Considering the ethics of freedom in democracy
The term ‘democracy’ was first
used in the fifth century BC by the Greek historian Herodotus in the sense of
‘rule by the people’ . This term is derived from a Greek words: demos, meaning
‘the people’, and kratien, meaning ‘to rule’. At Gettysburg, Lincoln, who began
his address with the now well-known phrase ‘Four score and seven years ago ,’
reminded the assembled crowd of the Founding Fathers, vision, which established
a nation that was ‘dedicated to the proposition that all men are created
equal.’ In his speech ,Lincoln gave us the greatest definition of democracy
when he called it the government ‘of the people, by the people, for the
people.’
James Bryce is one of the greatest
champions of democracy and its most sympathetic critic. In his two monumental
works, The American Commonwealth (1893) and Modern Democracies (1921) he
treated democracy as a form of government . He defined democracy as ‘the the
rule of people expressing their sovereign will through the votes’ . Ultimately
he reduced it to ‘the rule of the majority’ . Bryce finds the justification of
of democracy in the concept of relativity,that is by comparing its merits and
demerits with other forms of government. The test of government, according to
Bryce is the welfare of the people. Thus the standard of of merit of any form
of government can be judged by the adequacy with which it performs the chief
functions of government: the protection from internal and external enemies, the
securing of justice, efficient administration of common affairs, and the
bestowal of aid to the individual citizens in their several occupations.
History shows that these functions can be carried out by democracies as well as
any other form of government. But democracy has an additional merit in that it
stimulates men to self-education, because participation by the people in
government activities opens wider horizons for the individual and tends to
broaden his interests. This participation is the essence of democracy. It is
not ‘actual rule by the people’. The people in a democracy exercise their
authority in two ways: (a) they determine the ends towards which their
government shall aim; and (b) watch over those into whose hands they have
placed the actual power of administration.
Bryce does not claim that
democracy offers a panacea for all ills of society. Yet he prefers it to other
forms of government because it has brought about considerable improvement in
the standard of governance. It has not led to world brotherhood, nor has it
dignified and purified politics, but it has provided for better governance in
comparison to the past.
Bryce has enumerated six
outstanding evils of the existing form of democracy. (i)the power of money
interests to prevent administration or legislation; (ii) the tendency to allow
politics to become a trade, entered for gain and not for service; (iii)
extravagance; (iv) the failure to evaluate properly the skilled man and to
abuse the doctrine of equality; (v) parity politics; and (vi) the tendency of
politicians to play for votes. However Bryce points out, the first three of
these evils are common to other forms of government also- they are not specific
evils of democracy, but they are by no means insurmountable. Democracy has
closed some of the old channels of evil; it has opened some new ones; but it
has not increased the stream.
Major problems of democracy
include self-interest and irresponsibility of power. Democracy has two powerful
weapons to fight against these evils; (a) law, and (b) opinion. The weapon of
opinion is a peculiar safeguard; no other form of government provides for it.
Steady urbanisation in large democracies and the consequent rise of large
labour groups has complicated the problem of democracy. The future of democracy
depends upon development of human wisdom. While no other government gives to
the citizen as does a democracy, at the same time no other government demands
so much . Bryce concludes his account of democracy with an optimistic note.
Freedom : the asset of democracy becomes a burden if the state and the citizens
do not judiciously utilise it. Sometimes state also needs to change its
attitude from a soft state to a hard state when the question of sovereignty and
integrity of the country arises. The unethical use of freedom always damages
democracy . Recently it has been noticed that the Indian democracy has become a
crowd of separatists. The monopolisation
of the freedom of speech has been taken into granted by the unpatriotic
people. The privileges of democracy persuade separatists to renounce their pipe
dreams. Its only due to the soft attitude of state and misuse of democracy that
these things are growing rapidly and Kashmir problem is misused by unpatriotic
people like Geelani, Masarat and so on .
Sometimes state and democracy have to adopt ‘ Lion and Fox diplomacy’ to tackle national integrity and soverign
ethics.
Indiscipline, disorder, secessionistic
desires, unbalanced insistence on one’s rights, uncontrolled dissent, in
reality, lead to the erosion of democratic principles. Though democracy prides
itself on the freedom it gives but democracy would die if unpatriotic people
start misusing their freedom. It becomes necessary to curb the freedom of such
unpatriotic citizens who are dangerous to the sovereignty and integrity of the
country otherwise it would be disastrous for the unity of our nation and its
social fabric.
For the success of democracy it is
necessary to maintain balance between rights and duties of both government and
citizens and to ensure that the privileges of democracy are not its weakness
but its strength. Modern state and democracy also need to renew its work
culture. The last but not the least the success of any democracy depends upon
the human wisdom. The Kashmir dispute needs
to be discussed on a bilateral basis alone and the government should not allow
Kashmir separatists to misuse the privileges of democracy. There is need of a constructive and conclusive debate
on ARTICLE 370 also.
No comments:
Post a Comment