Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Discipline Course – 1
Semester – 2
Lesson: Democracy
University of Delhi
2
Democracy
Just like all other terms and concepts in Political Science, there is a lack of consensus
about the meaning of the word „democracy‟. It is, in other words, an inherently
„contested‟ concept. We will witness this contestation in the course of this chapter when
we will study the different emphasis placed by each definition of the word, the varying
elements of democracy, and different theories about democracy.
The Semantics:
The term democracy has its roots in the ancient Greek word „demokratia‟. In this word
„demos‟ means „people‟, and „kratia‟ means „rule, or power‟. If we combine these two
combinations the literal meaning of the word „democracy‟ comes out to be “rule by the
people”.
In this literal meaning of the word „democracy‟, the second Greek root word „kratia‟ is
not that much problematic, because in political science we are mainly concerned with
matters of „rule‟ and government. But, even then in this context also, whether a
government or ruler is actually supposed to rule or serve, still remains a debatable
question. Moreover, the Greek root word „demos‟ which means „people‟ is much more
problematic and contested one. One can understand the word „people‟ as signifying
„human beings‟ simply. But would every human being be considered as part of the „rule‟
in all the countries? Of course, it is only the citizens of a country who would be entitled
as part of the „rule‟ within a country. But, again, does this word „people‟ also include
women in itself? Literally speaking, the word „people‟ should signify also the women of a
particular country, because they are also today the citizens of that country. Similarly,
the word includes all the people living within a country, irrespective of their caste, class,
gender, religion, educational qualification, and economic background. Therefore, we
should be clear in our understanding about the word „people‟, that it actually means the
„common people‟. We have to; thus, qualify the etymological meaning of the word
„democracy‟ or „demokratia‟ as implying the „rule of the common people‟.
The Definition:
The contestation about the root words of the term „democracy‟ also extends to its
definiteness. By far, the most popular definition of the word „democracy‟ is attributed to
the President of United States of America, Abraham Lincoln, who in his „Gettysburg
Address‟ coined democracy as a „government of the people, by the people, for the
people‟. Even this famous definition raises similar questions concerning the identity of
the „people‟ and the nature of their „rule‟ and government. Strictly speaking, even today,
a „people‟ normally signifies the „citizens‟ of a nation-state. But in the age of
Globalization, because of the massive movement of „people‟ across continents, it has
become evident that it is very difficult to decide as to who actually constitutes „a people‟?
Let us, therefore, consider some of the other popular definitions of „democracy‟:
3
Adam Przeworski in his book „Democracy and the Market‟ describes that
„Democracy is a system in which parties lose elections. There are parties, division
of interest, values and opinions. There is competition, organized by rules. And
there are periodic winners and losers‟ (1991:10). This definition purely subscribes
to the procedural aspects of democracy but leaves out other substantive issues.
We will discuss about the procedural aspect of democracy in the later parts of this
chapter.
An almost similar but simple definition has been given by Tatu Vanhanen who
describes democracy as „a political system in which different groups are legally
entitled to compete for power and in which institutional power holders are elected
by the people and are responsible to the people‟ ( 1997:31).
The above mentioned varied definitions clearly indicate difference in emphasis and
perspective. But no single definition can encapsulate all the varying aspects of broad
phenomena like democracy. In order to have a better understanding of democracy
we need to have a detailed discussion of its basic elements.
In the year 2004, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that
lays out some of the „essential‟ elements of democracy, including:
2) Independence of Judiciary,
But this delineation of essential elements of democracy does not explicitly mention
one of the most important ingredient of democracy which distinguishes it from the
opposite i.e. dictatorship. This most important element of democracy is „the presence
of a strong opposition‟. The relevance of democracy rests mainly upon this feature
which makes it much more transparent and inclusive form of government. Although
it is one of the earliest feature of democracy, but today it has in its broad
ramifications become a radical aspect of democracy. The presence of a strong
opposition may simply mean the presence of an opposition party which is almost as
stronger as the party or parties in power. Why a strong opposition is necessary for
the functioning of democracy? Why not allow an absolute and unhindered rule of the
majoritarian, successful party? Why should we delay the functioning of government
and make democracy a „slow‟ form of government? Opposition and prolonged
discussions slow down the making of decisions. Why should we sacrifice the time of a
„people‟? Why not have a fast paced decision and policy making system? Is
dictatorship not better than a democracy where there is no opposition at all? This is
the major lacuna of most of the definitions of democracy. They do not clearly indicate
the basic distinguishing element of democracy which not only differentiates it from
dictatorship but also clarifies that democracy means something other than
dictatorship. The „presence of opposition‟ is not restricted to the political arena and is
not only the mainstay of an opposition party. It, today, clearly indicates towards the
most discussed element of good governance also. It is the debate about „freedom of
expression‟ which is essentially linked to the issue of „presence of opposition‟. If any
government today is trying to suppress the freedom of expression, right to protest
etc. Than literally speaking, it is not a democracy at all.
