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.