, where all people decide together (like a Gram Sabha), is possible.

Accepting democracy as an ideal also means recognising that no country is a perfect democracy. Achieving the ideals of democratic decision-making is an ongoing process, not a fixed state. It requires continuous effort to protect and strengthen democratic methods.

Crucially, the future of a democracy depends heavily on the active political participation of its citizens. This distinguishes democracy from other forms of government like monarchy or dictatorship, which often discourage citizen involvement. Because democracy relies on citizen participation, studying democracy involves focusing on democratic politics and the role of citizens.