Chapter 1-What is Democracy? Why Democracy?

What is a democracy? What are its features? Chapter 1 from CBSE Class 9 Political Science textbook, Democratic Politics-I builds on a simple definition of democracy. The aim of the book is to help students understand clearly the bare minimum features of a democratic form of government. After going through this chapter, you would be able to find the difference between a democratic form of government and a non-democratic government. Democracy is the most prevalent form of government in the world today and it is expanding to more countries. But why is it so? What makes it better than other forms of government? Students can just browse through these Vidyakul CBSE Notes Class 9 Political Science Chapter 1-What is Democracy? Why Democracy? and understand these concepts thoroughly.

Definition of Democracy

Democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people. One chief factor common to all democracies is that the government is chosen by the people. It also helps students to demarcate between democratic and non-democratic governments. For the non-democratic government, take the example of Myanmar, where rulers were not elected by the people. Those who were in charge of the army the country took over as rulers and people had no say in this decision. Dictators like Pinochet (Chile) are not elected by the people. This also applies to monarchies.

Features of Democracy

The simple definition of democracy gives rise to various questions, which are given below:

Who are the rulers in this definition?

What kind of election constitutes a democratic election?

Who are the people who can elect the rulers or get elected as rulers?

Finally, what form of government is a democracy?

Major decisions by elected leaders

Some countries like Pakistan do not follow this rule. In Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf led a military coup in October 1999. He overthrew the democratically elected government and went on to become the President of the country. In 2002, he also held a referendum in the country that granted him a five-year extension. Meanwhile, after the passing of this ‘Legal Framework Order’ elections were held in the national and provincial assemblies and elected representatives were granted some powers. But the final power rested with military officers and General Musharraf himself. Hence, we can conclude it was not a democratic country. The same thing happens in many dictatorships and monarchies. Thus, we can conclude that in a democracy the final decision-making power must rest with those elected by the people.

Free and Fair Electoral Competition

In China, elections are held after every five years for electing the country’s parliament, called Quanguo Renmin Daibiao Dahui (National People’s Congress). Before contesting elections, a candidate needs the approval of the Chinese Communist Party. The government is always formed by the Communist Party. Alternatively, since its independence in 1930, Mexico holds elections after every six years to elect its President. But until 2000 every election was won by a party called PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party). Should we consider the elections described above as examples of people electing their rulers? Reading these examples we get a sense that we cannot. Democracy must be based on a free and fair election where those currently in power have a fair chance of losing.

One person, one vote, one value 

Democracy is based on a fundamental principle of political equality. However, there are many instances of denial of the equal right to vote. Until 2015, in Saudi Arabia, women did not have the right to vote. Estonia has made its citizenship rules in such a way that people belonging to the Russian minority found it difficult to get the right to vote. In Fiji, the electoral system is such that the vote of an indigenous Fiji has more value than that of an Indian Fijian. Definitely not a democratic government. The feature of democracy this highlights is that in a democracy, each adult citizen must have one vote and in turn, each vote must have one value.

Rule of law and respect for rights

Zimbabwe attained independence from White minority rule in 1980 and from then the country has been ruled by the party that led the freedom struggle, ZANU-PF. Its leader, Robert Mugabe ruled the country since independence. Even if elections were held regularly, it was always won by ZANU-PF. President Mugabe was popular but also used unfair practices in elections. There was a law that limited the right to criticize the President. Television and radio were controlled by the government and gave only the ruling party’s version. There were independent newspapers but the government harassed those journalists who went against it and so on. Not a democratic government. Democratic government rules within limits set by constitutional law and citizens’ rights.

Hence, we can deduce that democracy is a form of government in which:

Rulers elected by the people take all the major decisions

Elections offer a choice and fair opportunity to the people to change the current rulers

This choice and opportunity are available to all the people on an equal basis

The exercise of this choice leads to a government limited by basic rules of the constitution and citizens’ rights

Why Democracy?

Cons of Democracy

Leaders keep changing in a democracy leading to instability

Democracy is all about political competition and power play, leaving no scope for morality

Many people have to be consulted in a democracy which leads to delays

Elected leaders do not know the best interest of the people, resulting in bad decisions

Democracy leads to corruption since it is based on electoral competition

Ordinary people don’t know what is good for them; they should not decide anything

From these arguments, we can see that democracy of the kind we see, may not be the ideal form of government. However, we will see if democracy is better than other forms of government that are there for us to choose from.