Similarly, in order to constrain and balance political authority, and to protect the
rights of the individuals and the minorities, as well as to ensure the rule of law,
democracy requires that the written law of the land or the „constitution‟ should be
followed and considered as supreme. In other words, it is only through the
constitution that a clear demarcation of separation and balance of powers can be
codified. The constitution should ensure the segregation of power. Democracy
requires that the control of the political state and its decisions should be the
prerogative of civil elected representatives only and the military, specifically, should
be subordinate to the authority of elected representatives. In no way in a democracy,
should the military have any decisive say in the functioning (other than security
measures and some foreign policy issues), or in the formation of the civil democratic
government. The needs of the time are that there should be a clear demarcation of
powers between the civil and military spheres in government.
Moreover, the powers of executive and legislature should not only be constrained
judicially through a constitutional system, but there should be enough provision for
the existence of some separate and autonomous agency which may be able to
monitor, investigate and punish elected and non-elected officials at all levels of
5
Under a true rule of law, all citizens should be considered equal both politically and
legally. Even the state and its agents are also subject to rule of law. Rule of law
protects citizens from undue detention, exile etc. It protects the citizens from undue
interference in personal life by the state as well as non-state actors.
Democracy requires that the citizens should have unfettered access to multiple
sources of information. This access mainly comes through a system of free,
independent and pluralistic media. Even the citizens should have substantial freedom
of expression, belief, assembly, and demonstration. Deliberative aspect of
democracy, specifically, demands that religious, cultural, ethnic and minority groups
should be provided the freedom to express their interests. They should also be free
to speak their native language and to practise their cultural norms and values.
This brief discussion about some elements of democracy would always remain
incomplete because of two reasons. First of all, the elements of democracy have
emerged in various sequences and degrees and at different paces in countries.
Secondly, the list still keeps on attaching some new elements of democracy
depending on different contexts and time. Also, with regard to each theory and
ideology of political science „different‟ emphasis might be attached to essential
elements of democracy. Some radical thinkers, both Marxist and non-Marxist, may
put emphasis on entirely some other set of essential elements altogether. Therefore,
one of the better ways to understand democracy would be to have a look at the
different theories of democracy.
Procedural Democracy
6
The Semantics:
1) Free and fair elections are the hallmark of democracy. Procedural democracy
is mainly characterised by citizens choosing to elect their representatives in
free elections. It assumes that a fair electoral procedure is the core of
democracy. Therefore all procedures of election, as established by law, should
be duly complied with. There should also be enough provision for
governmental, as well as independent bodies or organizations, to ensure
compliance of due procedure of elections.
universal suffrage or universal adult franchise implies the right of all adult
citizens to vote without any discrimination of caste, creed, gender, colour,
race, educational qualification, and economic status. Procedural or otherwise,
democracy hinges upon the idea of one-person/one-vote political equality. It
indicates that the right to participate in the voting process should be available
to all the adult citizens of a country.
Such aristocratic delineations of the elitist theory have been refuted by the
advocates of „pluralist‟ theory of democracy like Karl Mannheim, Raymond Aron,
A.F.Bentley, David Truman and Robert Dahl etc. These pluralist thinkers describe
that the policy-making process is a highly decentralized process of bargaining
among relatively autonomous „groups‟. They repudiate the claim of elitist theory
of democracy that policy making is not the will of an „elite‟ or chosen few. It is an
outcome of the interaction of all groups who make claims upon particular issues.
But the pluralist theory also projects that various pressure groups compete for
political influence and politics is biased towards the corporate power. Because of
the uneven distribution of socio-economic power it is only a few groups that have
edge over the others.
democracy treats not only the people but democracy itself as a means or
instrument for the formation of a government.
Deliberative Democracy
The Semantics:
In a deliberative democracy the attention shifts from mere voting to the primary
source of legitimacy. Public deliberation has many benefits for the society; it
provides legitimacy to the system. It results in better policies, furthers public
education, increases public trust and tends to reduce conflict.
