Democracy - Equality and Liberty

Central to the idea of democracy are the twin concepts of equality and individual liberty. Equality is often taken to mean that all citizens of a country are equal in some basic respect. When all individuals are taken to be equal then it is obvious that one person can not decide for the other. Therefore all need to be given the same rights and meted out the same treatment. Of course, a look at history suggests that the right to equal treatment has not been
given to all. It was initially based on sex, wealth, age. Today in a democracy the right to equal treatment is shared by all citizens of a country over a certain age. Equality becomes critical during decision making. Equality aims to guarantee participation and thus avoid a situation where one party decides to disobey the decision because they were not allowed to participate in the decision making process.
Liberty has just as many connotations as equality and they again affect expectations of democracy. Experts suggest three set of ideas for liberty - republican,liberal and idealist. The republican view measures liberty in terms of a free political community. The liberal view is more concerned with individual freedom to do as he/she pleases. In between these views is the idealist view where the individual has the freedom but also the sense to make the right choices or demands.
But obviously a nation is more than an individual. Therefore it is the manner in which individual freedom interacts with the group that ties liberty to democracy. As individuals don't live in isolation, it is important that an individual's freedom of action does not infringe the freedom of others. Some experts see this as the only role for the state. Anything more and they see it as a threat to liberty.
It is this mix of individual rights and being an equal participant in decision making collectively that causes the tension between equality and liberty. A classic example is the desire to bring about economic equality. This can lead to a collective/majority decision to tax the rich more than others, thus infringing the right of the rich to spend their money as they choose. In such a situation, self rule is cited as a way out...and how self rule is to be achieved marks the major division between various forms of democracy.

At one extreme is what is known as Participatory Democracy. At the other extreme is the idea that people are willing to be ruled by a set of people chosen by them periodically [Representative/liberal] which often is the layman's definition of democracy. In between lies various shades, an example for which is people voting on an issue of national importance[Referendum]. Also, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, an upper chamber is often recommended which will consist of meritorious experts in different areas.

So clearly it is difficult for a society to define what their expectations from this philosophy is. This fine balancing act gets more difficult when you start adding riders to the two opposing yet required forces. These riders include reservations, different laws for different sections of the society, etc.
Is it surprising then that our in-competent members of the legislature have done away with these goals of democracy and reduced it to a power game.

Democracy - The Institutions

The last time I wrote on this (long long time ago, I can still remember...:) Democracy - A Note) I closed by saying that active citizenship is what is required for a democracy to become real.
To be effective and active, a citizen should have the knowledge of the fundamental institutions that are presented as the pillars of democracy. Of course it is impractical to expect people to have academic knowledge of these institutions; instead a practical knowledge of the role of each institution should suffice. Although a strict set of institutions is hard to define, the following general characteristics should ideally be established –

• Elected Representatives - Control of government by members of a parliament or assembly etc. elected by citizens.
• Free, fair and frequent elections - with minimal coercion and fraud.
• Freedom of Expression - All citizens should have the right to express themselves on matters political as well others without fear of reprimand from the existing government.
• Access to alternate sources of information - All citizens must have the opportunity to form opinions using data available from multiple sources (as opposed to the "official" sources), so this clearly refers to the freedom of press.
• Autonomous associations - All citizens should have the right to form associations based on interests.
• Inclusive citizenship - All citizens of the country should be bound by the same set of rules and guidelines
• Independence of the judiciary - The judiciary should be accessible to all and more importantly must be separate from the government.
• Impartial civil service - The civil service should be autonomous and not partial towards the government of the day.

Now let us re-examine the institutions with respect to our motherland.

