UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL THEORY- MODULE-III

{Concepts and Theories of Democracy, Meaning and Definition of democracy, Forms of Democracy,
Contemporary and Recent theories of Democracy- Elitist Theory: Mosca, Pareto, Civil Society}

DEMOCRACY: Meaning and Definitions

The political aspect of democracy emphasises everyone's share in the government; its economic
aspect demands abolition of exploitation; and its social aspect seeks elimination of all distinctions. A rather
conservative definition of democracy is good given by Professor Dicey: "Democracy is a form of
government in which the governing body is comparatively a large fraction of the entire nation." Profferser
Bryce hints at a more liberalised definition of democracy: ―Democracy is that form of government in which
the ruling power of the State is vested not in a particular class or classes but in the members of the
community as a whole." Maclver`s definition of democracy; highlighting the representative system; says
that it is not as much the way of governing as is" a way of determining who shall rule and how."

Summaries the following major characteristics in a democratic polity:

1. That all should govern in the sense that all should be involved in legislating; in deciding on general
policy; in applying laws; and in governmental administration.

2. That there is a need for people's participation in crucial decision-making; that is to say; in deciding
general laws and matter of general laws and matters of general policy.

3. That the rulers should be accountable to the ruled; they should; in other words; be obligated to justify their
actions to the ruled and be removed by the ruled.

4. That the rulers should be accountable to the representative of the ruled.

5. That the rulers should be chosen by the ruled.

6. That the rulers should be chosen by the representative of the ruled.

7. That the rulers should act in the interests of the ruled.

It is possible to give a few general indicators which sum up the totality of the meaning of
democracy:

(a) Democracy is community; it is more than "one person; one vote‖; it is the sense of awareness which
allows a consensus to be maintained. Democracy is not majority; and if it is so; it become the tyranny of
majority. Consensus makes the out-voted feel that they are part of the whole; the community.

(b) Democracy is empowering; for it enabled the individual to exercise control over his. Individual life; and
acting together with others; it enables the community to exercise control over the decision of its collective
life.

(c) Democracy is accountability. Where accountability lacks; the elected system becomes Nothing short of
an elected dictatorship. Those elected; as rulers; must be accountable to their electorable.

(d) Democracy is the effective representative of the electorate. It is not only the people's will; it is also their
concerns in the corridors of power. It is not simply to delegate for the political party; slavishly following its
policy; it is the expression of the policy of the people.[

The features that distinguish democracy from other forms of government ( monarchy; oligarchy;
military regime ; dictatorship; etc.) are the consent of the people; control over the rulers; and the
accountability of the rulers towards the ruled; only democracy had these characteristics which are missing in
the other forms of government. Neither monarchy nor oligarchy and nor any form of dictatorship admit the
democratic values of equality; Liberty and fraternity. The attitudes of flexibility and openness; of tolerance
and of accommodation are the virtue of democratic polity and no other forms of government has even a
shade of these virtues. Democracy is no dogma like dictatorship; it is no hereditary rule like monarchy; it is
no hierarchical system like any oligarchy. Democracy is a belief that the Human Nature is essentially good;
that a human being is a master of his/her destiny; and that human power is capable of attaining all possible
heights. Democracy is (while other forms of governments are not) self-corrective; self-educative; and-
always- evolving.

Characteristics

Democracy is more than just a set of specific government institutions; it rests upon a well -
understood group of values, attitudes, and practices - all of which may take different forms and expressions
among cultures and societies around the world. Democracies rest upon fundamental principles, not uniform
practices.
Core Democratic Characteristics
Democracy is government in which power and civic responsibility are exercised by all adult citizens,
directly, or through their freely elected representatives.
Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule and individual rights.
Democracies guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralize government to
regional and local levels, understanding that all levels of government must be as accessible and responsive
to the people as possible.
Democracies understand that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human rights as
freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal protection under law; and the opportunity to organize and
participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society.
Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to citizens of voting age. Citizens in a
democracy have not only rights, but also the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn,
protects their rights and freedoms.
Democratic societies are committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation, and compromise. In the
words of Mahatma Gandhi, Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true
democratic spirit.
Democracy – {Models/Forms}

In order to have a clearer idea of the growth of democracy, it would be instructive, if not informative, to
give a summary of different models of democracy as stated by David Held (Models of Democracy).

