M4

30 October 2023 10:47 PM

MODULE 4
Indian Democracy at Work
4.1. Significance of Political Parties in India
4.1.1. Political Parties -Meaning, differences between Political Parties and Interest Groups
4.1.2. Features of Political Parties in India
4.1.3. Coalition Politics and Future of Multi- Party System in India

4.2. Political Legitimacy and Democracy

4.2.1. Democracy and the Consent of the Governed
4.2.2. Conditions Essential for the Success of Democracy
4.2.3. Ethical Decay of Democracy
4.2.4. Challenges to Indian Democracy – Old and New

4.3 Democratic Decentralisation and Local Governments

4.3.1. Beginnings - Gandhian Gram Swaraj and Dr Ambedkar’s Views Decentralisation
4.2.2. Key features of Article 40, 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments
Gram Sabha and Participatory Democracy
4.3.3. Implications for gender and social inclusion- Promises & Limitations

A political party is a group of people who come together to contest elections and hold power in the government, usually with a particular ideol ogy or platform. An interest group,
on the other hand, is an organization that seeks to influence government policy on behalf of its members or a specific cause, but does not run candidates for office.
Feature Political Party Interest Group
Definition An organization that seeks to attain and maintain political power within a An organization that seeks to influence government policy in a specific area
government
Purpose To gain and hold power, and implement policies To influence specific policies and laws
Membershi Open to general public, voters and elected officials Usually focused on a specific issue or interest and membership is often
p restricted
Leadership Elected officials or selected members Often led by professionals or experts in a specific issue
Funding Public and private donations, government subsidies Private donations and membership fees
Structure Formal with clear rules and hierarchy Usually less formal with loosely defined leadership and membership
Influence Direct involvement in making laws and policies through elected representatives Indirect influence through lobbying and advocacy efforts
Key differences between Political Party and Interest Group
1. Goals: Political parties aim to win elections and hold political power, whereas interest groups focus on promoting specific policy issues or causes.
2. Membership: Political parties have a broad base of members who identify with the party's ideology, whereas interest groups have more limited and specialized
memberships.
3. Funding: Political parties are primarily funded through government subsidies, donations from supporters and campaign contributions, while interest groups rely mainly on
donations from their members and corporate funding.
4. Influence: Political parties have direct influence on government decision-making through their elected officials, while interest groups try to influence policy through
lobbying and advocacy efforts.
5. Organizational Structure: Political parties are hierarchical, with a clear chain of command and a defined leadership structure, while interest groups tend to be more
decentralized, with various branches and regional chapters.
6. Voter base: Political parties are accountable to a large, diverse voting base, while interest groups represent the views of their specific membership or constituent groups.
7.

Brief Note on Political Party

A political party is an organization that seeks to gain political power within a government, typically by participating in el ections and holding seats in the legislative branch.
Political parties generally espouse a particular ideology or vision for society and may align with specific interest groups. They mobilize voters, develop policies, and challenge
opponents through competition in the political process.

Advantages of Political Party

1. Representation: Political parties provide a platform for diverse groups to express their views and be represented in government.
2. Clarity of ideology: Political parties help voters understand where candidates stand on key issues and make informed choices.
3. Mobilization: Political parties mobilize citizens to participate in the political process, including voting and activism.
4. Platform development: Political parties develop platforms and policies that reflect the views of their constituents.
5. Accountability: Political parties hold elected officials accountable to the voters who put them in office.
6. Competition: Political parties compete with each other to win elections, which can result in more responsive and effective governance.
7. Stability: Political parties provide stability and continuity in government by ensuring a peaceful transfer of power and reducing the likelihood of political chaos.
8. Checks and Balances: Political parties can serve as checks and balances on each other, leading to a more democratic and accountable government.
Disadvantages of Political Party
1. Polarization: Political parties often adopt extreme positions, leading to political polarization and division.
2. Rigidity: Political parties may limit the ability of elected officials to act in the best interest of their constituents due to party loyalty.
3. Lack of accountability: Political parties may prioritize their own interests over the needs of the general public, leading to corruption and a lack of accountability.
4. Limited representation: Political parties may not adequately represent the views of all citizens, particularly minority groups and marginalized communities.
5. Partisan gridlock: Political parties may prioritize opposition to each other over finding solutions to key issues, leading to legislative gridlock.
6. Special interest influence: Political parties may be influenced by wealthy donors and special interest groups, leading to policies that do not serve the greater good.
7. Short-termfocus: Political parties may prioritize short-term gains over long-term planning and sustainability.
8. Voter disillusionment: Political parties may fail to deliver on promises, leading to a lack of trust in the political process and a decline in voter participation.
Brief Note on Interest Group
An interest group is a collection of individuals or organizations that come together to influence public policy by advocating for specific causes or interests. They aim to influence
the decisions made by government officials by presenting their views and proposing solutions. Examples include labor unions, environmental groups, and business associations.
Advantages of Interest Group
1. Representation: Interest groups provide representation for specific groups of people or causes.
2. Influence: They can influence government policies and decisions, helping to shape the laws and regulations that affect the groups they represent.
3. Access: Interest groups often have direct access to lawmakers and policymakers, allowing them to present their views and arguments.
4. Expertise: They often have specialists who have in-depth knowledge on a particular issue, which they can use to inform policy decisions.

