What is Democracy ? Why Democracy ?

Merry: Ma'am, I don't like this idea. First we spend time discussing democracy and then we want to find out the meaning of democracy. I mean logically shouldn't we have approached it the other way round? Shouldn't the meaning have come first and then the example?

Lyngdoh Madam: I can see your point. But that is not how we reason in everyday life. We use words like pen, rain or love. Do we wait to have a definition of these words before we use them? Come to think of it, do we have clear definition of these words? It is only by using a word that we understand its meaning.

Merry: But then why do we need definitions at all?

Lyngdoh Madam: We need a definition only when we come across a difficulty in the use of a word. We need a definition of rain only when we wish to distinguish it from, say, drizzle or cloudburst. The same is true for democracy. We need a clear definition only because people use it for different purposes, because very different kinds of governments call themselves democracy.

Ribiang: But why do we need to work on a definition? The other day you quoted Abraham Lincoln to us: "Democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people". We in Meghalaya always ruled ourselves. That is accepted by everyone. Why do we need to change that?

Lyngdoh Madam: I am not saying we need to change it. I too find this definition very beautiful. But we don't know if this is the best way of defining unless we think about it ourselves. We must not accept something just because it is famous, just because everyone accepts it.

Yolanda: Ma'am, can I suggest something? We don't need to look for any definition. I read somewhere that the word democracy comes from a Greek word 'Demokratia'. In Greek 'demos' means people and 'kratia' means rule. So democracy is rule by the people. This is the correct meaning. Where is the need to debate?

Lyngdoh Madam: That is also a very helpful way of thinking about this matter. I would just say that this does not always work. A word does not remain tied to its origin. Just think of computers. Originally they were used for computing, that is to say calculating, very difficult mathematical sums. These were very powerful calculators. But nowadays very few people use computers for computing sums. They use it for writing, for designing, for listening to music and for watching films. Words remain the same but their meaning can change with time. In that case it is not very useful to look at the origins of a word.

Merry: Ma'am, so basically what you are saying is that there is no shortcut to our thinking about the matter ourselves. We have to think about its meaning and evolve a definition.

Lyngdoh Madam: You got me right. Let us get on with it now.

Let us get back to our discussion on similarities and differences among governments that are called democracies. One simple factor common to all democracies is: the government is chosen by the people.

We could thus start with a simple definition: democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people.

This is a useful starting point. This definition allows us to separate democracy from forms of government that are clearly not democratic. The army rulers of Myanmar were not elected by the people. Those who happened to be in control of the army became the rulers of the country. People had no say in this decision. Dictators like Pinochet (Chile) are not elected by the people. This also applies to monarchies. The kings of Saudi Arabia rule not because the people have chosen them to do so but because they happen to be born into the royal family.

This simple definition is not adequate. It reminds us that democracy is people's rule. But if we use this definition in an unthinking manner, we would end up calling almost every government that holds an election a democracy. That would be very misleading. As we shall find out in Chapter 3, every government in contemporary world wants to be called a democracy, even if it is not so. That is why we need to carefully distinguish between a government that is a democracy and one that pretends to be one. We can do so by understanding each word in this definition carefully and spelling out the features of a democratic government.

In Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf led a military coup in October 1999. He overthrew a democratically elected government and declared himself the 'Chief Executive' of the country. Later he changed his designation to President and in 2002 held a referendum in the country that granted him a five-year extension. Pakistani media, human rights organisations and democracy activists said that the referendum was based on malpractices and fraud. In August 2002 he issued a 'Legal Framework Order' that amended the Constitution of Pakistan. According to this Order, the President can dismiss the national and provincial assemblies. The work of the civilian cabinet is supervised by a National Security Council which is dominated by military officers. After passing this law, elections were held to the national and provincial assemblies. So Pakistan has had elections, elected representatives have some powers. But the final power rested with military officers and General Musharraf himself.

Clearly, there are many reasons why Pakistan under General Musharraf should not be called a democracy. But let us focus on one of these. Can we say that the rulers are elected by the people in Pakistan? Not quite. People may have elected their representatives to the national and provincial assemblies but those elected representatives were not really the rulers. They cannot take the final decisions. The power to take final decision rested with army officials and with General Musharraf, and none of them were elected by the people. This happens in many dictatorships and monarchies. They formally have an elected parliament and government but the real power is with those who are not elected.

In a few countries, the real power was with some external powers and not with locally elected representatives. This cannot be called people's rule.

This gives us the first feature. In a democracy the final decision making power must rest with those elected by the people.

In China, elections are regularly held after every five years for electing the country's parliament, called Quanguo Renmin Daibiao Dahui (National People's Congress). The National People's Congress has the power to appoint the President of the country. It has nearly 3,000 members elected from all over China. Some members are elected by the army. Before contesting elections, a candidate needs the approval of the Chinese Communist Party. Only those who are members of the Chinese Communist Party or eight smaller parties allied to it were allowed to contest elections held in 2002-03. The government is always formed by the Communist Party.

