By Recordius Enmi Kharbani
Prof. Andre Beteille, a celebrated sociologist and the Chancellor of North-Eastern Hill University was on a visit to the University. The NEHU authorities had organised an Extension Lecture on the topic “Democracy in Our Time” on the 15th May 2013. The lecture was organised for the faculty members of the university and not for its students. But some interested students could sneak into the small Vice-Chancellor’s Conference hall-filled with faculty members to learn from the lecture of such a great personality. The gist of his lecture is being shared through this article to give the readers a convincing perspective of contemporary understanding of Indian democracy which is otherwise kept exclusively confined to the highly academic minds. Utmost attention has been given to comprehensively convey the original message delivered by Prof. Andre Beteille himself.
Prof. Andre Beteille centres his lecture on the premise that “We need not end where we started”. Though Indian democracy started by basically replicating the Westminster model, it need not evolve as anticipated and need not constantly follow it in its course of development. It has evolved to constitute its own system of parliamentary democracy that has conditioned itself with the prevailing social milieu. Democracy need not work exactly as it does in Britain. The system of parliamentary democracy in India is definitely different. Even in Britain, the system followed earlier was different from the one that is working today. A scholarly perspective which looks at politics over a certain period would comprehend such developments which a journalistic perspective which looks at it more on a daily context may not.
Beteille believes that it was natural for India to adopt a parliamentary system of democracy after the Westminster model. There was awareness among the members of the constituent assembly of the presence of various constitutions in the world, but there was a ‘broad consensus’ among them on the Westminster model. But the consensus was only ‘broad’ accompanied by two major differences raised by the left and the Gandhians. The left did not want what they called a bourgeoisie democracy which did not take any serious step to abolish class differences in the country. The Gandhians wanted a democracy with Gandhian principle. Prof. Andre Beteille argues that the beauty of democracy is that it gives space for dissent, opposition and criticism. This space that democracy has offered to every citizen is one of the major reasons for its continuation till today. However, while availing such space, criticisms should not go to the extent of picturing that there is no hope and that the future is doomed. Parliamentary democracy gives sufficient space to and accepts the opposition in legitimate institutionalised form. In the Westminster model, opposition is articulated through party system. With the emergence of the party that was fostered by the extension of universal franchise at the dawn of the 19th century, people are provided with the option to vote the government and the opposition. Legitimacy to opposition nonetheless need not necessarily be articulated only through party system. The other means of expressing dissent and opposition are the social movements. Social movements make democracy more active. In India, the space occupied by social movements such as the J P Narain movement or the Anna Hare movement which represent opposition against arbitrary governments reveals that Indian parliamentary democracy is moving away from the Westminster model which believes in organised opposition articulated through the political party. Though there will not be a party-less democracy in India, but these parties will not play decisive roles the way parties play in Westminster. In India, the role of political parties as opposition is shared by the social movements. One of the seriously negative side to social movements that puts the political parties above them as the major means of dissent and opposition in Indian democracy, is the factor of accountability to the people. While parties are directly answerable to people and they have to go to the people to obtain their mandate after every five years, the social movements do not have such accountability. Social movements are not answerable to the people directly like the political parties. Despite such negative setbacks, political parties have to share the role of opposition with social movements. The role of social movements is not to replace the role of political parties, though they can themselves become political parties, but to fill certain vacuum left vacant by political parties. These social movements may not necessarily have continuity. People’s political consciousness is such that they will always become dissatisfied and new movements will arise. The different political party structures such as the one-party, two-party and multi-party system reflects the kind of democratic structure prevailing. One party system prevailed in the erstwhile Soviet Union and now China. In such a party system, the party plays a more important part. The party is the life-blood of the political system and is more important than the government. In a system of one party structure, opposition is not required because the party which always rules provides everything for the citizens. One-party system however, does not constitute democracy because it does not recognise and does not provide space for dissent and opposition and it is repressive in nature.
Historically, there has been a shift of party composition in India from the pre-independence to post-independence era. In the pre-independence period, there was the Congress and the Muslim League. The Congress with its nationalist ideology stood for unity while the Muslim League stood for division. Till today, the Congress thinks that it is different from other parties because it is a party whose genesis lies in the nationalist movement. Though the Congress has a unique position as a guardian of democracy in India, yet those who believe that democracy is safe only in the hands of the Congress party are wrong.
The two-party system ended with the partition of India during the time of independence. India has evolved into a multi-party system which signals its movement away from the two-party Westminster system. Democracy in this country has responded to the great diversity that it shares. The evolution to a multi-party system is enforced by the family and kinship structure which plays very important role in Indian politics. As a result of the prevalence of the multi-party system, coalition governments cannot be avoided now or in the foreseeable future. One party rule may be possible in some states but will not be easily achieved at the centre. Coalition government is a unique feature of Indian politics which is different from Westminster. Moreover, in the two-party system of England, the possibility of a party that is dislodged from power being re-instated is more common than in the multi-party structure of India. A party which loses power in England will comparatively return to power sooner than one in India. Further, unlike in England, most political parties in India often operate more as factions than institutions. It is difficult to differentiate whether parties operate as factions or institutions. Some political parties have been monopolized by certain families to ensure succession which is a menace for parties as institutions. As for the idea of party-less democracy which have been propagated by Gandhians like J P Narain, Prof. Beteille argues that it becomes a tool for authoritarian government. It amounts to doing away with democracy.
On a question whether democracy really is a rule of the people and whether the aspirations and interests of the people are fulfilled by the present representative democracy, the Professor argues that there cannot be a direct rule by the people. Democracy has to function through a structure of electoral politics. The aspirations and interests of the people are expressed through the electoral process; other than that, there are only vague aspirations and interests which are hardly articulated. Whether that electoral process takes place by means of proportionate representation or a first-past-the-post system, it does not matter much. After all, there is no model which is the only standard model of representation. On the issue of military coup, Beteille holds that it is fortunate that India has so far steered clear from the intervention of the military into the legislation and executive domains of the country as is happening in our neighboring countries like Pakistan, or in Egypt. In the event of a national crisis, the Parliament, the Supreme Court and other political institutions of India stand between the people and the military. And the imposition of emergency should be avoided as much as possible. India should learn from Indira Gandhi who became uneasy with her imposition of emergency. In fine, democracy has been grafted in India and has adjusted to the prevailing conditions of the country. Though India has borrowed its parliamentary democracy from the Westminster model, it has developed a distinct system that is moving away from it. India has evolved away from where it has started. There is plenty of scope for improvement of democracy in India.
(The writer is a student of Political Science, NEHU)