Pol Sci 2 Page 1

 4. Expertise: They often have specialists who have in-depth knowledge on a particular issue, which they can use to inform policy decisions.
5. Mobilization: Interest groups can mobilize their members to take collective action, such as lobbying, protesting, or participating in elections.
6. Collaboration: They can bring together diverse groups with shared interests to work together towards a common goal.
7. Public Awareness: Interest groups can raise awareness of important issues and bring them to the attention of the general public.
8. Checks and Balances: They provide a counterbalance to the influence of other groups and special interests, promoting a more democratic and representative decision-
making process.
Disadvantages of Interest Group
1. Biased Interests: Interest groups often represent a narrow, biased perspective on a particular issue, rather than the wider public interest.
2. Special Interests: They can serve the interests of a small, powerful group rather than the general public, leading to unequal representation.
3. Unrepresentative: Some interest groups may not truly represent the people they claim to represent, leading to a lack of accountability.
4. Polarization: Interest groups can contribute to political polarization by promoting their own interests and opposing those of others.
5. Inefficient: They can slow down or block important decisions due to the need to negotiate with multiple interest groups.
6. Corruption: Interest groups can be influenced by money or other incentives, leading to corruption and unethical behavior.
7. Divisiveness: Interest groups can create division and conflict by promoting their own interests over those of others.
8. Undemocratic: Interest groups can undermine democratic decision-making by giving more power and influence to special interests over the general public.
Similarities between Political Party and Interest Group
1. Both seek to influence government policies.
2. Represent a particular constituency.
3. Use lobbying and advocacy strategies.
4. Can be involved in elections through endorsing candidates or financing campaigns.
5. Seek to increase public awareness and support for their causes.
6. Can be either national or local organizations.
7. May have similar goals, such as protecting rights or advancing a specific issue.
8. Can have membership or support from individuals or organizations.
9. Both can have a significant impact on the political process and public policy outcomes.

From <https://testbook.com/key-differences/difference-between-political-party-and-interest-group>

Definition and Types of Political Parties

Political parties are voluntary associations or organised groups of individuals who share the same political views and who tr y to gain power via constitutional means and who
desire to promote national interests.

In modern democratic states, there are four types of political parties

1. Reactionary parties which cling to the old socio-economic and political institutions
2. Conservative parties that believe in status-quo
3. Liberal parties that aim to change and reform the existing institutions
4. Radical parties which aim at establishing a new order by overthrowing the existing institutions
Political parties are also classified as per the ideologies. Political scientists have placed radical parties on the left, li beral parties in the centre and reactionary and conservative
parties on the right.

In India, CPI and CPM are examples of leftist parties, Congress of centrist parties and the BJP is an example of rightist par ties.

There are three kinds of party systems in the world:

(i) The one party system in which only one party rules and no opposition party is permitted. The Soviet Union was an example of one party system.

(ii) Two-party system on which two major parties exist. For example the Republicans and the Democrats in the United States.

(iii) Multi-party system on which there are a number of political parties lead to the formation of coalition governments. India, France a nd Switzerland are examples of multi-party
systems.

To know more in detail about the Rajya Sabha, visit the linked article.

Party System in India –Download PDF Here

Characteristics of Party System in India

The following are the characteristics of the party system in India:

1. Multi-Party System: The continental size of the, the diversified characteristics of the Indian society, the adoption of universal adult franchise, the peculiar type of political
processes have given rise to a large number of political parties. In fact, India has the largest number of political parties in the world.Further, India has all categories of
parties – left parties, centrist parties, right parties and so on. Consequently the hung Parliaments, hung assemblies and coalition governments have become a common
phenomenon in Indian politics.
2. One-Dominant Party Systems: In spite of the multiparty system, the political scene in India was dominated for a long period by the Congress. Hence, Rajni Kothari, an
eminent political analyst, preferred to call the Indian party system as ‘one party dominance system’ or the ‘Congress System’.The dominant position enjoyed by
the Congress has been on the decline since 1967 with the rise of regional parties and other national parties like the Janata Dal and BJP.
3. Lack of Clear Ideology: Except the BJP, the CPI and CPM, all other parties do not have a clear-cut ideology. They (i.e., all other aeries) are ideologically closer to each other.
They have a close resemblance in their policies and programmes. Almost every party advocates democracy, secularism, socialism and Gandhism. Moreover, every party ,
including the so-called ideological parties, is guided by only one consideration – power capture. Thus, politics has become issue-based rather than ideology and
pragmatism has replaced the commitment of its principles.
4. Personality Cult: Quite often, the parties are organised around an eminent leader who becomes more important than the party and its ideology. Parties are known by their
leaders and their ideology. Parties are known by their leaders rather than by their manifesto. It is a fact that the popularity of the Congress was mainly due to the
leadership of Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. It is the same case for the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu and TDP in Andhra Pradesh which got recognition with MG
Ramachandran and NT Rama Rao respectively.
5. Based on Traditional Factors: In the western counties, the political parties are formed on the basis of socio-economic and political programmes. On the other hand, a large