• Elected Representatives - Clearly we have this institution well and running. But the main problem for India is the fact that we have come to a stage where nearly 2 million people are represented by a single person in the Parliament, an average that makes it impossible for a citizen to really make his/her voice heard (all the more reason for him/her to become an active citizen). UK on the other hand has 646 members in the House of Commons making a people/member average of around 100,000 (that is 2o times less than ours). Well one solution could be to raise the total number of seats (will require an amendment as the max perceived strength is 552 according to the constitution). Well it is hard to make things work with 200 odd that do show up in the first place :)
• Free, fair and frequent elections - We definitely do have frequent elections, the other 2 conditions are on dodgy grounds...but I would like to believe that it's not yet a disease. I don't have any data to make an opinion otherwise anyways...
• Freedom of Expression - It is there and it is not there. All depends on what you are trying to say. Books are banned regularly, gag orders are issued too. As for the freedom of press, India was ranked 120 out of 167 by reporters sans frontiers (www.rsf.org) though it does add - "Countries such as the Philippines (111th), India (120th) and Indonesia (117th) figure in the bottom half of the index despite having free and lively independent media, since killings and physical attacks on journalists, along with outdated laws, still prevent a full flowering of the press. Violence against the media in India rarely comes from the authorities but from political activists and in Kashmir from armed groups."
• Access to alternate sources of information - Well again it's there and not there. RTI was brought in to correct this but it has not yet reached the common people (wonder why the government is the least active in spreading the word about it).
• Autonomous associations - The party system thrives here, a little too much perhaps (sigh).
• Inclusive citizenship - This is a problem issue (imho) as it has been the root cause for some of the most deep crevices in our society. Take the special treatment for minorities (separate laws) or the issue of reservation. Both good on paper but deadly in the hands of our "great leaders" and "intellectuals" alike.
• Independence of the judiciary - Overactive at times but definitely and unabashedly independent. So independent that there seems to be no way to cure all the decay that is prevalent (lawyer strikes, long holidays, pending cases, just to name a few).
• Impartial civil service - this has hardly ever existed, some how the bureaucracy has never found its feet.

So how do we ensure that a citizen is active or forced to be active? Umm, next section maybe...

Democracy - A Note

Here we go...part one of maybe a multiple part series...or maybe I will lose interest after this one...lets see...
I took a book on Democracy by Bernard Crick and it was an amazing journey on the development of the concept and its implementation as it stands today. I want to write this so that I can look back at it if/when I start forgetting what I read and what I felt while reading it.

Democracy as some philosophers feel is an "essentially contested concept", something that can never be defined universally but still is considered as the definition of a good government...or a pre-requisite at the very least. It is a term often (mis)used by the political class when trying to suggest superiority of one government over the other - "we are the largest democracy! We are more democratic then them" - and so on.

To understand it better one needs to be aware of the manner in which it evolved over time...That's what this note is going to be about.

The word first emerged around 4th century BC in Athens, Demokratia - the rule (kratos) of the people (demos). The earliest usage can be found in Plato's writings where he attacks it by calling it a rule of poor and ignorant over the educated and the knowledgeable. His fundamental opposition was between knowledge and opinion. (I for one find this distinction extremely interesting) To him democracy was the rule or rather the anarchy of mere opinion.
His pupil, Aristotle, modified the strong views - it was ok for some to rule with the consent of many...the "some" needed to have excellence (aristocrats in other words) while "many" didn't mean the entire population (most certainly not women and slaves). To be able to choose one needed to have some education and some property. But the requirement of knowledge remained at the forefront of things - "just because men are equal in somethings, they can not be considered equal in all."

With time the concept/doctrine of democracy took root and it was realized that involving its citizens made the state more stable. This idea was further developed by Machiavelli in his book Discourses, around the 17th century. Developing Aristotle's theory further he said that good laws to protect all are not good enough unless subjects become active citizens. They should try and seek responsibility. He understood that the state is a lot safer in the hands of people fighting for a cause(the state) rather than in the hands of armed militia...

And then with the French revolution the idea of democracy also got revolutionized....with aristocracy toppled over by common people...the rules of engagement changed. Suddenly everyone regardless of education and property had a right to make his contribution into the decision making process for it was felt that the greater common good is understood better by the common citizen than the aristocrats living in an artificial make believe world. This threw up a new issue...division between individual liberties and the rights of the state.

The fourth usage comes from the American constitution and most of the constitutions ever since (even though it was formed before America really became a democracy) - All can participate (and they should), all must mutually respect the equal rights of fellow citizens within a regulated legal order that defines, protects and limits those rights. A fusion of rights of the people and the idea of legally guaranteed individual rights. The two are distinct ideas and often contradictory (that’s what happens when you get lawyers involved...)

Of course in today's world, with all the information overload and media hype its difficult to combine freedom and popular power. Neither there is one right and valid method (cant think of any other word) to it. There remain a number of factors that shape its form and implementation - factors like religion, culture, etc. So one form of democracy is not automatically better than the other…it can only be the best that can be implemented under the given circumstances…and that's the key question…is it able to serve its purpose in its current form in a given region at a given period of time?

In the next part (if it comes), I ll write about what essentially makes a democracy tick..:)

Anyways, a round of applause to anyone who actually read all of that…haha…but the evolution of this doctrine is something I find fascinating. I highly recommend the book to anyone interested and a lot of what I wrote actually comes from its pages...