DEMOCRACY
Idea and Practice of Democracy
The common element of all democratic theories is the concept of popular power, which refers to the
situation when power and authority ultimately lie with the people. In contrast authoritarian
governments are those where decisions are imposed on the people and exercised without their
consent. Thus by seeking the consent of the people, democracy ensures the accountability of the
government to the people and making it a legitimate authority over them.
A democratic government is based on the principle of political equality i.e. the consent of all
members of the political community is needed for the creation of a democratic government, since all
people have an equal capacity and stake to make collective decisions that shape their lives. It is also
based on the principle of one person one vote i.e. no single person’s opinion/interest is valued more
than others. This principle places emphasis on the equal moral worth of every person, and is against
excluding anyone from the political process. Hence, this implies an absence of hierarchy/inherited
privileges/discrimination.
Thirdly, a diversity of opinions and interests on all matters of common concern is an inherent feature
and is considered as the main strength of a democratic society. Thus, it is necessary to ensure
tolerance among numerous shades of opinions. Thus a democratic society is also known as an open
society, which gives space for every voice to be heard, whether or not they are popular/conventional
among people. The preservation of such an open society requires granting and protection of political
freedoms such as freedom of expression, association, movement, along with freedom to protest and
express dissent against the government, access to information, etc by the state to all of its citizens.
These freedoms enable people to make informed choices without coercion and intervene in the
decision-making process. Thus, the pursuit of rights is essential for the practice of democracy.
However, the practice of democracy also requires removing power structures that lead to inequality
and discrimination against certain sections of people, which hinder their ability to actively
participate and intervene in the decision-making process. Thus equality is also a necessary condition
of democracy, for which arrangements that lead to equality of power and participation should be
put in place.
Democracy as a conflict resolution model is associated generally with majority rule to enable a
consensus. However, such majority rule may lead to the neglect of minorities. Bringing such
consensus in plural, complex and unequal societies is also difficult to achieve.
The people who participate in a democracy usually refers to the citizens of the country, who were
initially restricted to property owning white men, thus initially excluding women, educated men,
men from the labour class and black men and women in western countries. These categories were
subsequently recognised after long movements and struggles for Universal Adult Franchise, as full
citizens with the right to vote and contest elections. In Asian (e.g. India) and African colonies,
democratic struggles took place in the form of anti-colonial struggles and striving towards self-
determination/ self-government.
Types of Democracy
Democracy is classified into two categories on the basis of the medium through which the consent of
people is achieved- direct/participatory democracy and indirect/representative/liberal democracy.
In a direct democracy, there is a high degree of participation of citizens, as they collectively gather
through mass meetings and decide on all major issues that affect them. Thus people effectively rule
themselves. The counterparts of direct democracy can be seen in ancient Athens (5 th-4th century BC)
in Greece, the gram sabha in India, and through mediums such as referendum, initiative and recall,
used as decision making mechanisms used in contemporary organisations and societies.
In ancient Athens, citizens (excluding women, slaves and foreign settlers) not only assembled to
debate and deliberate on all matters, but also held judicial offices and adjudicated on disputes. They
were elected and did not enjoy perpetual tenures. This model reflected a high level of political
accountability and participation of the citizens. Such participation was intended to bring about the
common good of the state, by creating a general will i.e. by setting aside all private/selfish interests
and identifying the collective common good of the community. Such collective participation was
considered essential for the self-development and empowerment of the individual.
Liberal Democracy and its critics
Liberal/representative democracy is the most visible form of democracy in present times, in which
the government functions through the representatives of people chosen through popular elections.
Through these elections, people are able to control the action of representatives and correct the
abuse of power.
Liberal democracy developed in three strands, of which the strand of protective democracy was
associated with the early liberals such as John Locke and JS Mill. Theorists of this strand aimed to
protect democracy and the rights of citizens from the tyranny of state power. Liberal Democracy
rose from liberalism, which was advocated by the new middle classes to limit the arbitrary/excessive
power of the monarchy and feudal aristocracies of the 16th century. This was also associated with
the principle of individualism, which portrayed all individuals as autonomous and rational beings in
control of their own destiny and intent on pursuing their own goals and self-interests. Each
individual also has their own preferences and values. They only required the basic conditions to
pursue these goals, which were identified by the liberals as life, liberty and property. Thus the role of
the state was to maintain the system of individual rights and ensure that individuals do not encroach
upon each other’s rights in their interactions with each other.
However, the state was meant to remain as a neutral arbiter, rather than arrive at a separate notion
of common good. Thus liberals shared a deep fear of state interference by abuse of their power and
encroaching on people’s rights. They advocated for a strong but limited government. For such a
government to exist as a legitimate authority over free and equal individuals, it had to acquire the
consent of people. Thus liberals advocated the use of representative democracy as a mechanism to
give consent to the creation of a government and retain control over it through elections. They did
not favour direct participation as liberals were also fearful of the ‘tyranny of the masses’, due to
which they did not support universal suffrage, due to the fear that people who were not educated or
qualified enough to make informed decisions would use their right to vote irresponsibly. By being
understood as popular rule without restrictions on individual rights a conflict was generated
between the ideas of ‘liberal’ and ‘democratic’
Another strand of liberal democracy is developmental democracy advocated by John Stuart Mill,
who emphasised that a representative democracy must expand the scope for people to participate
in the functioning of the government beyond the duty to vote. He opposed James Mill’s view that
political participation was a distraction from pursuing their self-interest. According to him
participation developed the confidence and intellectual talent of people, and makes possible debate
and discussion leading to a rational persuasion on the solution to the community’s problems.
