He believed that political participation
would help the individual in fashioning his all-round development. Hence Mill
has been described by Macpherson as the propounder of the "developmental
theory of democracy".
Salient Features
1) Man is at the centre of democracy.
Democracy aims at defending and promoting the interests of man. The government
is the instrument for this, the state is not a sanctified entity. It is neither
endowed with any supernatural quality nor invested with any
supreme power unrelated to the realisation of its basic aim of serving the
individuals belonging to it.
2) The government is constitutional, limited
and responsible. It is based upon the consent of the people expressed through
periodic elections which are based upon the principle of universal adult
suffrage. The man is assumed to be rational; he makes rational
choices while casting his vote. The government is not run whimsically according
to the sweet desires of some persons in power. It functions in conformity with
the provisions of the constitution. Because of separation of
powers and check and balance implicit in the constitution itself, the
government is expected not to act illegally and arbitrarily.
The executive is accountable to the
legislature and the members of the latter, sooner or later, are responsible to
the people who regularly elect them at regular intervals. In other words, the
government, because of its responsibility to the people, would
seldom neglect and ignore them. Public opinion is thus highly respected in
democracies.
3) Democracy is the art of reaching
compromise and consensus. It encourages debates, discussions, arguments and
negotiations which help in narrowing down the difference between adversaries
and enable them to reach some compromise. Discussions and
debates are potentially conflict reducers. These contribute towards lessening
tensions, taking away a lot of heat and anger, and prepare the ground for
effecting compromises.
4) Democracy respects fundamental rights; in
particular, the freedom of expression is very highly valued. Any state which
tries to dwarf its men would soon realise that it cannot accomplish any big
things with such dwarfed men, said J.S. Mill.
Davis, to sum up, observes that the liberal theory of
democracy assumes "the existence of rational and active citizens who seek
to realise a generally recognized common good through collective initiation,
discussion and decision of policy questions concerning public affairs, and who
delegate authority to agents (elected government officials) to carry through
the broad decisions reached by the people through majority vote. "He
further says, "participation in the management of public affairs would
serve as a vital means of intellectual, emotional, and moral education leading
towards the full development of the capacities of individual human
beings." According to Peter H. Merkel, the four principles of liberal
democracy are: government by discussion, majority rule, recognition of minority
rights, and constitutional government. The majority should form the government,
but it-Should not ride roughshod over the minority. J. S. Mill evinced keen
interest in the minority. He strongly argued that the views of the minority
should be respected.
Criticisms
1) The classical theory of democracy assumes
that the man is rational. He is capable of determining his vital interests and
the best strategy for promoting them. But the experience suggests that
individuals are often swayed by other considerations which
hardly serve their interests best. They tend to be guided in their political
behaviour by parochial factors like Casteism, Ethnicism, Communalism and
Localism.
2) Democracy is said to be reflecting the
will of the people. A democratic government, in theory, is based upon the
consent of the people. It claims legitimacy because it is formed by the people
through their free choice. "Free choice" of the people
involves some difficulties. Are people really free in a society which is poor,
backward and is characterised by inequality and domination? The political
freedom of the people is often seriously undermined and crippled
by ignorance, poverty and fear. Elections are often won by money, muscle-power
and parochialism. Even in developed countries the democratic process is not
free of these shortcomings and flaws. Thus it is criticised that
the democratic legitimacy derived from "consent" and "free
choice" is more of a myth than of a reality.
3) Democracy is meant to serve the interests
of all. But it is not so easy a game as can be played by all of them. Both the
process and organisation of democracy are quite complex and complicated.
Democracy involves many laws and principles, and operates at
several levels. An ordinary man would find it difficult to grasp all these things
properly and successfully.
The excessive emphasis laid upon the unrestrained
freedom of the individual by the classical liberals was apparently meant to
prevent state intervention in the economic pursuits of the rich. Macpherson has
observed: "Liberal democracy has typically been designed to fit a scheme
of democratic government into a class-divided society; that this fit was not
attempted, either in theory or in practice, until the nineteenth century; and
that, therefore, earlier models and visions of democracy should not be counted
as models of liberal democracy.