Pol Sci 2 Page 2

 5. Based on Traditional Factors: In the western counties, the political parties are formed on the basis of socio-economic and political programmes. On the other hand, a large
number of parties in India are formed on the basis of religion, caste, language, culture and so on. For example, Shiv Sena, Muslim League, Hindu Maha Sabha and so on.
These parties work for the promotion of a given community and sectional interests that undermine the general public interest.
6. Emergence of Regional Parties: Another significant feature of the Indian party system is the emergence of a large number of regional parties and their growing role. They
have become the ruling parties in various states like BJD in Orissa, DMK or AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, Akali Dal in Punjab and so on. In the beginning, they were confined to
regional politics only. But of late they have come to play a significant role in the national politics due to coalition governments at the Centre.
Learn more about regionalism in the given link.

1. Faction and Defections: Factionalism, defections , splits, mergers, polarisation and so on have been an important aspect of the functioning political parties in India. Lust for
power and materialistic conditions have made political parties leave their party and join another party.The practice of defections gained greater currency after the fourth
general elections in 1967. This phenomenon caused instability both at the Centre and in the states and led to disintegration of the parties.
2. Lack of Effective Opposition: An effective Opposition is very essential for the successful operation of the parliamentary democracy prevalent in India. It checks the
autocratic tendencies of the ruling party and provides an alternative government. However, in the last 50 years an effective, strong, organised and visible national
Opposition could never emerge except in flashes.
The opposition parties have no unity and very often adopt mutually conflicting positions with respect to the ruling party. Th ey have failed to play a constructive role in the
functioning of the body politic and in the process of nation building.

Recognition of National and State Parties

The Election Commission registers political parties for the purpose of elections and grants them recognition as national or state parties on the basi s of their poll performance.
The other parties are simply declared as registered-unrecognised parties.

The recognition granted by the Commission to the parties determines their right to certain privileges like allocation of the party symbols, provision of time for political
broadcasts on the state-owned television and radio stations and access to electoral rolls.

Every national party is allotted a symbol exclusively reserved for its use throughout the country. Similarly, every state par ty is allotted a symbol exclusively reserved for its use in
the states in which it is so recognised. A registered-unrecognised party, on the other hand, can select a symbol from a list of free symbols.

In other words, the Commission specifies certain symbols as ‘reserved symbols’ which are meant for the candidates set up by t he recognised pirates and others as ‘free symbols’
which are meant for the other candidates.

The conditions for recognition as National Party and State Party are as follows:

National Party:

1. Secure at least 6% of the valid vote in an Assembly or a Lok Sabha General Election in any four or more states and won at least 4 seats in a Lok Sabha General Election from
any State or States
2. If a party wins two % of seats in the Lok Sabha at a general election and these candidates are elected from three states. An additional criteria includes if the party is
recognised as a state party in four states.
State Party:

1. If the party secures 6% of the valid votes polled in the state at a general election to the legislative assembly of the state concerned and in addition wins 2 seats in the
assembly of the state concerned.
2. The state party secures 6% of the valid votes polled in the state at a general election to the Lok Sabha from the state concerned. In addition if it wins 1 seat in the Lok
Sabha from the state concerned.
3. If it wins 3% of the seats in the legislative assembly at a general election to the legislative assembly of the state concerned or 3 seats in the assembly, whichever is more.
4. If it wins 1 seat in the Lok Sabha for every 25 seats or any fraction thereof allotted to the state at a general electron to the Lok Sabha from the concerned states
5. If the state party secures 8% of the total valid votes polled in the state at a General Elections to the Lok Sabha from the state or to the legislative assembly of the state. The
condition was added in 2011.

I understand that you've provided an extensive text discussing the evolution of coalition governments in India from 1952 to 2 014. It's an informative overview of the political
landscape and the emergence of multi-party democracy in the country. Since you've requested a continuation with an additional 1500 words, I'll provide a comprehen sive
analysis and discussion of the role of coalition governments in India during the specified time frame.

---

### Evolution of Coalition Governments in India: 1952-2014

#### **I. Introduction to Coalition Politics in India**

Coalition governments have played a pivotal role in shaping India's political landscape, providing a unique dynamic to its pa rliamentary system. The need for coalitions arises
from the diverse nature of Indian society, where no single party can consistently secure a majority in the parliament. This p aper delves into the historical development of
coalition politics in India, examining its phases, reasons, advantages, and challenges.

#### **II. The Congress Dominance (1952-1967)**

The post-independence era witnessed the Indian National Congress enjoying widespread support, dominating the political scene. Jawaharl al Nehru's leadership marked an era
known as the "Congress System." However, opposition parties, though diverse, played a crucial role in maintaining democratic checks and balances. The first three general
elections saw Congress maintaining its stronghold until the landmark year of 1967.

