This book deals with a phenomenon which is now being discussed in many parts of the world. After decades of totalitarian or authoritarian rule, democracy has been restored or established for the first time in a number of countries. The transition to democracy and the consolidation of democracy are not easy processes. For this very reason some hesitation exists with regard to the use of the term ‘democracy’ without adding qualifying adjectives such as ‘real’ or ‘genuine’.
Although some people consider themselves to be ‘absolute democrats’ in word and deed, many questions concerning democracy are asked by specialists as well as by ordinary people. What is democracy? Are elections sufficient to guarantee the existence of democratic government? Is the principle of majority rule sufficient to ensure democracy? What happens when a properly assembled majority makes regular decisions which harm a minority? Is a unique model of democracy suitable for all countries? Are there rules which are indispensable for all models of democracy?
This book, written by Jean Baechler, professor at the University of the Sorbonne in Paris and author of several works on this subject, analyses in depth the nature of- democracy which is, without any doubt, complex and multi-dimensional.
The analytical approach proposed by the author encourages further reflection on all democracy-related problems and provides a solid theoretical background for contemporary discussion. This book is therefore of interest to specialists as well as all those who are striving for the consolidation of democracy in their own countries and throughout the world.
Contents
Preface
Introduction
1. The nature of the political order
2. The ends of the political order
3. Political regimes
4. The nature of democracy
5. Democracy, peace and justice
6. Modern public institutions
7. The democratic virtues
8. The origins of democracies
9. Corruptions of democracy
10. The death and resurrection of democracy
Conclusions
Glossary
Bibliography
Preface
Democracy, characterized by Benjamin Franklin in the late eighteenth century as a ‘rising sun’, remains very much in the ascendant 200 years later. For people the world over, it is increasingly the focus of their hopes for a brighter future and aspirations for a life of freedom and dignity. The democratic idea has exerted a powerful influence in recent times in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America, where many countries are currently addressing the difficult challenges inherent in the apprenticeship of freedom.
Yet the growing consensus in favour of democracy rests on many unanswered questions. Foremost among these concerns the precise meaning or meanings we should attach to the term. A related question has to do with the applicability of the democratic concept to the wide range of socio-economic and cultural situations existing in the world today. From the practical standpoint, there is much uncertainty as to the best approach to adopt in order to implant or renew with democratic tradition and practice.
Recent experience has shown that the introduction of democracy is a complex process which involves more than mere political transformations. The transition to democracy concerns the whole body politic — that is to say, all the individuals that constitute it and their social relationships. Success in constructing a democratic civil society depends on the commitment of the population at large to the democratic ideal, on its active involvement in all aspects of political, social and cultural life, on tolerance of difference combined with respect for majority opinion, as well as on the existence of democratic institutions and wise political leadership. Democracy cannot therefore be achieved rapidly — particularly in countries emerging from decades of totalitarian or authoritarian rule — since changes in human attitudes are less easily accomplished than the remodelling of political structures.
UNESCO is convinced that the promotion of a culture of democracy is an important foundation for the successful implementation of democratic reforms. For whereas there can be no single model of democracy applicable to all countries, while the democratic ethos necessarily reflects the cultural specificities of a given society, it is still possible to identify certain general principles, values and practices essential to the successful functioning of democracy. Furthering knowledge and observance of these democratic ground rules through educational means of all kinds is one of the keys to nurturing a culture of democracy based on freedom of expression, respect for human rights, and acceptance of civil responsibilities, pluralism and mutual understanding.
UNESCO has organized several major international conferences on this theme: Democratic Culture and Development (Montevideo, 1991), Culture and Democracy (Prague, 1991), Education for Democracy (Tunis, 1992), Education for Human Rights and Democracy (Montreal, 1993) and Democracy and Tolerance (Seoul, 1994). A number of international workshops devoted to problems of democracy-building and the promotion of a democratic culture have been convened and various publications have been prepared.
I hope that this book will enrich knowledge and under-standing of the democratic phenomenon in all its aspects — historical, political, social, cultural and philosophical —and will in this way make its own contribution to the process it describes — to the cultivation of that ‘art of thinking independently together’ which in a true democracy should approximate to a second nature.
FEDERICO MAYOR Director-General of UNESCO
Introduction
Democracy is a much talked-about subject among our public today for whom, fortunately, the governance of the country has been by and large by democratic principles for fifty long years, that is since India discarded the colonial system and the transfer of power was affected whereby a new state was born.
If one were to go by experience, one has to keep in mind the fact that there have been many critics of official actions in the last fifty years, but very little that has blamed the democratic order for all that has happened. Although there have been dark patches when the domestic functioning was temporarily given up by the ruling establishment, there was hardly any outright abandonment of the democratic order in preference to absolutist and totalitarianism style of state functioning. It is here that the real strength of Indian democracy lies, that the people at large have so far accepted not even temporary lapses from democratic functioning by those who had been involved with power. What was set up temporarily could not be the model for any non-democratic or anti-democratic political system.