Elite Theory
The elite theory states that the society is always
ruled by a minority who are "superior" to others. The earlier elite
theorists like Mosca and Pareto said that the elites were superior to others in
quality. On the other hand, the later elite theorists like C. W. Mills and
Floyd Hunter stated that the so-called superiority of elites was derived from
their family and social backgrounds and the hierarchical organization of the society.
The classical liberal theory truly reflected the needs
of the new middle class of the 18th and 19th centuries during which it emerged.
The new middle class was then fighting against the decaying monarchical and
feudal orders. The bourgeoisie, through democratisation, sought to curb the
feudal control over power structures. Hence the emphasis in classical liberal
theory on the unrestrained freedom of the individual and political equality. By
the 20th century the problems and priorities of the bourgeoisie had greatly
changed. Having strongly entrenched itself in power by banishing the feudal
lords from it, it wanted to monopolise it by preventing other elements of the
society from competing with it for power. The elite theory, like its
predecessor - the classical liberal theory - was developed to serve the
interests of the dominant class, the bourgeoisie. It was designed to
rationalise the existing political order prevailing in the early part of the
20th century -the domination of power-structures by elites.
"Lions" and "Foxes" Circulate
Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), and Gaetano Mosca
(1858-1941), two Italian sociologists were the first to systematically develop
the elite theory. Pareto provided a broad as well as a narrow definition of
elite. His broad definition of elite is: "By elite is meant a small number
of individuals, who in each sphere of activity, have succeeded and arrived at a
higher echelon in the professional hierarchy." According to this
definition there are several elites in each sphere of activity. For example,
there are military elites, political elites, business elites and academic
elites.
In the narrow sense, by elite, he means only the
"governing elite which is that small number of individuals who have
succeeded and who exercise ruling functions politically and socially."
Pareto believes that elites possess superior
psychological attributes than others in the society. Following Machiavelli,
another Italian theorist of eminence, he says that the elites possess
"lion" and/or "fox" qualities. "Lion" qualities
include strength and courage while "fox" qualities comprise
intelligence, shrewdness and cunning.
Pareto observes that elites tend to decay. When one
group of ruling elites, due to indulgence in power and luxury, neglect its
primary duty or fails to cope with the changing times and situations, it is
likely to be replaced by another group of elites. "Lion elites" may
be replaced by "fox elites" and vice versa. Lion elites possess
strength and bravery, but they lack in intelligence and manipulative skill. Fox
elites are cunning and shrewd, but they lack in strength and courage. If both
"lions" and "foxes" are not properly represented in the
elite structure, there is danger to it and it is vulnerable to decadence and
replacement. Pareto has succinctly observed that history is, and always will
be, "a graveyard of aristocracies". He describes this process of
power-shifting from one group to another as "circulation of elites."
Mosca says that in all societies it is the organised
minority which rules over the unorganised majority. To quote him, "In all
societies' two classes of people appear - a class that rules and a class that
is ruled. The first class, always the less numerous, performs all political
functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings,
whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the
first... The domination of an organized minority over the unorganized majority
is inevitable". According to Mosca, elites are distinguished from the
masses by qualities which give them material, intellectual or even moral
superiority. Pareto argues that the qualities of elites are the same in all
societies. On the other hand, Mosca claims that these qualities would differ
from society to society.
Mosca does not have faith in the capacity of masses for
self-government. He asserts that elite rule in any society is inevitable. To
Mosca, democracy was government of the people; it might even be government for
the people, but it could never be government by the people. He was opposed to
the extension of franchise to all sections of people. He wanted it to be
confined to the middle class only. He thus remained "elitist" to the
last.