1. Classical Democracy; In a small city- state and in slave economy, citizen, though limited, enjoy
equality among themselves and participate directly in legislative and judicial functions. There is a
provision for open assemblies with executives directly elected, by lot or by rotation -assembly’s
powers include all common affairs.
2. Protective Democracy; Politically better organized and existing in a society of patriarchal chiefs, in
this model of democracy, citizens need protection from the rulers and from one another. It is a
system where the rulers rule in the interests of the citizens only in name; in actuality they interfere in
total governance. The model is protective because it protects
 The ruled from the arbitrariness of the rulers,
 The rulers from the infringement in one-another’s sphere,
 The whole legal system from those who violate the rules.
3. Radical Model of Developmental Democracy
 (i) Radical Model of Developmental Democracy; The system visualizes small, non-industrial
communities with a society of independent producers where men are made free from work
and politics. The citizens in this model enjoy political and economic equality; no one masters
the other; all enjoy equal freedoms, legislative powers with directly elected legislative bodies,
and executive with ―magistrates‖, either appointed or elected directly or chosen by lot.
(ii) Developmental Democracy; The system visualizes an independent civil society with a laissez
faire state supported by competitive market economy; private ownership of means of
production existing alongside the community or cooperative forms of ownership. In this
model, participation in political life is regarded necessary for protection of individual
interests, and development of informed, committed, and developing citizenry. There is
popular sovereignty with universal franchise along with proportional system of
representation; the government is representative; the system of checks and balances exist in
order to avoid absolutism.
4. Direct Democracy and the End of Politics; This system visualizes classless society with the working
class coming victorious against the bourgeoisie and where private property is abolished and market
economy is destroyed. It aims at achieving freedom and free development for all, ensuring complete
political and economic equality and providing equal opportunities for all according to their abilities.
Public affairs are regulated by communes; all officials are elected and, therefore, can be recalled;
economy is planned; and public affairs are collectively governed.
5. Competitive Elitist Democracy; The system visualizes industrial society with competitive groups
competing with one another for power and benefit. The electorate is poorly informed and therefore,
is politically almost apathetic. In this model, the elite is reelected because it is skilled and is,
therefore, capable of making decisions: political and non- political. The essential features of such
model of democracy are:
(a) Parliamentary government with a strong executive or presidential government with an alert
legislature:
(b) Competition between groups and political parties
(c) Dominance of party politics; and
(d) Well- trained bureaucracy.
6. Pluralist Democracy; It visualises the existence of numerous communities in the society with their
own culture, basis, strength, and objectives and each attempting to achieve something for its own
group. There exist active citizenry along with numerous passive bodies of citizens with full political
participation. This model encourages government by minorities generally, prevents the development
of powerful factions and hence, has almost unresponsive state. The essential features of such a
model are:
(a) freedoms and liberties are available;
(b) The device of checks and balances is put in place in order to keep legislature, executive, and
judiciary in their respective domains;
(c) The presence of competitive electoral system is ensured
(d) The coexistence of diverse range and sometimes overlapping interest groups seeking political
influence is ensured
(e) The law and the Constitution are respected
(f) The state, instead of being impartial, seeks to attain its own sectional interests.
7. Legal Democracy; The system visualises effective political leadership, guided by liberal principles:
role of bureaucracy and interest groups is minimised. The essential features of such a model are:
(a) A state that works on the basis of Constitution;
(b) Rule of law prevails over those of men;
(c) Free-market society is ensured;
 (d) A state with minimal functions and maximal individual autonomy is created.
8. Participatory Democracy; The system visualises a perfect and just society with material resources
available to everyone and also an open order where informed decisions are ensured to each. This
model ensures:
(i) An equal right to self-development;
(ii) Developing a sense of political efficacy;
(iii) Concern for collective problems; and
(iv) Contribution to the formation of a knowledgeable citizenry.

The essential features of such a model are:

(a) Direct people’s participation in each institution of society;

(b) Party leadership is made accountable to party membership;
(c) An open institutional system is maintained to ensure the possibility of experimenting with all
political forms.
9. Democratic Autonomy; The system visualises the availability of an open information, ensuring
informed decisions in all public affairs, setting of the government’s priorities with extensive market
regulation of goods and labour, and minimizing of unaccountable power centres in public and private
life. This model expects individuals to be free and equal in the determination of the conditions of
their own life; guarantees equal rights and demands equal obligations. The essential features of this
model in respect of the institution of state are:
(a) Autonomy enshrined in the Constitution;
(b) Competitive party system;
(c) Central and local administrative services internally organized according to the principle of direct
participation.

In respect of society, the key features of such a model are:

(a) Existence of diverse institutions and groups;

(b) Self-managing enterprise;
(c) Community services( education, health, etc.) internally organized on the principle of direct
participation;
(d) Private and voluntary enterprises to help promote diversity and innovation.