Since its independence in 1930, Mexico holds elections after every six years to elect its President. The country has never been under a military or dictator's rule. But until 2000 every election was won by a party called PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party). Opposition parties did contest elections, but never managed to win. The PRI was known to use many dirty tricks to win elections. All those who were employed in government offices had to attend its party meetings. Teachers of government schools used to force parents to vote for the PRI. Media largely ignored the activities of opposition political parties except to criticise them. Sometimes the polling booths were shifted from one place to another in the last minute, which made it difficult for people to cast their votes. The PRI spent a large sum of money in the campaign for its candidates.

Should we consider the elections described above as examples of people electing their rulers? Reading these examples we get a sense that we cannot. There are many problems here. In China the elections do not offer the people any serious choice. They have to choose the ruling party and the candidates approved by it. Can we call this a choice? In the Mexican example, people seemed to really have a choice but in practice they had no choice. There was no way the ruling party could be defeated, even if people were against it. These are not fair elections.

We can thus add a second feature to our understanding of democracy. Holding elections of any kind is not sufficient. The elections must offer a real choice between political alternatives. And it should be possible for people to use this choice to remove the existing rulers, if they wish so. So, a democracy must be based on a free and fair election where those currently in power have a fair chance of losing. We shall find out more about a democratic election in Chapter 3.

Earlier, we read about how the struggle for democracy was linked to the demand for universal adult franchise. This principle has now come to be accepted almost all over the world. Yet there are many instances of denial of equal right to vote.

Until 2015, in Saudi Arabia women did not have the right to vote. Estonia has made its citizenship rules in such a way that people belonging to Russian minority find it difficult to get the right to vote.

In Fiji, the electoral system is such that the vote of an indigenous Fiji has more value than that of an Indian-Fijian.

Democracy is based on a fundamental principle of political equality. That gives us the third feature of democracy: in a democracy, each adult citizen must have one vote and each vote must have one value. We shall read more about it in Chapter 3.

Zimbabwe attained independence from White minority rule in 1980. Since then the country has been ruled by ZANU-PF, the party that led the freedom struggle. Its leader, Robert Mugabe, ruled the country since independence. Elections were held regularly and always won by ZANU-PF. President Mugabe was popular but also used unfair practices in elections. Over the years his government changed the constitution several times to increase the powers of the President and make him less accountable. Opposition party workers were harassed and their meeting disrupted. Public protests and demonstrations against the government were declared illegal. There was a law that limited the right to criticise the President. Television and radio were controlled by the government and gave only the ruling party's version. There were independent newspapers but the government harassed those journalists who went against it. The government ignored some court judgments that went against it and pressurised judges. He was forced out of office in 2017.

The example of Zimbabwe shows that popular approval of the rulers is necessary in a democracy, but it is not sufficient. Popular governments can be undemocratic. Popular leaders can be autocratic. If we wish to assess a democracy, it is important to look at the elections. But it is equally important to look before and after the elections. There should be sufficient room for normal political activity, including political opposition, in the period before elections. This requires that the state should respect some basic rights of the citizen. They should be free to think, to have opinions, to express these in public, to form associations, to protest and take other political actions. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of law. These rights must be protected by an independent judiciary whose orders are obeyed by everyone. We shall read more about these rights in Chapter 5.

Similarly, there are some conditions that apply to the way a government is run after the elections. A democratic government cannot do whatever it likes, simply because it has won an election. It has to respect some basic rules. In particular it has to respect some guarantees to the minorities. Every major decision has to go through a series of consultations. Every office bearer has certain rights and responsibilities assigned by the constitution and the law. Each of these is accountable not only to the people but also to other independent officials. We shall read more about this in Chapter 4.

Both these aspects give us the fourth and final feature of democracy: a democratic government rules within limits set by constitutional law and citizens' rights.

Let us sum up the discussion so far. We started with a simple definition that democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people. We found that this definition was not adequate unless we explained some of the key words used in it. Through a series of examples we worked out four features of democracy as a form of government. Accordingly, democracy is a form of government in which:

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

Yolanda: We live in a democratic country. All over the world people want democracy. Countries that were not democratic earlier are becoming democratic now. All great people have said nice things about democracy. Isn't it obvious that democracy is the best? Do we need to debate this?

Tangkini: But Lyngdoh Madam had said we should not accept something just because it is famous, just because everyone else accepts it. Isn't it possible that everyone is following a wrong path?

Jeni: Yes, it actually is a wrong path. What has democracy brought to our country? Seven decades of democracy and there is so much poverty in the country.

Ribiang: But what has democracy got to do with it? Do we have poverty because we are democratic or do we have poverty despite being a democracy?

Jeni: Whatever, how does it make a difference? The point is that this can't be the best form of government. Democracy is all about chaos, instability, corruption and hypocrisy. Politicians fight among themselves. Who cares for the country?

Poimon: So, what should we have instead? Go back to the British rule? Invite some kings to rule this country?

Rose: I don't know. I think what this country needs is a strong leader, someone who does not have to bother about elections and parliament. One leader should have all the powers. He should be able to do whatever is needed in country's interest. That alone can remove corruption and poverty from this country.

Someone shouted: That is called dictatorship!

Hoi: What if that person starts using all these powers for himself and his family? What if he is corrupt himself?