The term „deliberative democracy‟ was coined by Joseph M.Bessette, the title of
whose book is „Deliberative Democracy: The majority principle in Republican
Government‟ (1980). But it was only in 1990s that this term began to attract the
attention of political theorists. Some of the contemporary contributors to the
notion of deliberative democracy are – Jon Elster, Jurgen Habermas, David Held,
Amy Gutman, Joshua Cohen, John Dryzek, James S. Fishkin and Seyla Benhabib.
But in a deliberation the most skilled in rhetoric may sway the decision in their
favour. Deliberation is a somewhat difficult and rare form of communication.
Russell Harding in his chapter on „Deliberative Democracy‟ argues that
deliberation on a society wide large scale is neither feasible nor desirable. He
thinks the people have little incentive to engage in sophisticated deliberation as
envisaged by the deliberative democracy thinkers. Therefore large scale
discussions and deliberation on issues concerning the wide array of public
concerns is not likely to come up. (2009:213-246).
Deliberation may not always produce reasoned discussion but rather group-think
and narrow-mindedness. Therefore, in order to have better deliberation, some
good institutional design must be present. Moreover, some aspects of state and
governance may not be open for public deliberation e.g. matters related with
11
issues of national security and defence policy, foreign policy and sensitive issues
of minority cultures and values.
Participatory theorists very often mention about the rich political life of citizens of
direct Greek Athenian democracy. Compared to the ancient Greek democracy the
contemporary democracies offer very limited opportunities for citizen
participation. That is why they recommend restructuring of contemporary
democratic life so that apart from sparse indirect participation at the time of
elections for representatives, there should be some avenues for participating
directly in politics. Although the participatory theorists do not indicate that we can
return to the Greek times but regular participation of maximum number of
populace is, for them, the requirement of the day.
Benjamin Barber argues that if citizens are given greater opportunities to voice
their political views they would themselves make collective decisions that they
now delegate to their representatives. (1984:40). Participatory democracy
thinkers hold the hope that giving citizens opportunities to participate directly in
political decision making will result in their better understanding and interest in
politics. They maintain that if given the choice citizens will begin to participate in
politics instead of pursuing only their private pleasures.
Carole Pateman (2003:43-46) also uses the works of Rousseau, John Stuart Mill
and G.D.H.Cole to outline a participatory theory of democracy. Rousseau had
described that institutional structures have an impact on individuals. Primarily
being a feminist thinker, Pateman (1988) describes that the social contract is also
premised upon an unspoken sexual contract. The sexual contract asserts the
difference between private and public sphere. This is no longer politically relevant
and is built upon the idea of natural subordination of women. That is why
patriarchy exists even today. On this basis Pateman criticizes the present
democratic institutions, discourses and even capitalism.
The Semantics:
The term „radical‟ is derived from the Latin word „radix‟, which means „root‟. It is
indicative of a person who wishes to take his/her political ideas to its roots.
Radical also implies a change or an action which affects the fundamental nature
of something and is far-reaching and thorough. It is characterised by its
departure from tradition and is innovative and progressive. The radical will tend
to be hostile to the status quo. But it would be mistake to think that a radical
must be on the „left‟, or pertains to Marxist notion only, it can also be
characteristic of the „right‟. It intends to challenge the established views in any
field of human endeavour. As a thought it tends to concentrate on the
fundamental aspect of a matter and wants to change the reality according to it. It
favours extreme or ask for fundamental changes in political, social, economic
institutions and conditions. Accordingly, most of the contemporary parties and
groups which are aligned with Marxism, feminism, ecological issues or green
13
Radical theory of democracy tends to remind us about the roots or the essential
features of democracy. It also 'problematizes' some concepts like consensus and
participation. It is a state of political being. It is not a kind of government in
itself; rather it is an end of government. It comes into being when citizens begin
to realize that they also have values, beliefs and the skills to govern themselves.
It advocates widespread individual awakening consistent with commitment to
community, cooperation, mutuality and inclusion. It is a form of politics that
recognizes diversity and invokes participation from a variety of social spaces. It
basically asks for the expansion of political participation in a meaningful way. It
encourages constant proliferation and involvement of new communities, identities
and voices. In other words, it reminds us about the ongoing and unending
process of democratization.
Perpetuity of contest and ‘agonism’: Radical theory of democracy not only points
towards but also encourages and provokes contestation, disagreement and points
towards differences. It considers disagreement as a necessary part of democratic
process. Differences cannot be resolved through discourse of formal discussion
only. Simply speaking, total consensus is a misnomer. Democratic attitude
implies respect for „differences‟. Trying to do away with differences is
undemocratic. Radical theory of democracy does not seek to deter the differences
of opinion or to create absolute consensus and points towards perpetuity of
contests in public life.