The Elitist Theory of Democracy

The background of the theory

The elitist theory of democracy is an amalgamation of two opposing, rather conflicting strands:
elitism and democracy. Elitism implies the rule of the few, whereas democracy, in its direct form, means the
rule of all. The elitist theory of democracy is not elitist in so far as it claims to be democratic; it is not
democratic in so far as it traces its roots in elitism. The elitists, notably Vilfredo Pareto (1848- 1927) and
Gaetano Mosca (1858- 1941), both Italians, and Robert Michels (1876-1936), a German, never found
democracy as a viable proposition. Their arguments are democracy in the sense of popular exercise of power
and peoples’ participation in society’s public affairs cannot in practice, be realized; power is, and has always
remained the privilege of the dominating few; democratic system is impossible and impracticable. The
elitist, therefore, accept the view that democracy is a device that marks the harsh reality of elite rule and that
history is nothing but the graveyard of oligarchies – or what Michels declared as ―the iron law of oligarchy‖.
The classical elite theorists such as Pareto, Mosca, Michels together with the present-day elitists such
as C. Wright Mills(1916-62), Schumpeter, Mannheim, Sartori oppose the classical form of democracy as the
direct rule of the people themselves. Mosca’s words still serve an authoritative statement of the elite theory.
―In all societies- two classes of people appear: a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class,
always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolises power, and enjoys the advantages
that power brings, whereas the second, the numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first…‖ In other
words, the elitists hold the view that it is always the few who have ruled the many; the elite that rules the
masses. Michels puts forth the elite argument by talking about ―the political immaturity of the mass‖, ―the
organic weakness of the mass‖, ―the need which the mass feels the guidance‖, ―the apathy of the masses and
their need for guidance‖. The elitist conclusion is : as the masses are incompetent, so there arises the need of
the leaders; as the masses are politically immature, so the idea of mass sovereignty is always a myth; as the
masses are apathetic, so they are not political; as the masses are disorganized, so they are irrational; and as
the masses are irrational and manipulable, so there are possibilities of demagogic leaders destroying
democracy and then turning it to fascism.
The ―democracy‖ theorists have been skeptical about elitism as have been the elitists about classical
democracy. Each knows its merits as also its weaknesses. The elitists know how practical they are, and how
undemocratic they are at the same time. Similarly, the ―democracy‖ theorists know how great servants of the
people they are, and how impracticable they are at the same time. The fusion of one into the other produces
a form of government which is called ―elitist theory of democracy‖, ―democratic elitism‖, ―competitive
theory of democracy‖, ―plebiscitary elitism‖ as Max Weber would have called it. The necessity of the
growing industrial society during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries necessitated the need of one by the
other. Summing up the idea of democratic elitism, Schwarzmantel (Structure of Power,1987) says: ― The
fact that masses have a choice between different elites, satisfies all the requirements of a democratic system.
Organization implies oligarchy, as Michels asserted; democracy needs leadership. In this sense, the elite-
mass distinction is preserved and the analysis remains in the elitist tradition. On the other hand, it is a
necessary and sufficient condition for a democratic system that, at stated intervals, the masses decide which
elite is to rule‖.

The Theory Explained-

Joseph schumpeter( capitalism; socialisam and Democracy; 1943) may rightly be called the most
influential proponent of the elistist theory of democracy. He attacks democracy by saying that there is no
Such thing as "the will of the people"; that the masses being ill-informed do not formulated the agneda of
politics; that the masses being ill-informed do not formulate the agenda of politics; that the political issues
are always raised; articulated; and debated by the leaders; and that initiative in politics issues are always
raised; articulated; and bottom to top. When the masses elect the leaders or a particular Elite; the
government is formed. In Such a situation; schumpeter says; the leaders should be free and autonomous to
formulate and Carry out policies of the government as composed by the people. The democratic elements;
in a situation like this; is preserved in

(a) periodic elections of the leaders by the masses and

(b) in the accountability of the leaders towards the electorate.
The elistist element is preserved in
(a) enough autonomy of the leaders to formulate the policies and
(b) enough freedom to execute them.
The elistist View of democracy may be summed up as Weber once described in a situation like this: "
In a democracy; people choose a leader in whom they trust. Then the chosen leaders says; ' now shut up
and obey me.' people and party are then no longer free to interfere with his business... Later the people can
sit in judgement. If thr leaders has made mistakes- to the gallows with him".For an order of democratic
elitism; schumpeter insists on the following conditions:

(i) The caliber of politicians must be high.