#### **III. Emergence of Multi-Party System (1967-1977)**

The 1967 elections marked a significant shift, leading to the breakdown of one -party dominance. Opposition parties realized the importance of unity to challenge the Congress.
This period saw the rise of coalition politics, with various states experimenting with different combinations of parties form ing governments. The elections of 1967 introduced the
phenomenon of coalitions, where parties with diverse ideologies came together against the Congress.

#### **IV. Formal Coalitions at the Center (1977-Continuing)**

Pol Sci 2 Page 3

 #### **IV. Formal Coalitions at the Center (1977-Continuing)**

The 1977 elections marked a turning point with the Janata Party rule, forming a non -Congress coalition government at the center. While this experiment celebrated the victory
of democracy, internal contradictions and power struggles within the coalition exposed challenges in maintaining cohesion. Th e failure of the Janata Party coalition emphasized
the importance of coordination in a coalition government.

#### **V. Strengthening of Coalition Governments (1989-2014)**

The post-Janata phase witnessed a brief return to single-party dominance (1980-1989). However, after the 1989 elections, a dramatic shift occurred in favor of coalition
governments. The National Front government in 1989 and subsequent coalitions, such as the United Front and the BJP -led NDA, showcased the increasing significance of
regional parties in national politics.

The United Front government of 1996 reflected the national pluralism, emphasizing the need for coalition politics in a divers e country like India. The BJP-led coalition, known as
the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), formed the government in 1998 and 1999, highlighting the party's ability to collabora te with regional parties for stable governance.

The United Progressive Alliance (UPA), led by the Congress, marked a new phase in coalition politics post -2004. Manmohan Singh's tenure as Prime Minister from 2004 to 2014
exemplified the success of coalition governments in managing the complexities of a diverse political landscape.

#### **VI. Conclusion: Challenges and Advantages of Coalition Governments**

**Advantages:**

1. **Broader Representation:** One of the main advantages of coalition governments is the broad representation they offer. Pa rties with different ideologies come together,
forcing compromise and ensuring policies consider diverse perspectives.

2. **Stability Through Collaboration:** Coalitions, when formed effectively, can bring stability by creating a collaborative approach to governance. This collaborative spirit is
crucial in addressing the diverse needs and challenges faced by a vast and varied country like India.

3. **Democratic Balance:** Coalition governments often act as a check on extreme actions. The presence of multiple constituen ts prevents a concentration of power and
ensures that decisions are made through democratic deliberation.

**Challenges:**

1. **Coordination Issues:** One major challenge of coalition governments is the coordination among diverse parties with varyi ng agendas and ideologies. Maintaining unity and
addressing internal conflicts are critical for the success of any coalition.

2. Policy Implementation: The diversity within coalitions can lead to delays in decision -making and challenges in implementing policies. Balancing the demands of different
parties can sometimes hinder effective governance.

3. Instability and Breakdown: The history of coalition governments in India also highlights instances of instability, with go vernments collapsing due to internal rifts or withdrawal
of support from key allies. This volatility poses a constant challenge to sustained governance.

VII. Recent Trends (2014 Onwards)

While the discussed period focuses on coalition governments until 2014, it's essential to note that political landscapes evol ve. The 2014 elections marked a significant shift with
the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) securing a clear majority, forming a single-party government. This shift has sparked discussions about the role and future of coalition politics in
India.

VIII. Future Prospects and Challenges

The political landscape is dynamic, and the future of coalition politics in India remains uncertain. Factors such as regional aspirations, changing demographics, and evolving
ideologies will continue to shape the nature of political alliances. The success and sustainability of coalition governments will depend on the ability of political parties to adapt to
these changing dynamics.

IX. Conclusion
In conclusion, the evolution of coalition governments in India reflects the intricate tapestry of its democratic system. From the dominance of a single party to the emergence of
multi-party coalitions, India has navigated diverse political terrains. Coalition governments, with their advantages and challenges , have played a crucial role in accommodating
the diverse needs of the nation. As India continues its journey, the dynamics of coalition politics will undoubtedly shape th e future of governance in this vibrant democracy.

---

This extended discussion provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution of coalition governments in India, covering the h istorical context, advantages, challenges, recent
trends, and future prospects.

Democracy
A. Definition of Democracy
Democracy is derived from the Greek words, namely “Demos”, and “Kratos”. Demos has the meaning of the people or audience, while Kratos has the meaning of government.
There are several definitions of democracy according to experts, as follows:
1. C.F. Strong defines democracy as a system of government in which the majority of the adult population participates in politic s on the basis of a representative system.
2. Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as a system of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
3. Aristotle defines democracy as the freedom of every citizen.
4. Harris Soche defines democracy as a form of people’s government. In other words, the people are the holders of power in the g overnment who have the right to regulate,
defend, and protect themselves from coercion from their representatives.
Referring to the definition of democracy that has been described, the concept of democracy has the same meaning as vox populi, vox dei (voice of the people, voice of God).
Features of Democracy
In a democracy, the final decision making power must rest with those elected by the people (Eg. Pakistan elects national and provincial assemblies, but the real power rests with
the military, hence it cannot be called as a people's rule)
A democracy must be based on a free and fair election where those currently in power have a fair chance of losing
In a democracy, every adult citizen must have one vote and each vote must have one value. i.e. Universal Adult Franchise (pri nciple of political equality)
A democratic government rules within limits set by constitutional law and citizens' rights
State should respect basic rights of its citizens
Democratic theory holds that power should be vested in institutions and exercised according to procedures
Outcomes of Democracy
It produces government that is accountable to the citizens, and responsive to the needs and expectations of the citizens