Arguments in Favour of Democracy

A democratic government is a better government because it is a more accountable form of government: Take the example of the Indian and China famines in 1958-1961. While China was hit badly, India did not fare as badly, despite its economic condition. The reason for this could be that India responded to the food scarcity in a way that the Chinese government did not. Here, we see that democracy is better than any other form of government in responding to the needs of the people.

Democracy improves the quality of decision-making: Democracy is based on consultation and discussion. A democratic decision always involves many people, discussions, and meetings and they are able to point out possible mistakes in any decision. This may take time. However, the advantage of taking time over important decisions is that it reduces the chances of rash or irresponsible decisions.

Democracy provides a method to deal with differences and conflicts: In any society, people are bound to have differences of opinions and interests. These differences are particularly more in a country like ours with amazing social diversity. People belong to different regions, speak different languages, practice different religions, and have different castes. The preferences of one group can clash with those of other groups. How do we resolve such a conflict? Democracy provides the only peaceful solution to this problem. In a democracy, no one is a permanent winner or loser. Different groups can live with one another peacefully.

Democracy enhances the dignity of citizens: Democracy is based on the principle of political equality. It recognizes that the poorest and the least educated have the same status as the rich and the educated.

Democracy is better than other forms of government because it allows us to correct our own mistakes: Even if no government can guarantee that no mistakes will be made, in a democracy one can be sure that it will not be hidden for too long. It makes space for public discussion on these mistakes. There is also room for correction. Rulers have to change their decisions or they could themselves be changed.

Thus, we can correctly infer that while democracy may not be the solution to all problems, it is still clearly better than any other alternative.

Broader Meanings of Democracy

In this chapter, the meaning of democracy is discussed in a descriptive sense. Students get to learn about democracy as a form of government, thus helping them to identify a clear set of minimal features that democracy requires. The common form adopted by democracy is a representative democracy. In democratic countries, all people do not rule. A majority is allowed to take decisions on behalf of all the people through their elected representatives. This has become necessary for the reasons given below:

Modern democracies involve such a large number of people that it is physically impossible for them to sit together and take a collective decision.

Even if they could, the citizen does not have the time, the desire or the skills to take part in all the decisions.

Democracy, as a principle, can go beyond the government and can be applied to any sphere of life. People use the word democracy not to describe any existing government but to set up an ideal standard that all democracies must aim to become. However, if the ideals of democracy are considered then no country in the world is correctly democratic. Still, having an understanding of democracy as an ideal will explain why to value democracy. It enables people to judge an existing democracy and identify its weaknesses. It also helps to distinguish between a minimal democracy and a good democracy. The most common form of democracy in today’s world is being ruled by people’s elected representatives. However, for a small community, there can be other ways of making democratic decisions. All people can sit together and make decisions directly. This is how the Gram Sabha should work in a village.

Exercise 

1. Here is some information about the four countries. Based on this information, how would you classify each of these countries? Write ‘democratic’, ‘undemocratic’, or ‘not sure’ against each of these.

Country A: People who do not accept the country’s official religion do not have a right to vote.

Country B: The same party has been winning elections for the last twenty years.

Country C: The Ruling party has lost in the last three elections.

Country D: There is no independent election commission.

Answer.

Country A: Undemocratic

Country B: Not sure

Country C: Democratic

Country D: Undemocratic

2. Here is some information about the four countries. Based on this information, how would you classify each of these countries? Write ‘democratic’, ‘undemocratic’, or ‘not sure’ against each of these.

Country P: The parliament cannot pass a law about the army without the consent of the Chief of the Army.

Country Q: The parliament cannot pass a law reducing the powers of the judiciary.

Country R: The country’s leaders cannot sign any treaty with another country without taking permission from its neighboring country.

Country S: All the major economic decisions about the country are taken by officials of the central bank, which the ministers cannot change.

Answer.

Country P: Undemocratic

Country Q: Democratic

Country R: Undemocratic

Country S: Undemocratic

3. Which of these is not a good argument in favor of democracy? Why?

People feel free and equal in a democracy.

Democracies resolve conflict in a better way than others.

Democratic government is more accountable to the people.

Democracies are more prosperous than others.

Answer.