(ii) competition between rival leaders ( and parties) must take place but within the prescribed
norms.
(iii) There has to be a well- trained independent bureaucracy to aid and advise politicians.
(iv) Excessive criticism of government on all issues be permitted.
(V) A political culture capable of tolerating differences of opinion is guaranteed.

In a democratic elitism; the following features should constitute a border framework of the elistist
theory of democracy:

(i) The elite's unflinching faith in democratic Norms. It needs to realise that it possesses power as long
as the electorate wants it.
(ii) The establishment of the Elite-masses contact is the only basis of the elistist democracy.
(iii) Non-interference of the masses ij elite's business: in the formulation of policies and in the conduct of
administration.
(iv) The elite's capabilities and experience in political and public issues are a matter beyond any doubt.
(v) Effective and active competition among the groups- constant and always continuing.
(vi) circulation of elite from among the masses
(iii) The Theory’s Evaluation

The elite theory of democracy has the following inherent limitations:

1. The theory is no longer democratic if by democracy we mean a system where there is a substantial
amount of popular power and involvement of the citizens. In this sort of democracy the masses only
produce a government, they do not sustain it.
2. The elite theory of democracy does ensure a measure of responsiveness by the leaders to the led, but
democracy, in its essence, is not just confined to responsiveness, nor is it limited to checking and
controlling the executive. Democracy implies people’s participation at each level of governance,
from initiating a legislative proposal to vetoing the other.
3. The elitist thesis that masses, in general, need not interfere in elite’s public affairs and insistence that
the politicians may keep ―get on with the job‖ attitude are not compatible with classical judgment on
their rulers. Real democracy is not only descriptive in the sense of being a way of electing the
governors, but is normative in the sense of being a way of judging the ruler and the existing power
system.
4. Democratic elitism cuts out from democratic theory its very heart-the idea of participation.
Schwarzmental writers: ―it (democratic elitism) take a purely static view accepting the features of
present day mass society fixed for ever instead of envisaging a process that would transcend the
elite-mass dichotomy. The stability of the existing order is , thus, made the chief value and
democratic involvement then appears to threaten that value‖
5. The democratic elitism alienates the ruled from the rulers. Despite the fact that the ruled can exercise
control over the rules, it does not imply that the ruled control the rulers. All the agencies and devices,
through which the masses can possibly control the rulers, remain under the control of the rule. The
distance between the ruled and the rulers keep widening.
6. Democratic elitism is more elastic than democratic. The fact remains that the rulers-the elite-remain
a class in themselves .As such, the theory is more elite-oriented and its democratic convictions are
both formal and imaginary.
7. The elitist theory of democracy is anti- liberal for it does not recognize the individual as a rational
being. It is anti-socialist for it has a theory of political democracy and his has, in fact, no theory of
socioeconomic democracy.
8. The elastic theory limits democracy only to ―governance‖ level.
 9. In terms of progress, the elite theory of democracy is a step backward. It has removed from its
essence, the moral content of democracy, a feature the classical theory of democracy—democratic
humanism—was replaced by the elitist with what they made-democratic mechanism. The elitist
theory of democracy is retrievessive. Macpherson writes: ―democracy is reduced from a humanistic
aspiration to a market equilibrium society‖

The strength of the elitist theory of democracy lies in fact that effective political power has always,
in all societies and in all ages, remained in the hands of the few – a select minority. It also lies in the fact
that much a system of democracy has, in reality, worked effectively well in western political system, that
any alternative of democracy could not and has, in fact, not worked, and that the socialist model as
against the elitist one, has proved infeasible.