Some
of the recent elite theorists have sought to explain the elite rule by arguing
that though democracy is a government for the people, it is seldom a government
by the people. The common man, being very much vulnerable to manipulation, is
not expected to be rational in his thinking and action. As a result of his
exposure to strong media campaigning and propaganda offensives by different
agencies, he tends to develop a will which, in reality, is not his own; it is
rather the reflection of the influencing agency. In other words, the so-called
public will is the "manufactured will". In view of this development,
it would not be a great loss, it is argued, if the common man does not have a
voice in the day-to-day functioning of a democratic government. It is enough if
he has some control over the ruling elites by holding them ultimately
accountable through periodic elections. In a democracy, the voter is required
only to elect the leaders, not to decide policies. It is the leaders who will
decide issues and policies. Democracy is there so long as the leaders have
fears that they can be removed from power in the next election if they do not
serve the people. Thus, it is argued, the control by elite is not the negation
of democracy. The elite domination of a democratic system has been
characterised as "democratic elitism." It has been succinctly
observed that the elite theorists regard democracy as "simply a market
mechanism; the voters are the consumers; the politicians are the'entrepreneurs.
Elements
of Elite Theory - All need not be
equally active in democracy. It is enough that some are more active and
involved in the political process than others. In other words, democracy, for
its success, requires the gradation of the political involvement of citizens.
1. Elites
should be drawn from all sections of the people as much as possible.
2. Elites
should not neglect the common people to whom they are accountable at regular
intervals.
3. The
elite structure should be open, and the deserving people from below should be
encouraged and enabled to enter it. Otherwise, it will gradually lose its vitality,
and decay.
4. In
democracy, there should not be too much stress on "ideology". It is
better that the ideological polarisation among political elites/parties is
reduced to the minimum. The "end of ideology" is a recent feature of
democracies. The one ideology to which all of them should be committed is the
maintenance and stability of the system. None of them should see radical change
in it.
5. The
government is a mechanism of mediating between the competing elites and
establishing compromise and consensus among them. It should aim at minimising
conflict among them.
Classical Liberalism Vs Elite Theory
Some significant differences between classical liberal
theory if democracy and the elite theory are stated below:
1. Classical liberalism is people-oriented. It has
great faith in the capacity of the people to properly play their role in the
social and political processes. It views the man as a rational actor capable
enough of making right political choice. Elitists, on the other hand, are
leader-oriented. They have a great deal of confidence in the ability of elites
to deliver goods - to help maintain the system.
2. The classical liberal theory of democracy treats
"common good" and "public opinion" as vital elements of
democracy. But the elite theorists do not accord much importance to these
objectives. According to them it is difficult to define common good, and worse
still, public opinion can be invented and manipulated.
3. The elite theorists value democracy as an agency of
making compromise and consensus by mediating among conflicting elites, and as
an agency of system-maintaining. However, classical liberalist regarded
democracy as an agency of building moral men. They believed that democracy
helped in effecting the all-round development of the man. McPherson has rightly
observed: “The traditional theory of Mill - gave democracy a moral dimension:
it saw democracy as development, as a matter of the improvement of mankind. The
Schumpeter-Dahl axis, on the contrary, treats democracy as a mechanism, the essential
function of which is to maintain equilibrium.
Criticisms
1. The elite theory is anti-democratic in nature. It
has little faith in the people. It pins its hopes on elites. The common man is
devalued, while elites are overvalued.
2. Elitists are primarily concerned with the
maintenance of the stability of the system. They have not much sympathy for any
effort to reform or modify the system. They are thus highly conservative and
even reactionary.
3. Moral man misses in the writings of elite theorists.
For them the utility of the common man lies in its function as the voter,
required to elect ruling elites at regular intervals. The all-round development
of individual is of little concern to elitists.
The Pluralist Theory of Democracy
Both Marxists and elitists hold that powers rest in the
hands of a minority; the majority of the members of the society are excluded
from the power structure. The pluralists, on the other hand, maintain that
powers are not concentrated; these are dispersed. These are shared among all
sections of people primarily through different organizations formed to
articulate their interests. These groups and associations make regular and
intense efforts to influence government policies and decisions. Some of them
are overtly political while many others are potentially so. The latter, though
apparently meant to serve some socio-cultural/economic purposes, are, when need
arises, politically mobilised and activised.