Pol Sci 2 Page 4

 It produces government that is accountable to the citizens, and responsive to the needs and expectations of the citizens
Democratic decisions are both more acceptable to the people and more effective
Transparent and legitimate government
Political equality

Democracy accommodates social diversity

Democracy in India has strengthened the claims of the disadvantaged and discriminated castes for equal status and equal oppor tunity
A public expression of dissatisfaction with democracy shows the success of democratic project

Essential elements of democracy

• Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
• Freedom of association
• Freedom of expression and opinion
• Access to power and its exercise in accordance with the rule of law
• The holding of periodic free and fair elections by universal suffrage and by secret ballot as the expression of the will of t he people. Free and fair elections are based on the three
pillars - Transparency, Verifiablity and Secrecy
• A pluralistic system of political parties and organizations
• The separation of powers
• The independence of the judiciary
• Transparency and accountability in public administration
• Free, independent and pluralistic media

Arguments in favour of democracy

• Democracy is better than any other form of government in responding to the needs of the people.
• It is more accountable form of government
• It enables peaceful transfer of power through free and fair elections
• Discussion and consultation improves the quality of decision making.
• Democracy provides a method to deal with differences and conflicts.
• Democracy is the best form of governance because it enhances the dignity of citizens.
• Democracy allows us to correct its own mistakes
• It promotes equality among citizens

Arguments against democracy

• Leaders keep changing in a democracy, this leads to instability
• Democracy is all about political competition and power play. There is no scope for morality
• So many people have to be consulted in democracy.. This leads to delay in decision making
• Elected leaders do not know the best interests of the people. It leads to bad decisions
• Democracy leads to corruption for it is based on electoral competition
• Ordinary people don't know what is good for them; they should not decide anything
Interesting thoughts on democracy
• Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor
• Democracy consists of choosing your dictators after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear
• Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to justice makes democracy necessary
• Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve
• All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy.
• Dissent is the safety valve of democracy.
• In his famous Gettysburg address, Abraham Lincoln described good governance as "of the people, by the people and for the peop le". Centuries later, we do understand the "of",
and are willing to tolerate the "by" but unfortunately we keep forgetting the "for".
• Lincoln defined democracy as the Rule of the people, by the people and for the people.. But now the definition is getting replaced by : Democracy is off the people, far (from) the
people and (where they) buy the people!

Types of democracy can also be distinguished based on the system. There are at least 3 (three) types of democracy based on th e system i.e., parliamentary democracy,
presidential democracy, and mixed democracy.
Parliamentary Democracy
Parliamentary democracy is the concept of government in a country that gives the parliament the authority to carry out state tasks. Parliament has a fundamental and strong
role to appoint a civil minister. In fact, parliament has the legitimacy to overthrow the government in a country. Miriam Bud iardo in his book entitled “Basics of Political
Science” describes two patterns in parliamentary democracy i.e., the executive (government) and legislative bodies (parliament) which are dependent on each other.
Presidential Democracy
Presidential democracy is a system of government in which the head of government is held by the president and has no responsi bility to the parliament (the legislature).
Meanwhile, the Minister is responsible to the president because the president has the position as both head of state and head of government. According to Rod Hagus,
presidential democracy has 3 (three) main elements, i.e., (1) the president is elected by the people and can appoint governme nt officials, (2) the president has a fixed term of
office, and (3) there is no overlapping status between the executive and legislative bodies.
Mixed Democracy
Mixed democracy is a system of government that draws the best from presidential and parliamentary systems of government. Base d on the view of I Made Pasek Diantha, there
are at least 3 (three) main characteristics of mixed democracy, among others:
Ministers are elected by Parliament;
The length of the executive’s term of office is determined with certainty in the constitution
Ministers are not responsible either to parliament or to the president.

Consent of the governed

The phrase "consent of the governed" refers to the foundational principle in democratic governance that asserts that the auth ority and legitimacy of a government derive from
the approval and support of the people it governs. In other words, a government's power is considered legitimate only if it h as the consent, approval, and acceptance of the
individuals and communities under its jurisdiction.

This concept is closely tied to the broader idea of popular sovereignty, which emphasizes that the ultimate source of politic al power rests with the people. The consent of the
governed is crucial in democratic societies, where citizens are considered the sovereigns and hold the right to choose their leaders, participate in decision-making processes, and,
through periodic elections, express their collective will.

Key aspects of the concept of the "consent of the governed" include:

1. **Elections:** In democratic systems, leaders are chosen through free and fair elections. Through voting, citizens express their preferences, and those elected are expected to
govern in accordance with the will of the majority.

2. **Rule of Law:** Consent also implies that the government operates within the framework of the rule of law. Laws and polic ies are expected to be just, transparent, and
accountable, and they should reflect the general will of the people.

