Inclusive democracy is the best bet to achieve socio-economic self-reliance

Our country is blessed with a vibrant democracy, which we owe to the founding fathers of the Constitution and their trust in unlimited power and positive energy of equality, justice, fraternity and liberty – the four great pillars on which we have to build an India that represents our collective dreams and aspirations. Currently the entire nation is gasping in the aura of ensuing general elections, which is perhaps the biggest celebration of democracy in the world. The total number of registered voters in the country, who will be exercising their right to franchise, has been pegged at around 96.8 crore of which 49.7 crore are men and 47.1 crore women. Approximately, 1.8 crore are first-time voters. There are 19.74 crore young voters, and 48,000 voters are trans-genders, while 82 lakh are aged above 85 years and 2.18 lakh voters are centenarians.

The United States of America has around 16 crore voters; Indonesia about 20.4 crore; Pakistan around 12.8 crore and the European Union (EU) has nearly 40 crore voters.

The seeds of democratic governance were sown in India during ancient times with the concept of ‘Sabha’ and ‘Samiti’ where decisions were made collectively by assemblies. Perhaps, our forefathers were avid champions of inclusivity and growing together, a spirit that is the real hallmark of a vibrant democratic set-up.

If one goes by the pages of Indian history, which is certainly not so objective, during the Maurya dynasty, there were palpable elements of democratic governance alongside centralized authority. Under the reign of Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of Maurya dynasty, and his grandson Ashoka the Great, India saw the emergence of a sophisticated administrative system. Many feel that the Mauryan Empire was largely characterized by a centralized monarchy but there were also provisions for democratic principles at the local level. The empire was divided into provinces, each governed by officials appointed by the king. However, at the grassroots level, villages were administered by local councils known as ‘Grama Sabhas’ or ‘Sabhikas’, where matters such as disputes, taxation and local governance were discussed and decided upon collectively by the villagers. This system reflected a form of participatory democracy, where decisions were made through consensus and consultation among the people.

The policy of Dhamma or righteousness as envisioned by Ashoka the Great emphasized moral principles and religious tolerance, thus contributing to a sense of social cohesion and inclusivity within the empire. Though the Mauryan dynasty was primarily characterized by its imperial rule, it also demonstrated elements of decentralized governance and democratic practices at the local level. It was, however, during the colonial period that the modern framework of Indian democracy began to take shape. The Indian National Congress (INC), founded in 1885, played a pivotal role in mobilizing the masses against the colonial rule and calling for self-governance.

So far as the strength of democracy is concerned, scholarly people have a different take. Former US President Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address, delivered during the American Civil War, viewed democracy of the people, by the people, for the people. It certainly encapsulates the core principles of democracy, stressing its basis in popular sovereignty, citizen participation, and the pursuit of the common good. It reinforces the idea that democracy should be a government by and for the people it serves.

Joseph Schumpeter, an acclaimed Austrian economist, argued that democracy’s competitive political process and free market dynamics drive innovation and adaptation, contributing to socio-economic resilience by allowing replacement of outdated practices with new ones.

Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political thinker, historian, and sociologist. in his seminal work ‘Democracy in America’ observed that democratic societies tend to exhibit a robust civil set up characterized by voluntary associations and active citizen participation. This civil society, he argued, plays a crucial role in buffering against socio-economic crises by fostering solidarity, cooperation, and collective action.

Francis Fukuyama, American political scientist and writer, in his book ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ argued that liberal democracy represents the pinnacle of human socio-political development. He suggested that democratic institutions, with their emphasis on pluralism, rule of law, and accountability, are best suited to navigate socio-economic challenges and ensure long-term resilience.

Thus, we see that democracy, despite its flaws, offers a framework that enables societies to adapt, innovate, and withstand socio-economic shocks more effectively than authoritarian alternatives. Despite challenges such as social inequality, religious diversity and regional disparities, we have been able to sustain our democratic institutions through periodic elections, making significant strides in promoting inclusive governance and upholding the principles of liberty, equality, and justice for all its citizens.

However, socio-economic gaps continue to persist, an area where we need to work really very hard. The rich and powerful among us, though numerically in minority, have a dominating presence in the two Houses of Parliament, State Assemblies and municipal bodies.

Our democracy must ensure that every section of society has its say in the decision-making process and thus contributes towards the goal of a resilient and inclusive Viksit Bharat. Democracy must not only empower haves among us but all with a special emphasis on those who have been traditionally deprived of their due share in national resources, opportunities, facilities and privileges.

When a large portion of the population feels marginalized or excluded from the political process, socio-economic disparities widen, exacerbating social divisions and hindering overall economic growth. When people feel their voices aren’t heard and their interests aren’t represented, they may lose their faith in the government.

Lastly, by depriving the majority of people of the benefits of democratic governance and empowerment not only threatens social cohesion and economic stability but also undermines the very principles upon which democracy is built.