A closer look at the dynamics of political and
semi-political associations would reveal that these are dominated by a small
group of leaders who tend to monopolize powers. As Lipset has observed in
relation to trade unions, leadership tends to be oligarchic. This means that to
a great extent the competition among different organizations for power-sharing
is the competition among the leaders of these organizations. It is thus
apparent that there is a great deal of overlapping between the Dahl-Schumpeter
version of the elite theory, and the pluralist theory of democracy. In the ultimate
analysis it is the elites who dominate political parties and interest groups,
and who seem to be having close links with the ruling elites controlling the
governmental structure.
Elements of Pluralism
1. Powers are fragmented and dispersed. The state is
required to share powers with several political parties, interest groups,
private groups and individuals.
2. Because of the provision of separation of powers,
and check and balance at several points, there is not much possibility of the
rise of dictatorship. Neither any branch of the government nor any other
organization is likely to emerge over-dominant for a long time. These actors
through containing one another would prevent anyone of them having monopoly of
power.
3. Sovereignty is not the exclusive possession of
either the state or any other group or association. It is, in fact, distributed
among them. The sovereignty of the state is limited by the powers of other
actors to contain it.
4. Political organizations and other groups, seeking to
articulate the demands of their members, help in establishing contact between
them and he state. Through their mediation, they help in bridging the distance
between the government and the people. Further, they contribute to improving
the quality of governmental decisions by supplying their skill and interest.
Criticisms
1. Dahl claims to have discovered a plurality of elites
competing with one another for power by examining the making of decisions on
some issues. It is, however, argued by some critics that Dahl has examined only
"safe decisions". In any power structure some crucial issues do not
come for decision-making; these are settled outside the policy-making
structure. The powerful elites bring only those issues to the decision-making
structure on which they are sure of getting favorable decisions or if they are
not to lose much even if the decisions are not up to their satisfaction. Thus
the examination of safe decisions would fail to prove the existence of
pluralist power structures.
2. Pluralists argue that the government is not
decisively controlled by economic elites and it enjoys “autonomy”. The critics
do not reject the contention that the government enjoys some amount of
autonomy. But they argue that it is in the interests of ruling elites including
economic elites that the government should have some amount of autonomy.
Autonomy would help it in dealing effectively and flexibly, with the members of
the subject lass. By making some token concessions it can dissuade them from
making serious challenges to the dominance of ruling elites.
3. Pluralism is criticised on the ground that it
encourages "pressure politics". The interest groups are hardly
expected to rise above their narrow interests and perspectives. Further, in
pursuance of their interests, they in indulge in illegal and unfair practices.
They tend to pressurise the government to favor them even at the expense of the
vital interests of the community/nation. Pressure politics has the potential to
weaken and immobilise the government, and seriously damage the important
interests of the nation.
CONCLUSION:
The preceding discussion of different varieties of the
liberal theory of democracy suggests that in the ultimate analysis it is
primarily the interests of elites which this theory seeks to promote. While its
classical version wanted to further the cause of the new middle class by
containing the intervention of the state on behalf of fading feudalism, its
pluralist version also sought to contain the state intervention and prevent
statism so that the elites, in the name of respective 'organisations and
groups, could prosper, and gain more powers and privileges. The elite theory is
also an attempt to legitimise the rule of elites on the ground of their
superior psychological attributes. Thus a close scrutiny of the liberal theory
of democracy reveals that the common man whose interests it professes to serve
is a great loser in democratic systems. He is used to help elites gain
legitimacy and more powers.
MARXIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY
Marxists, in principle, do not oppose democracy. On the
other hand, they claim that their "democracy" is genuine whereas the
bourgeois democracy is 'fake' and a 'sham'.
Marxists do not regard democracy as a political system.
They view it as a system of values and a form of society. In the latter sense
democracy does not have a final point of achievement. It is' a continuously
growing process. Thus democracy goes on struggling to go beyond itself, in the
process retaining its essence and improvising it further.