„Agon‟ is a Greek word which refers to an athletic contest which does not merely
aim towards victory or defeat, but emphasizes the importance of the struggle
itself. It recognizes that a contest or struggle cannot exist without the opponent.
Consequently an agnostic discourse is not merely to be identified by a conflict of
opinions but also by mutual admiration about different viewpoints.
Radical democratic Reforms: Even though the radical theory of democracy cannot
be reduced to the Marxian conception, there are some similarities between the
two. Marx‟s critique of liberal democracy aimed at clarifying that in capitalist
society the bourgeoisie is ruling supreme whatever representative institutions and
democratic rights may be there. What Marx criticized was the lack of real
democracy, what he pushed for was more democracy, radicalization of the
democratic demands of the proletariat revolution leading to the overthrow of the
dominance of capitalist –class society itself.
Radical theory of democracy does share and largely accept the Marxian critique of
liberal-capitalist institutions. But it does not talk about thorough-going or total
socio-political change. It does not accept the Marxian notion of revolution. In fact
its perspective is not limited to only one major class of society, i.e. working class.
It does talk about poverty, destitution, exploitation and disempowerment, but its
concern is towards a number of categories of people and issues. It is against
status-quo but it advocates a reform based politics. Socio-political reforms
suggested by this theory are of course very broad-based which demand complete
overhaul of the system, but nevertheless, radical democratic theory shuns the
word „revolution‟.
The civil society of social movements is expanding the conception of the „political‟.
It is bringing in the hitherto neglected groups of people into the political arena.
Radicals indicate that people are getting disenchanted with political parties also.
That is why anti-party or anti-politics sentiments are rising and the membership
of political parties is also decreasing. Although it is doubtful whether this trend is
good for the health of democracies or not, but the articulation of equality based
demands by the neglected sections of society needs to be recognized. The
„political‟ has to imbibe the minority voices.
Most often it is economic and corporate interests that are subduing the voices of
the downtrodden groups. Various types of capitalist interests have had
subjugated the interests of the local people. Not only environmental and
ecological concerns but also moral and ethical issues are now the major concerns
of radical struggles in many countries. The lust for power and money has created
beasts out of humans. Corruption, violence, exploitation etc. characterize many of
the so-called democracies today. Radical democracy advocates and supports the
counter-hegemony small-politics against all this. It indicates that protests by
common citizens are already being witnessed all over the world. Feminist
movements, green politics, subaltern concerns, anti-corruption movements etc.
are becoming the main part of everyday life, and also the major cause of
government change, in many a democracies. Radical thinkers of democracy, thus,
do not only advocate but also simply point towards the new radical upsurges
taking place all over the world. The time has come to listen to them and to
incorporate their real democratic feelings into the mainstream.
______
Associate Professor
17
Lodi Road
New Delhi.
Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Blakeley, G. 2005. „Democracy‟, in Blakeley, G. and V. Bryson. Marx and other
four letter Words. London: Pluto. Pp.192-212.
Brown, W. 2011. „We are all Democrats now‟, in Agamben, G. et al. (eds.)
Democracy in What State? London: Verso. Pp.44-57.
Cohen, Joshua. 1989. „Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy‟, in Alan Hamlin
and Philip Pettit. (eds.) The Good Polity. New York: Blackwell. Pp.17-34.
Cohen, Joshua. 2009. „Reflections on Deliberative Democracy‟, in Christiano, T.
and J. Christman, et al., Contemporary Debated in Political Philosophy. West
Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Domhoff, G. William. 2009 (1967). Who Rules America? Power, politics and social
change. U.S.: McGraw Hill.
Dryzek, J. and S. Niemayer. 2008. „Discursive Representation‟, American Political
Science Review, 102(4): 481-493.
Dunn, John, ed. 1992. Democracy: The Unfinished Journey, 508 B.C. to A.D.
1993. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elster, Jon. (ed.) 1998. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fishkin, James. 1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for
Democratic Reform. New Haven. Conn.: Yale University Press.
Fishkin, James. 2011. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public
Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy?
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Harding, Russell. 2009. „Deliberative Democracy‟ in Contemporary Debates in
Political Philosophy. (ed.) Christiano, Thomas and John Christman. West Sussex,
U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. Pp. 213-246.
Lummis, C. Douglas. 1996. Radical Democracy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
18
======