D. Democracies are more prosperous than others is not a good argument in favor of democracy. There are examples of countries being democratic but not as prosperous as other countries which are not democratic. Democracy means that the citizen of the country is involved in the decision-making process and electing the leaders. It does not necessarily guarantee prosperity, as there are other factors like geography, economic capacity, government policies, human resources, mineral resources, etc.

4. Each of these statements contains a democratic and undemocratic element. Write out the two separately for each statement.

A minister said that some laws have to be passed by the parliament in order to conform to the regulations decided by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The Election Commission ordered re-polling in a constituency where large-scale rigging was reported.

Women’s representation in parliament has barely reached 10 percent. This led women’s organizations to demand one-third of seats for women.

Answer.

Democratic element – A minister said that some laws have to be passed by the parliament. Undemocratic element – Conform to the regulations decided by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Democratic element – The Election Commission ordered re-polling in a constituency. Undemocratic element – Large-scale rigging was reported.

Democratic element – Women’s organizations to demand one-third of seats for women. Undemocratic element – Women’s representation in parliament has barely reached 10 percent.

5. Which of these is not a valid reason for arguing that there is a lesser possibility of famine in a democratic country?

Opposition parties can draw attention to hunger and starvation.

A free press can report suffering from famine in different parts of the country.

The government fears its defeat in the next elections.

People are free to believe in and practice any religion.

Answer.

D. The statement, ‘People are free to believe in and practice any religion’, is not a valid reason for arguing that there is a lesser possibility of famine in a democratic country.

6. There are 40 villages in a district where the government has made no provision for drinking water. These villagers met and considered many methods of forcing the government to respond to their needs. Which of these is not a democratic method?

Filing a case in the courts claiming that water is part of the right to life.

Boycotting the next elections to give a message to all parties.

Organizing public meetings against the government’s policies.

Paying money to government officials to get water.

Answer. D. Paying money to government officials to get water is not a democratic method.

7. Write a response to the following arguments against democracy:

The army is the most disciplined and corruption-free organization in the country. Therefore, the army should rule the country.

The rule of the majority means the rule of ignorant people. What we need is the rule of the wise, even if they are in small numbers.

If we want religious leaders to guide us in spiritual matters, why not invite them to guide us in politics as well? The country should be ruled by religious leaders.

Answer.

The army is a disciplined organization. However, it is unfair if an army rules, as the army was not chosen by the citizens, and hence, it will be an undemocratic practice.

The rule of the majority is not the rule of ignorant people. Wisdom is subjective, and the government is run by people who know law and order.

Religion and politics are two different things. While religion can guide someone toward religious affairs, it cannot guide anyone toward politics, which is an important segment of a nation.

8. Are the following statements in keeping with democracy as a value? Why?

Father to daughter: I don’t want to hear your opinion about your marriage. In our family, children marry where the parents tell them to.

Teacher to student: Don’t disturb my concentration by asking me questions in the classroom.

Employee to the officer: Our working hours must be reduced according to the law.

Answer.

The statement does not keep with democracy as a value, as the daughter is not allowed to express her opinion.

The statement does not keep with democracy as a value, as students are not allowed to ask questions, which is their right.

The statement keeps with democracy as law, as the employee voices their opinion for their right under the law.

9. Consider the following facts about a country and decide if you would call it a democracy. Give reasons to support your decision.

All the citizens of the country have the right to vote. Elections are held regularly.

The country took loans from international agencies. One of the conditions for giving loans was that the government would reduce its expenses on education and health.

People speak more than seven languages, but education is available only in one language, the language spoken by 52 percent of people in that country.

Several organizations have given a call for peaceful demonstrations and nationwide strikes in the country to oppose these policies. The government has arrested these leaders.

The government owns the radio and television in the country. All the newspapers have to get permission from the government to publish any news about the government’s policies and protests.

Answer.

From this statement, we can understand that it is a democratic country where citizens are allowed to vote and choose their government.

While taking a loan from international agencies, the country is compromising on the welfare of the people by reducing their expenditure on education and health, which is totally undemocratic.

The provision of making education accessible in only one language is undemocratic. It is the fundamental right for people to have an education, and it is the government’s duty to provide them with the language they know.

The right to assemble and peacefully demonstrate is a basic right of an individual. Hence, arresting the protestors is undemocratic.

When the government owns the radio and television, it is debarring people from availing their right to a free press. It is undemocratic.

Frequently Asked Questions 

Why should we have a ‘Democracy’?

1. Equality and freedom of all actions 2. