DEMOCRACY AS GOVERNMENT

BY DISCUSSION AND CONSENT

Y. SRIRAMAMURTY, M. A. (Hons.)

Lecturer in History, Andhra University, Waltair

The chief argument for Parliamentary government is that results are obtained by discussion between the divergent interests, and are imposed by consent–a method which produces a better average of humanity that the most scientific of despotisms.

–A. F. POLLARD

The Meaning of Democracy

Democracy is one of the most perplexing concepts of political science. It has been variously described and interpreted–as a way of life, as a form of government, and as a method of arriving at political decisions. Some take it to mean a social force, an ethical concept or a political ideal. Others insist that it is simply and solely a form of government. It is a particular form of political and social organisation in which every individual is free to take part in the various phases of group activity, and in which group .policy is ultimately determined by the will of the whole people.

For the purposes of the present work democracy is considered mainly as a method or process of arriving at political decisions and of taking political action.

As an Ideal Society

As an ideal or aspiration, democracy postulates an egalitarian society resting on the principles of equality and liberty. All forms of exploitation and privilege are repudiated. Every member is free to realise his aspirations and share in the moral responsibility to his community. His worth is recognised, and he is assured that his point of view, when it is good, finds expression in the common life.

So envisaged, democracy still remains an aspiration. It may take a long time before it can be realised in a system of institutions in a political community.

As a Form of Government

As a form of government, democracy relates primarily to the structure of political organisation. Literally, the term means government by the people. Power shall be in the hands of the whole people, not of a single man or of a governing class.

Only a people’s government can be trusted to govern for the benefit of the common man. Oligarchs and dictators rule in their own interests. They cannot be trusted to govern in the interest of the people. People, when they try to govern themselves, do it better. Common men possess sufficient commonsense to govern well.

In a pure or direct democracy, the people themselves rule. One honest citizen is deemed qualified as any other for the work of government. No special training is necessary for it. In a city like ancient Athens, Magistrates were appointed by lot. Every citizen personally attended the meetings of the assembly and took his share in governance.

Government by public assembly of all the citizens, or Direct Democracy, is not possible in the big States of the present day. The citizen can now only act through his agent or representative.

Modern democracy is Indirect or Representative Democracy. The people no longer rule directly. They remain the ultimate source of authority, and exercise a supreme control over the administration. This control is necessarily less direct.

Representative Democracy may be either Parliamentary or presidential. The difference between them is the difference in the organisation of the government. Under a Parliamentary Government, the people have the right to choose representatives from whose ranks rulers are selected. They may remove the rulers by refusing to re-elect them as representatives.

For this purpose, the appropriate machinery of election and representation should have to be devised. The citizens should freely choose their representatives, and through them those who govern them. They should freely and boldly criticise the actions of the rulers, and obstruct them if they are displeased with their policy. They should make their voice count in the making of that policy; and compel the rulers to bow to their will.

Of all forms of government, democratic government is evidently the most difficult to secure. It has to maintain and scrupulously protect a right that can be exercised even against itself. Government lives by what consent it can secure. It has to persuade the people that what it proposes to do is for their own good. Through such persuasion, it should gain their consent.

Political decisions are arrived at, and actions taken, not by the rulers themselves in their Superior wisdom, but in consultation with the people or their representatives.

As a Political Method

Democracy is thus not merely a social ideal, and not even merely a form of government. It is essentially a method or process of government by which decisions are made and actions taken. It is government by discussion and consent; government by conference in contrast to government by authority; government by the consent of the governed in contrast to government by obedience or violence. It depends upon the public discussion of political affairs and admits that they can be so discussed. It is a political method by which the citizen is enabled to discuss with others all matters affecting the good of the community as a whole, and through such discussion, a full and free as possible, to reach voluntary agreement. In practice, it resolves itself into continuous search for common agreement and action, through free debate and compromise.

Discussion and Consent

Government by discussion and consent depends on mutual interchange and criticism of ideas and policies, and on the common and agreed choice of the idea which finally emerges from such mutual exchange and criticism.

