Democracy and Development

In western countries, the notion of democracy evolved out of recognizing the individual rights of liberty. This form of democracy is called ‘liberal democracy’. India has a different past – one which has led to the realization of a ‘collective identity’ which is more prominent than the ‘individual identity’ of its citizens. This has resulted from our collective efforts to gain freedom from the Colonial administration which discriminated against Indians. The demand of equal treatment was always there. Indians resisted the British government by a variety of methods – Constitutional methods as used by the ‘Moderates’, Extremism and Violence as used by the ‘Extremists’ and Non-Violent methods of Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience as used by the ‘masses’. The most successful was the non-violent methods as they were mass movements. It was realized back then that the masses are the strongest force of opposition and the voice of the poor is not inferior or weaker than the rich and the rights of the elites are not dearer than the rights of the deprived. Thus, we internalized the idea of democracy with universal suffrage and the value of fraternity along with a natural realization of the right to equality. The right to liberty was also being felt necessary over the course of the freedom struggle as there were various restrictions imposed by the Britishers on the Indians. We have thus understood and internalized the idea of equality, liberty and fraternity as a triad and not as individual concepts. To quote the great Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, ‘…They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy…Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things…’ Inspired by the French Constitution which formally incorporates the idea of 'equality, liberty and fraternity' as an ideal, which they inculcated during the course of their transition from monarchy to democracy, this idea was also included formally in the Indian Constitution.

Taking a different route to understanding the above idea, we can make the following observation. Our independence came with partition and the emergence of princely states which had to be integrated into the nation. The national leaders, therefore, could not allow any secessionist tendencies to become malignant. This had led our Constitution framers to frame a Constitution which stood for the integrity of the nation. Thus, the Constitution of India recognizes India as a ‘Union of States’ and not a ‘Confederation of States’. This means that India is not a result of a voluntary agreement among various states to come together to establish a nation state. All the states are integral to the ‘Indian Union’. The Constitution also gives a single citizenship to all. There is no concept of dual citizenship for the citizens of India as there exist in United States which is a ‘federation’ and gives a national as well as a state citizenship to every citizen. This political difference between a ‘Federation’ and a ‘Union’ gives rise to a different manifestation of the concept of ‘liberal democracy’ – one to which India subscribes. We believe in the sacred notions of ‘equality, liberty and fraternity’ but as a trinity – none is more sacrosanct than any of the others.

Due to individual rights being protected strongly, liberal democracy naturally favors capitalism and advocates a capitalist economy for development. But India had to work for the upliftment of the economic, political and social conditions of the Indians. A large proportion of Indians was trapped in poverty and was also illiterate. These conditions of inequality hardly allowed them to recognize and enjoy the social rights such as that of ‘right to liberty’. Hence, ‘Individual Liberty’ was largely an elitist demand whereas ‘collective good’ was in the interest of the vast majority of Indians who barely managed to live from hand to mouth. After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the erstwhile Soviet Union made great progress following the ideology of ‘Socialism’. The model of Socialist economy was gaining popularity and Indian leaders were not untouched by the international developments. Leaders like Jawahar Lal Nehru and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose were very enthusiastic about the model of Socialist economy and thus India drew upon the idea of a ‘welfare state’ from the erstwhile Soviet Union. The Great Depression of 1929 also exposed the fragility of the ‘laissez-faire’ economic system in controlling big recessionary tendencies as and when they occur in the market. Outright Capitalism thus would have meant that market forces would decide the path of economic development.  Moreover, capitalism is inherently exclusive in nature. It excludes consumers who do not have purchasing power and producers who do not have the capacity to withstand competition. Hence, India decided to pursue the goal of ‘collective good’ rather than the model of outright capitalism. The Indian model can be described as ‘Social Democracy’ in which government intervention in the social and economic fronts are justified to bridge the inequalities and create just conditions in the society but remaining within a liberal democratic polity. Capital goods, public infrastructure, defense manufacturing and atomic energy was kept under government monopoly following a long-term perspective and small-scale industries for consumer goods were kept for private investments under the surveillance of government licensing.

The success of a developmental model always depends on the efficiency of the implementation of the theoretical idea. This ultimately depends on the state of governance which is a particular way of implementation of the polity of the state. There can be various models of governance itself. Each can be judged as good or bad depending on the procedures involved or the outcomes attained. A democratic setup is run under a constitution whose effectiveness depends on a balanced institutional design. The institutions of governance are legislature, executive and judiciary. Put simply, it is the appropriate separation of powers among the various institutions of governance, that more than anything else decides the effectiveness of the constitutional machinery. Governance in any form of polity requires a bureaucratic setup. Thus, it is the efficiency of the bureaucracy that decides whether the governance is good or bad. If we compare the models of capitalism and socialism, the governance in a socialist setup is heavily dependent on the methods of checks and control whereas capitalism is naturally meant to eliminate restraints. This implies that socialism ideally carries with itself huge bureaucratic machinery. On the other hand, capitalism can be sustained with minimal bureaucracy. India, by adopting a model of ‘Social Democracy’ lent itself a large bureaucratic system of governance and its usual lacunae. Hence, despite having great foresight and intentions of the national leaders, India continues to be in the category of ‘developing nations’ though great achievements cannot be overlooked.

It is important to understand that democracy is a political concept, often acquiring a social overtone whereas development has largely been understood as an economic objective. This notion of development is also a matter of debate as the overwhelming weight given to ‘economic development’ in the description of ‘overall development’ is largely a materialistic viewpoint propounded by the West. This idea is now being increasingly challenged by the non-Western countries like Bhutan and the United Nations has also recognized the social and political dimensions of development. Nevertheless, exercise of analyzing the journeys of different countries to their objectives of achieving economic development is not able to furnish a neat and decisive proportionality between democracy and development. But, democracy is a clear preference over authoritarianism due to its political and social implications. Democracy is a way of self-governance. It facilitates pursuance of the individual developmental aspirations within the greater objective of the development of the nation. A democratic decision carries with itself the sanction of the people. Thus, the ‘procedures established by law’ or procedures established by following ‘due process of law’ have wider acceptance whereas a non-democratic decision cannot claim to have the approval of the people. Often, the kind of rights available to the people matters more to a society than the level of economic development itself since it reflects the ideals which the society cherishes and it highlights the social and political condition of the society. Hence, democracy has a strong moral acceptance and is a preferred mode of polity irrespective of the pace of development it offers to the society. Moreover, due to the increased realization of the fact that development not just comprises of economic development, that it has social and political elements too, democracy is widely hailed as the best form of polity and that it leads to development following a path that is acceptable to the people. Notwithstanding the wide acceptance of democracy automatically making it a form of good governance, the a-priori qualification manages to sustain and attest itself largely pursuant to the efficiency of the bureaucratic system. Thus, democracy and development are related to each other, with the latter to be understood as its broader version preferably. This proviso to the above attestation can be arguably justified citing the apprehensions of many scholars including democrats that democracy might not be the most efficient mode of polity for achieving economic development. But it is undoubtedly the most accepted form due to its social, political and moral legitimacy and that economic development is not the only kind of development that a society aspires to achieve. Holistic development is possible only within a substantive democratic system.

                                                                             By - Abhijeet Roy