As a political system, democracy is a class organism.
It is meant to serve the interests of a particular class. Lenin distinguishes
working class democracy from bourgeois democracy. The latter serves the
interests of the bourgeoisie -a small minority -whereas the former promotes the
interests of the proletariat the vast majority of the society. When socialism -
the transitional phase matures into communism, democracy as a political system
will cease to exist, but democracy as a system of values will flourish. A communist
society is a democratic society because it nourishes democratic values like
socio-economic equality and the absence of exploitation of one class by
another. According to Lefebvre, Marx regards democracy "not as a system
but as a process which comes down essentially to a struggle for democracy. The
latter is never completed because democracy can always be carried forward or
forced back. The purpose of struggle is to go beyond democracy and beyond the
democratic state, to build a society without state power". 16 According to
Marxists, in bourgeois democracy, the state is controlled by the economic
elites-the finance capital. The members of this class, by occupying key posts
in different branches of the power structure, use the government to promote the
interests of their class. Some other Marxists take a slightly different view.
They do not think that the organs of the government are manned by the members
of rich class. They believe that the latter, by preferring to stay outside the
government, dominate policy-making process from behind the scene. They allow
the state some autonomy so that the state can utilise that autonomy to better
serve their interests. It is thus clear that both Marxist view-points -
capitalists controlling the government machinery (a) from within, (b) from
without-point to the same proposition that the government in capitalist
countries is controlled by economic elites who use it to further their own
interests.
Marxists reject the legitimacy of elections in
bourgeois democracies. They argue that political parties in bourgeois states
hardly differ from one another in respect of ideology. The ideologies of all of
them are designed to buttress the interests of rich people. As a result, the
poor people of capitalist countries have little choice. Whichever party they
vote for would help the rich against them.
Marxists further argue that in bourgeois democracies
justice is very expensive. It is only the rich who can get judgments in their
favor. They gave the money to buy justice. By money power and political
influence they can close the eyes of the court to their crimes and other
misdeeds. The poor, even if innocent, would be punished by courts. They have
little leverage vis-a-vis the judiciary. The judiciary, it is contended, is not
impartial. It has got a class character. It is manned by the representatives of
the rich class and, no wonder, derives its interests.
Before we make a critical examination of the Marxist
theory of democracy, we may bring to an end the preceding discussion by quoting
Lenin from his State and Revolution. He said:
The dictatorship of the proletariat - the organization
of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of
suppressing the oppressors - for the first time becomes democracy for the poor,
democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags. The
dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom
of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists.
Criticism
The Marxist theory of democracy has been criticised on
the following grounds.
1. Negation of Democracy: The Liberals
criticise that the socialist democracy is not democracy at all; it is the
opposite of democracy. They argue that democracy is a government of the whole
people of the society. Democracy is not a government of one group to be used by
it against another. But the socialist democracy, which represents the interests
of one class only - though it is the majority group fails to satisfy the main
criterion of democracy mentioned above. The liberals charge that the
dictatorship of proletariat, far from being the democracy for the proletariat,
is a dictatorship over them. In socialist democracy the party bureaucracy
becomes growingly powerful and the common man becomes increasingly alienated from
the system. Sartori describes it as a "dictatorship pure and simple",
while Popper paints it as a "closed society" in which there is
neither freedom nor democracy.2° Benn and Peters have observed: Marxists can
equate the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with"
democracy" because they exclude any but the workers from the
"people" But trtis is not what is meant by the "people" in
the context we have in mind. We should say that a system was just as
undemocratic if it denied people votes because they were rich, as if it denied
them votes because they were poor.
2. Bloody and Heartless: Some minor
differences among them notwithstanding, Marxists, in general, agree that the
socialist revolutions as well as the socialist democracy are predominantly
violent in nature. Lenin advocates the "bloody" overthrow of the
bourgeois government. Excessive emphasis upon violence makes the working men
democracy unacceptable to many. Many cultures in the world either hate violence
or give very low place to it. No wonder, because of its open support to
violence, the Marxist democracy is not welcome in these cultures.