Rose: I am speaking only of the honest, sincere and strong leader.

Hoi: But that is not fair. You are comparing a real democracy with an ideal dictatorship. We should compare an ideal with an ideal, the real with the real. Go and check the record of dictators in real life. They are most corrupt, selfish and brutal. It is just that we don't get to know about this. And what is worse, you can't even get rid of them.

Madam Lyngdoh was listening to this discussion with interest. Now she stepped in: "I was delighted to see you all arguing so passionately. I don't know who is right and who is wrong. That is for you to settle. But I did feel that you all wanted to speak your mind. You may have felt very bad if someone tried to stop you or if someone punished you for saying what you felt. Would you be able to do that in a country that is not democratic? Is that a good argument for democracy?"

This conversation has most of the arguments that we routinely hear against democracy. Let us go over some of these arguments:

• Leaders keep changing in a democracy. This leads to instability.
• Democracy is all about political competition and power play. There is no scope for morality.
• So many people have to be consulted in a democracy that it leads to delays.
• Elected leaders do not know the best interest of the people. It leads to bad decisions.
• Democracy leads to corruption for it is based on electoral competition.
• Ordinary people don't know what is good for them; they should not decide anything.

Are there some other arguments against democracy that you can think of? Which of these arguments applies mainly to democracy? Which of these can apply to misuse of any form of government? Which of these do you agree with?

Clearly, democracy is not a magical solution for all the problems. It has not ended poverty in our country and in other parts of the world. Democracy as a form of government only ensures that people take their own decisions. This does not guarantee that their decisions will be good. People can make mistakes. Involving the people in these decisions does lead to delays in decision making. It is also true that democracy leads to frequent changes in leadership. Sometimes this can set back big decisions and affect the government's efficiency.

These arguments show that democracy of the kind we see may not be the ideal form of government. But that is not a question we face in real life. The real question we face is different: is democracy better than other forms of government that are there for us to choose from?

China's famine of 1958-1961 was the worst recorded famine in world history. Nearly three crore people died in this famine. During those days, India's economic condition was not much better than China. Yet India did not have a famine of the kind China had. Economists think that this was a result of different government policies in the two countries. The existence of democracy in India made the Indian government respond to food scarcity in a way that the Chinese government did not. They point out that no large-scale famine has ever taken place in an independent and democratic country. If China too had multiparty elections, an opposition party and a press free to criticise the government, then so many people may not have died in the famine.

This example brings out one of the reasons why democracy is considered the best form of government. Democracy is better than any other form of government in responding to the needs of the people. A non-democratic government may and can respond to the people's needs, but it all depends on the wishes of the people who rule. If the rulers don't want to, they don't have to act according to the wishes of the people. A democracy requires that the rulers have to attend to the needs of the people. A democratic government is a better government because it is a more accountable form of government.

There is another reason why democracy should lead to better decisions than any non-democratic government. Democracy is based on consultation and discussion. A democratic decision always involves many persons, discussions and meetings. When a number of people put their heads together, they are able to point out possible mistakes in any decision. This takes time. But there is a big advantage in taking time over important decisions. This reduces the chances of rash or irresponsible decisions. Thus democracy improves the quality of decision-making.

This is related to the third argument. Democracy provides a method to deal with differences and conflicts. In any society people are bound to have differences of opinions and interests. These differences are particularly sharp in a country like ours which has an amazing social diversity. People belong to different regions, speak different languages, practise different religions and have different castes. They look at the world very differently and have different preferences. The preferences of one group can clash with those of other groups. How do we resolve such a conflict? The conflict can be solved by brutal power. Whichever group is more powerful will dictate its terms and others will have to accept that. But that would lead to resentment and unhappiness. Different groups may not be able to live together for long in such a way. Democracy provides the only peaceful solution to this problem. In democracy, no one is a permanent winner. No one is a permanent loser. Different groups can live with one another peacefully. In a diverse country like India, democracy keeps our country together.

These three arguments were about the effects of democracy on the quality of government and social life. But the strongest argument for democracy is not about what democracy does to the government. It is about what democracy does to the citizens. Even if democracy does not bring about better decisions and accountable government, it is still better than other forms of government. Democracy enhances the dignity of citizens. As we discussed above, democracy is based on the principle of political equality, on recognising that the poorest and the least educated has the same status as the rich and the educated. People are not subjects of a ruler, they are the rulers themselves. Even when they make mistakes, they are responsible for their conduct.

Finally, democracy is better than other forms of government because it allows us to correct its own mistakes. As we saw above, there is no guarantee that mistakes cannot be made in democracy. No form of government can guarantee that. The advantage in a democracy is that such mistakes cannot be hidden for long. There is a space for public discussion on these mistakes. And there is a room for correction. Either the rulers have to change their decisions, or the rulers can be changed. This cannot happen in a non-democratic government.

Let us sum it up. Democracy cannot get us everything and is not the solution to all problems. But it is clearly better than any other alternative that we know. It offers better chances of a good decision, it is likely to respect people's own wishes and allows different kinds of people to live together. Even when it fails to do some of these things, it allows a way of correcting its mistakes and offers more dignity to all citizens. That is why democracy is considered the best form of government.