Recent years have been witness to many perceptions and some of these raise questions referring to democracy. However, although the parliamentary system has been openly challenged in favour of a presidential system, one hardly comes across any serious questioning of the democratic order per se. At the same time one cannot overlook the fact that some of the manifestations of public conduct under democracy have raised serious questions in the minds of the people. For this it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that these questions can no longer be shelved but discussed in all seriousness so that the solution of each of these problems could be reached and to that measure, the democratic functioning could be restored.
The question naturally arises because India happens to be a conglomerate of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural entities. Unlike many other countries, India does not have a monolith of a particular faith. As in this huge country with a chequered history, many civilizational streams have mingled, and most of them have preferred to live side by side in peace and with honour. Therefore, the question of minority protection assumes an undeniable feature of Indian democracy. Wherever the minority, ethnic or religious, has been coerced there one could detect a definite tendency to abandon the democratic functioning and resort is taken to anti-democratic means. Such aberrations even if they succeed temporarily, inflict a lot of injury to the democratic temper of the people. With the spread of knowledge, such a narrow approach is being given up, and yet these are resorted to sometimes for opportunist ends and for short-term gains.
In the actual polling, political parties have often based themselves on the short-term gain by resorting to communal appeals. Although there are stringent laws and regulations against any resort to communal appeals or provocations, our actual practice has shown that loopholes in the law have been common. The fact that there is a growing public demand for such restriction speaks volume of the democratic seriousness of the public in general. Much along the same lines though not with the same pernicious means the appeal to caste votes has often swayed the poll results. Although this has been much more on the ascendant than it was in the past, any deviation from democratic practice leads to open complaints and the more these are vocal the more salutary it becomes for India’s democracy.
In recent years, the question of corruption has become one of the major banes of public life in India. Inevitably this is bound to infect the healthy functioning of democracy. For one thing, large-scale corruption on the part of political leaders — or those active in political life — has to a large measure lowered the image of our democracy. Can these be rectified? In the book, one full chapter entitled ‘Corruptions of Democracy’ has treated the subject. However, there are very many questions in the Indian experience which need to be addressed to. The delay in catching the culprits, the manner of functioning of rules in a state does delay the prompt rectification of this menace. Secondly, the legal procedures are often so time-consuming that it taxes on the public patience. Thirdly, the law of proof is so effective against those accused of the guilt that the common public is frightened about the outcome. In the context, it is unnecessary to be too protracted for the public in general. Here comes in the role of the public organizations acting as watch-dog bodies for democracy. Political parties as such have to be supplemented by a vast network of non-official activist organizations to undertake the task. Although marked ‘subsidiary’ in traditional gradations, these in fact may form the decisive core of vigilance in certain circumstances.
The delay in dealing with corruption may often lead to the flagging of the public interest or generate a cynical view that those involved in serious allegations of corruption in public are seldom punished. It will be necessary to take more effective means to deal with this growing menace though one has to guard against any reinforcing the antidemocratic or totalitarian forms. How this has to be done depends on the peculiarities and problems facing the challenge in different countries.
An important feature of the Indian democracy is that it is inherently federal, though not specifically mentioned as such in the constitution of India. With the elimination of one-party rule at the centre, the period for coalition politics has come. And coalition politics would mean that the centre would be subservient to the dictates of more than one party. This also means that the clamours of the state will be more pronounced, and to that respect the centre would be very much under the subject of state-level provincial pressures. Can the dominant group in a state’s politics influence beyond measure the fate of the central politics? Where does one draw the line? It is for the far-seeing democratic experts to decide. The example of other countries can help upto a point, but beyond that each has to depend on its own experience.
In this context, it is worth mentioning that in the last few years, India has launched what may be called the grass-root democracy at the village level. These Panchayats carry the true reflection of the urges and prejudices in a particular area. When the country will be able to integrate the call of the Panchayati Raj with the traditional structure of political formations — namely the centre and the states — then only can such a democracy be enriched in a unique manner.
Journalist
NIKHIL CHAKRAVARTY
1
THE NATURE OF THE POLITICAL ORDER
Man
Since we are trying to define the ‘good’ political regime, we begin with man, because if the regime is good, it is good for everybody. Thus, we must adopt the viewpoint of all men that is of man. It can be objected that man does not exist; only men do. We shall not get involved in the philosophical and logical quarrel of the ‘universals’, a clash between realists and nominalists at the end of the European Middle Ages. The realists considered generalities like ‘animal’ or ‘man’ as real, whereas for the nominalists only singular individuals were real, the rest being only more or less convenient words. The quarrel was not artificial. A middle-of-the-road solution might be the following. The human species exists as a reality, at least in the sense that men are not bees or chimpanzees. Thus it should be possible to define the characteristics differentiating men from all other animal species. Let’s give at once the general answer: man is distinguished by freedom, rationality and purpose. Note that the definition applies to ‘man’, and not necessarily to ‘men’ because some men are not free, are irrational and pursue no end. Consequently, it is reasonable to assert that man exists only as incarnated in men, and men are human in proportion to the characteristics of man that they succeed in realizing in themselves.