There cannot be common discussion without full freedom of thought, speech and action. The mere recognition of the necessity of discussion of any matter is a tacit admission that it cannot be settled by mere established rule and fixed custom. There is implied, too, the idea that when once any subject is put up for discussion, it is no longer accepted as infallible. It is subject to free choice and deliberation.

Free and open discussion, moreover, breeds toleration. History teaches us that it is so learned. A people which can endure continued discussion learns thereby to practise toleration. There must always be a readiness to examine the worth of any new idea without prejudice and without bigotry.

If national policies and measures are not imposed from above by an autocratic government, but are subjected to the interplay, of free and public criticism, and only so approved and adopted, then they stimulate civic sense of the people, and make them public spirited.

Government by discussion, then, is of incalculable benefit. It enables men to see what is the common good, and confers upon them, through constant practice, with intellect sufficient for such perception. And, in as much as all discussion is for a decision, it enables men not merely to see the common good, but also do the good that they see.

Above all, government by discussion is admirably suited when there are different and conflicting points of view. Discussion implies division and difference, or there can be no need for discussion. Division, indeed, as absolutely necessary for discussion; to abolish it, is to abolish discussion; and to abolish discussion, is to close the mind to those influences that liberate and elevate.

Conflicting interests, however, have to be subordinated to the idea of the common good; or they may destroy the sense of community. Government by discussion may break down if un-reconciled differences are also held to be irreconcilable differences.

An obstinate difference is not necessarily an irreconcilable difference. It may only cost more mental strain to resolve it.

Government by discussion should lead to government by consent. Only then will representative government become also responsible government.

The nature of the government depends upon the basis of consent. An autocratic government, too, may claim to be government by consent. A Napoleon may assert that his government is an autocracy of the plebiscite. Or a Hitler may describe his dictatorship as emergent democracy. A Stalin may similarly claim a popular basis for his rule. Dictatorial States in modern times, be they Fascist or Proletariat, appear to be based on some sort of consent. They are government by consent, whatever the nature of the consent might be.

Consent, again, may be “willing” consent or “unwilling” consent. “Unwilling” consent is consent, notwithstanding its source, that is, secured by force or intimidation. The formal consensus of the people may be secured by terrorist methods! They may vote as they are asked to vote. Physical force may not be openly used, but disguised, behind the mechanism of voting. Nevertheless it is force in the last resort.

There may be other factors than force influencing consent. When a citizen gives his formal and outward consent to what the government proposes, there may be many motives acting upon him. He finds other citizens around him supporting the government, and he floats with the current. If he does not do as others do, he may be regarded as a bad or unpatriotic citizen. He may even be subjected to social boycott.

When we are therefore speaking of government by consent, we have to make our meaning clear. We are thinking only of consent freely and voluntarily given. A government that has such consent for its basis is a true democracy.

Democracy, so conceived, converts the rulers into the servants of the people through the mechanism of representation. Representative government is made to depend upon the periodically renewed consent of the people. The people may ratify accomplished facts or through a fresh vote give a new mandate to the rulers who should interpret the new will and obey it.

The success of this method of government depends upon the mechanisms devised through which adequate and free discussion and consent can be had in all its stages–the Party, Electorate, Parliament and Cabinet.

Basic Conditions

Certain essential conditions must prevail. The people should be politically homogeneous. There may be racial, religious or other differences, but on all political issues that are normally expected to arise, they must be capable of common aims and aspirations.

There must be, that is to say, a willingness to persuade and an openness to persuasion. This is possible if people are free from inherited prejudices which cloud judgment, and prevent mutual understanding and sympathy. While one is prepared to defend and maintain his own point of view, there must be a readiness to hear others, and give them an opportunity to convince him. There must be the recognition that there are many sides to a question.

All discussion should be absolutely free and public. Everyone should be enabled to participate in it. No ones voice should be stiffled or his conscience coerced.

Above all, if discussion is not to be futile, it must reach agreement by compromise. Every avenue of agreement should be patiently explored. When a decision is at long last taken after a free and full discussion, all those who have taken part should give their “consent” to it.

There may be many things in which people may disagree, but there must be a final adjustment and compromise in fundamentals. If there is a common agreement to seek agreement, the final issue need never be despaired of.

Back