However, he was also sceptical of the ability of all people to participate in governance, which
required expertise, and balanced this by allowing maximum participation at the local level to
educate people in the task of governance.
Criticisms to Liberal Democracy
1. A key criticism against democracy was that it promoted inefficient and incompetent
governments. While criticising Athenian democracy, Plato argued that governance required
skill and thus should be left to experts. Democracy is claimed to make false assumptions on
human nature, by assuming all humans as capable of being involved in complex matters of
the government. Thus it is claimed to create irrational governments by substituting
ignorance and incompetence for expertise and excellence.
2. Alex de Tocqueville uses the term ‘tyranny of the majority’ to reflect the danger on
minorities posed by democracy and its mechanism of majority rule. He particularly feared
that democracy threatens the culture of the minorities by promoting the cultural standards
of the cultural majority.
3. JS Mill also raises concerns similar in nature to Plato, that it reduces the standards of
governments by side-lining the voices and perspectives of the minorities, experts and
intellectuals, by allowing persons with a lower level of expertise to perform the functions of
legislation and governance, once the majority principle is applied. Thus he believes that the
majority rule tends to promote uniformity and conformity to majoritarian ideals, which
violates the principle of political equality.
4. Elite theorists claim that in every democratic/non-democratic society, political power has
always been in the hands of a ruling elite minority. This class had always managed to rule
according to its own interests and dominate people due to their exceptional psychological
and political skills at manipulation and coercion and other valuable qualities that work in
their favour. According to C Wright Mills, such classes dominate executive power and have
more access to the political system, and refers to this class as a ‘power elite’. Michels coined
the term ‘iron law of oligarchy’ which applied to all organizations resulting in undemocratic
outcomes.
5. Joseph Schumpeter (Capitalism, socialism and democracy) and even claims that people had
low ability to develop an informed opinion on key issues, due to which it is better to let the
experts rule. Thus people only needed to vote for new governments periodically among the
competing political elites.
Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism refers to cultural diversity or the coexistence of numerous diverse cultural
groups within a country, primarily due to decolonization and patterns of global migration.
Multiculturalist policies generate heated debates since they depart from the notion of
uniform citizenship. Thus critics to multiculturalism advocate for assimilation, which requires
cultural minorities to adopt the culture of the majority of that country, by abandoning their
cultural identity. On the other hand, supporters of multiculturalism argue that cultural
minorities should not be obstructed to become a part of a nation state due to their cultural
identity, and thus prefer the notion of integration into the nation state while retaining their
cultural identities.
Depending on the extent of differences between cultural minorities and majorities,
multiculturalism is classified as thin multiculturalism (only weak disagreements over beliefs
and values divide citizens in modern liberal countries, underestimates the extent of conflicts
between cultures) and thick multiculturalism (deep disagreements over values between
liberal and non-liberal groups, may not lead to fair treatment of cultural minorities).
Uniform citizenship (granting voting rights, free speech and movement), is evidently not
enough for minority members to fee included in a liberal society. It also requires protection
of their unique ways of life which may come under threat, or by granting group specific
rights/ cultural rights. These rights are by multiculturalist thinker Will Kymlicka as an
important aspect of differentiated citizenship (to treat cultural groups fairly, the state should
recognise the unique needs and goals of different cultural groups. Thus while granting all
human rights, they should appreciate the need to grant special protection to communities
with a shared history, language and shared territory. However, this image of a societal
culture excludes the rights of non-cultural groups such as gays, the disabled and groups
supporting a minority lifestyle (e.g. opera lovers) from having cultural rights (holders of such
rights include groups facing insecurity within their larger society, or those long subjected to
oppression.
Kymlicka claims that group rights are consistent with liberalism, by arguing that recognizing
equality requires the recognition of the harder struggle minorities face to receive equal self -
respect and other basic dignities than members of the majority community. This is because
they lack a stable cultural structure (values and customs that lead to personal autonomy to
make meaningful choices). Thus giving rights to people with different cultural identities is
not enough for providing them justice. Extending this argument, he suggests that Rawls
should have included cultural membership in his principles of justice, and the fact that he
hadn’t shows that his theory of justice assumed that all people would belong to the same
culture.
However, the content of group rights is disputed as to whether it should include rights for
the entire group or only individual members, and about a clear definition of cultural
structure and cultural rights. However, giving unlimited rights to cultural groups would lead
to the danger of supporting morally undesirable practices. Thus kymlicka distinguishes
between external protections and internal restrictions (group rights restricting individual
liberties within a culture, such as claims to deny women inheritance rights on performing
exogamy). Such internal restrictions are not justified as differentiated citizenship entails that
all members enjoy the same political rights.
Thus an important aspect of the debate on multiculturalism is that defending cultural rights
may lead to supporting injustices against those who lack power, such as women. On these
grounds, Okin suggests denial of special support to cultural minorities if it leads to
perpetuating unfair practices against women. She further argues that women of such
cultural groups should be allowed to assimilate in the culture of their host country to at least
enjoy basic rights, even if at the cost of losing their cultural identities.