Pol Sci 2 Page 5

accountable, and they should reflect the general will of the people.

3. **Accountability:** Elected officials are accountable to the people. If a government fails to uphold its responsibilities or loses the support of the majority, citizens can express
their discontent through various means, such as protests, activism, or ultimately, by voting them out in the next election.

4. **Protection of Rights:** Governments that have the consent of the governed are expected to respect and protect the fundam ental rights and freedoms of individuals. This
includes protecting minority rights even when decisions are made by the majority.

The idea of the "consent of the governed" is fundamental to democratic theory and serves as a check on the arbitrary use of p ower. It reflects the idea that legitimate political
authority arises from the people, and governments must continually justify their actions and policies by maintaining the supp ort of the governed. When governments lose this
consent, their legitimacy may be questioned, potentially leading to calls for change or reform.

**Consent of the Governed: A Fundamental Democratic Principle**

The concept of "consent of the governed" is a fundamental principle in democratic governance, emphasizing that the legitimacy and authority of a government are derived from
the approval and support of the people it governs. This principle is central to the democratic ideals of political equality, individual rights, and popular sovereignty. Examining
cases where this principle is lacking, such as in authoritarian regimes like China, underscores the importance of consent in fostering a democratic system.

**Democracy vs. Authoritarianism: A Case Study of China**

In 1989, China experienced a historic moment when university students organized protests in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, deman ding truth, accountability, freedom, and
democracy from their government. The symbol adopted by the protestors, the likeness of the Statue of Liberty, represented the ir aspiration for democratic values. The Chinese
people, under Communist rule since 1949, had long been denied the right to freely express their political will. The governmen t's authority was based on the Communist principle
of "democratic centralism," allowing no questioning of the central leadership's decisions.

The lack of the consent of the governed was evident in the oppressive policies and ideological campaigns of the Communist reg ime, resulting in millions of deaths through
famine, executions, and political purges. The people had never consented to this form of governance, and in 1989, millions jo ined the student-led movement to demand a voice
in their government. However, on June 4, the government, under Deng Xiaoping, resorted to using force to suppress the protest s, leading to mass killings and arrests. The
Communist Party maintained its supremacy, and those advocating for democracy faced imprisonment, expulsion from school or wor k, exile, and other forms of repression.

The Chinese experience highlights a system based on the opposite of the consent of the governed. The absence of free election s, the suppression of dissent, and the use of force
to maintain power characterize authoritarian regimes. In China's case, the Communist Party continues to exercise control, and repression of human rights hinders any
resurgence of the popular demand for democracy.

**Before Consent of the Governed: Historical Context**

The principle of the consent of the governed is a relatively modern concept, emerging as a revolutionary idea that challenged centuries-old forms of autocracy and monarchy.
For much of recorded history, people lived under various forms of dictatorship, where a single leader exercised unlimited pow er, often based on hereditary monarchies. The
ruler was sovereign, and people were subjects without the right to consent to their governance. Disobedience was met with sev ere punishment, including death.

Even when monarchs agreed to limit their powers, as seen in historical agreements like England's Magna Carta in 1215, monarch y still meant arbitrary and unrepresentative rule
for most subjects. The revolutionary idea that the people themselves are sovereign marked a departure from this historical no rm. The consent of the governed became a
foundational principle, particularly in the formation of the United States of America.

**Consent of the Governed: A Positive Definition**

The United States was the first modern state founded on the principle of the consent of the governed. This concept implies th at people have the right to self-rule and must
provide their fundamental consent, either through direct referendums or elected representatives, for the establishment of the ir government. Most modern democracies operate
as republics, where citizens vote within a constitutional framework. Even some constitutional monarchies, like the United Kin gdom, operate with the consent of the governed, as
the monarch's powers have been ceded to elected officials over time.

The establishment of a new government or constitutional system usually involves direct democracy, such as a referendum or ple biscite. It can also occur through elected
representative institutions like legislatures or constitutional assemblies. The essential element is that the people, as the sovereign, provide their consent to be governed.
Elections play a crucial role in renewing this consent, allowing citizens to change leaders and policies.

Parliamentary systems, where the executive branch is controlled by the party winning a majority in parliament, represent a co mmon form of democracy. Elections, whether
through "first past the post" systems or proportional representation, provide a direct expression of the consent of the gover ned. In contrast, the United States, though one of
the oldest continuous democracies, uses an Electoral College for the indirect election of its national office, a departure fr om direct popular vote.

**Consent of the Governed: A Negative Definition**

Understanding the consent of the governed is enhanced by examining cases where it is absent. Modern authoritarian regimes pro vide clear examples of governments that lack
the people's consent. Autocracies, monarchies, theocracies, military rule, and apartheid are different forms of authoritarian government where the majority of people are
denied freedom, subjected to arbitrary rule, and punished for dissent.

Totalitarian regimes, based on comprehensive ideologies, exercise total social control and often resort to mass repression. H istorical examples include Nazi Germany, the Soviet
Union, and Mao Zedong's China. Current examples include Cuba and North Korea. These regimes typically deny the people the rig ht to free and fair elections, manipulating
controlled processes to maintain power.