3. Parliamentary Socialism:
Many people believe that socialism, a good goal, can be achieved through
parliamentary peace. One need not resort to violence and revolution for this.
Important reforms with the objective of helping the mass can be pushed through
legislations. The people can make use of elections, pressure groups and other
democratic instruments at their disposal to influence -if necessary; force the
government to adopt "welfare" measures. This is particularly the strong
feeling of the Communist parties of Western Europe who have evolved
"Euro-Communism" to represent their point of view. Some democratic
countries of the third world are also of this opinion. It is important to note
that this view has won support in Moscow at a few points of time. In 1956
Khrushchev, the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, declared that
there are two roads to socialism: one is 'revolution', and the other is 'parliamentary
road'. However, China bitterly attacked Khrushchev for this.
4. Not
a Pure Democracy: Some
revisionists like Bernstein and Kautsky have criticised socialist democracy on
the ground that is not a "pure democracy." Kautsky charged that the
dictatorship of proletariat, established in Russia after the 1917 revolution,
did not grant liberties to citizens. While Bernstein criticised the socialist
democracy of Russia for unnecessarily indulging in violence, Rosa Luxemburg, a
German Marxist, attacked it for its failure to grant freedoms to the press and
people. In her opinion, the dictatorship of proletariat of Russia has become
the dictatorship of some politicians.
CONCLUSION:
The
Marxist democracies practised in Russia, China and other Communist countries,
are showing little respect for political freedoms of individuals. The political
choices, movements and expressions of the latter are severely constrained and
limited. Political power is monopolised by a small minority ruling from above.
The system is characterised by intense centralisation and bureaucratisation.
Political democracy is conspicuous by its absence. However, it seems that in
proletarian democracy there is much more of social and economic equality than
in liberal democracies. In the former, the gap between rich and poor is not
quite wide. It is apparent that in Marxist democracies, the individual
initiative, a valuable factor of economic development, is largely absent. Of
late, the leaders of these systems seem to have realised this deficiency and
are trying to slowly rectify it. The "capitalist reforms" slowly
introduced in China and Russia in recent times is a pointer in this direction.
The atmosphere of freedom and relaxation created in the Soviet Union as a
result of the "Gorbachev experiment" amply illustrates this. The
encouragement given to the private sector and the high incidence of student
activism in China in the post-Mao period are important developments effected in
China's "People's democracy". These developments in Russia and China
suggest that the model of Marxist democracy is likely to adopt and encourage
some innovations which are not in conformity with orthodox Marxism. The
countries concerned are aware of this. But they are perhaps thinking that the
acceptance of small doses of "capitalist" innovations would, in the
long run, make proletarian democracies more stable and secure.
BIBLOIGRAPHY:
1. Marx Karl, Capital volume 1, Moscow
Progress, 1977.
2. George H Sabine and Thomas L Thorson, A
History of Political Theory, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt.Ltd, New
Delhi, 1973.
3. Wanlass C. Lawrence, Gettell’s History of
Political Thought, Surjeet Publications, Delhi, 2001.
4. Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern
Political Thought Vol-I and II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.
5. Arora Prem and Grover Brij, Selected Western
and Indian Political Thinkers, Cosmos Bookhive (P) Ltd, New Delhi, 1998.
6. Sukhbir Singh, History of Political Thought
vol-I and II, Rastogi Publications, Meerut, 2003.
7. Kangle, R.P, Arthashastra of Kautilya, 1960,
Motilal Benarasidass, 1965.
8. Chris Sparks and Stuart Isaacs, Political
Theorists in Context, Routledge, 2004.
9. Jha, Shefali, Western Political Thought:
From Plato to Marx, Pearson Publications.
10. Mukherjee, Subrata, A History Of Political
Thought: Plato To Marx, Prentice-Hall Of India, 2009.
Theories of Democracy: (Liberal and Marxist
Democracy)