Civil Society

In contemporary discourse, the term 'civil society' is used in two senses. In one sense, civil society
comprises the social institutions like school, church and peer groups of citizens which serve as structures of
legitimation of the state. These instituions largely lend support to the state. This meaning of civil society
corresponds to Gramsci's view of its role in sustaining the capitalist system. In the second sense, civil
society stands for a set of public interest organizations set up by some conscious citizens which make
various demands on the state or launch social movements to mobilize ordinary citizens on the way to social
reform. The state must respond promptly to their demands in order to ensure smooth functioning of society.
The role of civil society in this sense has assumed special significance in recent years.
Present-day concept of civil society closely corresponds to Tocqueville's view on the role of
'intermediate voluntary associations'. Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-59), a French philosopher, in his
celebrated work Democracy in America (1835- 40), argued that with the dissolution of aristocracy in Europe
an alternative for the pluralist dispersion of power was urgently needed. In the medieval Europe, there were
three centres of power : Clergy, Nobility and Commoners. Of these, Clergy and Nobility enjoyed substantial
powers in their respective fields.
Commoners could also make their voice heard at the decision-making level because of their large
numbers. But with the coming of democracy, old centres of power had been destroyed. Power was now
concentrating in the hands of majority. This led to the danger of tyranny of majority.
In order to protect the freedom of citizens, Tocqueville suggested that a vigorous system of voluntary
associations could act as counterweights to the state power. They could crystallize and publicize opinions
and interests which would otherwise go unheard. Moreover, these associations could stimulate collective
self-help rather than reliance on state initiative. They could draw people into cooperative ventures, breaking
down their social isolation and making them aware of their wider social responsibilities. They could function
as 'schools of democracy', instilling habits of civic virtue and public spirit into their members. In short, these
associations would serve as an effective instrument of defence of individual liberty and encourage close
cooperation between the citizens to solve their common problems. Tocqueville was an ardent champion of
freedom of association. He earnestly hoped that free political parties and a free press would prove to be most
effective among these voluntary associations. In the contemporary context, various interest groups and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) could be added to this list.
Civil society is now regarded as an important organ of democratic society. It includes a wide range
of associations and social movements which provide ample opportunities to the citizens to develop their
capacities and express their varying interests and diverse identities. It creates an atmosphere where the
citizens are able to enjoy some level of autonomy or independence from government control or influence. It
promotes a moral sense of obligation among the citizens and motivates them to participate in civic causes. It
discourages their dependence on the government for the solution of their common problems. Thus it serves
as the true source of democratization.
In recent political discourse, the concept of civil society has been further refined. Jean L. Cohen and
Andrew Arato, in their essay Civil Society and Political Theory (1992), have defined civil society as an area
of public activity distinct from both the state and the market. This area involves a range of groups and
associations, including families. In this sense, civil society is regarded to be essential for a healthy
democratic society. It permits participation and communicative interaction of individuals. Cohen and Arato
have argued that this field of social life is designed to supplement the political institutions of representative
democracy rather than serve as a replacement thereof.
Paul Hirst, a British academic, in Associative Democracy: New Forms of Economic and Social
Governance (1994), has visualized civil society as a set of voluntary associations which would be the
primary bases of democracy. He has evolved a model of democracy in which self-governing associations
would perform public functions. This arrangement would not only reduce the burden on the central state, but
also curtail its power. According to this scheme, the associations of civil society would only supplement the
representative democracy rather than replace it. However, the goals of democracy would be achieved
primarily through these associations rather than through a centralized state. The role of the state would be
reduced to supervising and regulating the voluntary associations of civil society.
Robert Putnam, an American social scientist, in his article 'Bowling Alone: America's Declining
Social Capital' in The Global Resurgence of Democracy, edited by Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner
(1998), has suggested that the associations of civil society can create 'social capital', i.e. a set of social
practices which involve civic engagement and ideas of reciprocity. Putnam firmly believes that such a
network of civic involvement is necessary for an effective democracy. However, he laments that in the past
two or three decades the Americans have forgotten 'the art of pursuing in common the objects of common
desires', which was recognized and admired by Alexis de Tocqueville. Putnam has pointed out that the
present-day American society is characterized by a reduction in citizens' activity in the associations of civil
society, with a consequent decline in the quality of American democracy.
In short, civil society is now regarded the central theme of democratic debate. It is also viewed as a
device of democratic action against the old-style communist systems that sought to monopolize all political
power in the hands of one-party state. Indeed the communist governments in Eastern Europe had
demobilized civil society so that rulers could directly control the individual. In 1960s and 1970s it was
realized that the institutions of civil society could not only be used to strengthen the authority of the ruling
class, but the opposition could also use this device to promote its own viewpoint. Where the authority of the
ruling class could not be challenged at the political level, there the hegemony of the rulers could be
undermined through manipulation of education and culture.
In late 1970s and 1980s the device of civil society was widely used in East European socialist
countries as a weapon against the all-encompassing claims of the totalitarian state. The Solidarity movement
in Poland sought to build up the institutions of civil society as a 'parallel society' with a view to safeguarding
the interests of workers. In Bulgaria, an environmental group called 'Ecoglasnost' raised the issue of the
wanton destruction of natural resources and the appalling pollution in industrial centres. Since these centres
were functioning under government control, Ecoglasnost proved to be an effective organ of civil society as
the anti-government movement in Bulgaria. After the successful revolutions of 1989 throughout the Eastern
Europe, the concept of civil society gained immense popularity. Western intellectuals also found the concept
of civil society as instrumental to the revival of citizen participation in public affairs in democratic societies
where it had recently declined. In fact, 'civil society movement' in the recent decades has emerged as an ally
of 'new social movements'.