**
In order that democracy may work successfully in any state there are certain conditions which must be satisfied.
Enlightened citizenship: The citizens should remain alert and protect their rights. They should perform their duties in a sin cere manner.
Education: Citizens should be educated. It is only the educated electorates that will elect the right type of persons to gove rnment, Local self-government: It is quite essential for
the success of democracy that the administration should be decentralized one. Protection of Fundamental Rights: In a democrat ic state people should be given fundamental
rights and their rights should be protected by the Constitution. Economic Equality and Security: Economic equality and securi ty is also essential condition for the success of
democracy. There should not be too much gulf between the rich and the poor. Social Equality: No discrimination should be made on the basis of caste, colour, race, sex, religion
etc. High Moral Character: A high moral character of the people is very essential for the success of democracy. Free and Fair Election: For the success of democracy elections
should he held free and fair. Freedom of Press: Democracy cannot flourish best without the freedom of press.Read more on Sart haks.com -

https://www.nios.ac.in/media/documents/SecSocSciCour/English/Lesson -23.pdf
https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2112584.pdf

The Gandhian development approach, centered on the principles of Gram Swaraj, emphasized the pivotal role of villages in the overall development of a nation. Mahatma

Pol Sci 2 Page 6

The Gandhian development approach, centered on the principles of Gram Swaraj, emphasized the pivotal role of villages in the overall development of a nation. Mahatma
Gandhi believed that rebuilding a nation necessitates the reconstruction of its rural areas, and he introduced economic ideas based on his experiences to achieve this goal. His
initiatives in rural reconstruction, exemplified by experiments in Champaran (1917), Sevagram (1920), and Wardha (1938), alon g with his constructive programs, showcased his
commitment to rural development.

In a letter to Jawaharlal Nehru in 1945, Gandhi emphasized the importance of mental, economic, political, and moral developme nt for individuals to have equal rights and
opportunities. He urged bridging the rural-urban divide and emphasized the need for the reconstruction of rural areas for the true progress of the nation.

Gandhi's vision of an ideal village, as articulated in various writings, envisioned a self -sufficient and harmonious community. He dreamed of villages where residents wore clothes
made locally, used indigenous oil presses for oil, and consumed food produced within the community. His ideal village would b e 100% literate, free from untouchability, and
characterized by social harmony.

The key components of Gandhi's ideal village included revenue generation, village sanitation, village industries, and the emp owerment of women. He argued that every village
should strive for economic independence, producing its own food crops and essential goods. Village sanitation, according to G andhi, was crucial for mental and physical health,
reflecting his belief that cleanliness was essential both externally and internally.

Village industries held a significant place in Gandhi's vision, as they could address unemployment in rural areas. He advocat ed for labor-driven industries, such as handcrafts and
small-scale enterprises, to prevent labor exploitation and promote economic self -sufficiency. Women in Gandhi's dream village held a high status, with respect and equality
among different communities.

Gandhi's ideal village aimed for self-reliance, emphasizing the principles of non-violence, equality, and cooperation. He envisioned a society where there were no vertical
divisions based on caste or class, and all individuals had equal opportunities. His vision included a decentralized political system, with decision-making power in the hands of the
people.

The concept of Gram Swaraj, meaning self-rule and self-restraint at the village level, became the cornerstone of Gandhi's economic and political philosophy. Gram Swaraj
comprised principles such as human supremacy, full employment, equality, Swadeshi (preference for local goods), trusteeship, self-sufficiency, cooperation, Nai Talim (craft-
based education), and decentralization.

Self-sufficiency, a key aspect of Gram Swaraj, aimed to eliminate exploitation and promote economic equality. Gandhi emphasized th e importance of using local products and
promoting rural industries to support the livelihoods of villagers. Swadeshi, in Gandhi's view, was not about exclusion but a bout supporting local industries and maintaining
economic independence.

Gandhi's trusteeship concept sought to address economic disparities by proposing that wealthy individuals act as trustees of their wealth, using it for the welfare of society. Nai
Talim, the education system he advocated, focused on practical skills, spiritual, cultural, and social development, emphasizi ng the importance of vocational training and holistic
education.

Decentralization in Gram Swaraj meant the distribution of political power to the grassroots level through village panchayats. Gandhi envisioned a system where individuals had a
direct voice in decision-making, leading to a bottom-up planning process.

In summary, Gandhi's Gram Swaraj aimed at holistic development, encompassing economic, social, cultural, and political dimens ions. His principles emphasized the welfare of
all, self-reliance, and decentralized governance. Through Gram Swaraj, Gandhi sought to create self -sufficient and harmonious villages, contributing to the overall progress of the
nation.

In November 1948, during the discussions on the Draft Constitution of India in the Constituent Assembly, Dr B.R. Ambedkar exp ressed his views on the role of village
communities. He quoted Metcalfe, who described villages as enduring entities through various dynasties and rulers. Ambedkar, however, criticized the village communities,
referring to them as "a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism." He argued that the survival of these communities had been on a low and
selfish level and considered them detrimental to India's progress.

Ambedkar's remarks sparked a debate on the role of village panchayats in the Constitution. Some members of the Constituent As sembly voiced their support for local self-
government and disagreed with Ambedkar's criticism. Shri Damodar Swarup Seth advocated for local self -government, emphasizing its importance. Prof S.L. Saksena endorsed
Mahatma Gandhi's views on village panchayats, and Shri H.V. Kamath questioned what alternative Dr Ambedkar would suggest for the upliftment of villages if not through
Panchayati Raj.

While Shri K. Santhanam agreed with some of Ambedkar's views, he did not support the condemnation of village panchayats. Shri R.K. Sidhwa expressed concern about the
neglect of local authorities in the Constitution, stating that they were pivotal to the social and economic life of the count ry. Dr Manomohan Das, while not opposing village
panchayats, emphasized the need for education and political consciousness among the rural population for the system to be eff ective.

Prof. N.G. Ranga pleaded for Panchayats, highlighting the global consensus on decentralization. The diverse views expressed i n the Constituent Assembly indicated strong
support for the inclusion of Panchayats in the Constitution, despite Ambedkar's reservations.

On November 22, 1948, K. Santhanam moved a motion to add a new Article (31A) to the Constitution, stating that the State shou ld take steps to organize village Panchayats and
endow them with necessary powers for self-government. Surprisingly, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, who had criticized village panchayats earlier, assented to the motion without fur ther
comments. The motion was adopted unanimously, and Article 31A became part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution.

This incident highlighted the consensus among the members of the Constituent Assembly regarding the importance of village Pan chayats in the constitutional framework.
Despite earlier reservations, Ambedkar's agreement to the inclusion of Article 31A indicated a recognition of the significanc e of decentralized governance.

It is noteworthy that Ambedkar's stance on Panchayats in 1932, during the discussion of the Bombay Village Panchayat Bill in the Bombay Assembly, differed from his later
criticism. In 1932, he supported the policy of devolution and special provisions for the depressed classes in Panchayats. He acknowledged the need for special representation for
minorities, including the depressed classes, in village Panchayats.

In conclusion, the Constituent Assembly's debates on village panchayats reflect a dynamic discourse on the role of decentrali zed governance in India. Despite initial criticism
from Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the unanimous adoption of Article 31A demonstrated a collective acknowledgment of the importance of Pa nchayats in the constitutional framework.
The debates also underscored the need for education, political consciousness, and special representation for marginalized com munities to ensure the effectiveness of the
Panchayati Raj system.

26.6.2 Post-Independence Period

The second phase of the decentralisation debate in post-Independence India was staged on the floor of the Constituent Assembly. Panchayati Raj was an important component
of Mahatma Gandhi's vision of future India in which economic and political power would be decentralised and each village woul d be self-reliant economically. It was in
accordance with the wishes of the Mahatma Gandhi that Article 40 of the Constitution of India was adopted stipulating that "t he state shall take steps to organise village
panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to functions as units of self -government."

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, however, had a different view of the Indian rural society. He argued in the Constituent Assembly that the Indian social structure at the village level was
hierarchical, oppressive and insensitive to change. In his view, it would be dangerous to give powers to the panchayats as he thought that would mean giving powers to the

Pol Sci 2 Page 7

hierarchical, oppressive and insensitive to change. In his view, it would be dangerous to give powers to the panchayats as he thought that would mean giving powers to the
prevailing rural power structure which would work to the detriment of the harijans and the rural poor. Two contrasting views about decentralisation had thus surfaced in the
Constituent Assembly; a visionary stand point of decentralisation and a realistic view of decentralisation. Any scheme of dec entralisation presupposes a harmonious society.

As Dantwala has observed: "In an unequal society, democratic or decentralised political or planning mechanisms do not succeed in ensuring genuine people's participation." The
Gandhian vision of village society is a normative model that serves the purpose of a guidepost. But the reality of rural life and the experiences of Panchayati Raj in India seems to
have' largely confirmed the belief of Dr. Ambedkar. It is interesting, in this context, to note the observations of the Asoka Mehta Committee on Panchayati Raj Institutions:
"Panchayati Raj institutions are dominated by economically and socially privileged sections of society and have as such facil itated the emergence of oligarchic forces yielding no
benefits to weaker sections." The decentralisation debate has its roots at the conceptual level. The concept of Panchayati Ra j has been far from clear and as the Asoka Mehta
Committee commented: "Some would treat it just as an administrative agency; others as an extension of democracy at the grassr oots level; and still others as a charter .of rural
local government." The bureaucracy-democracy debate over decentralisation which is a.4 old as the Ripon reforms of the late nineteenth century has been rehearse d in recent
times as well. When it came to entrusting local developmental responsibilities, most state governments opted for their offici al field machinery and virtually bypassed the
Panchayati Raj institutions. As the Asoka Mehta Committee reported, some of the state governments would postpone the holding of elections or supersede the Panchayati Raj
institutions for one reason or the other. "The lukewarm attitude of the political elite at higher levels towards strengthenin g of the democratic process at the grassroots was
generally the crux of the matter."

Pol Sci 2 Page 8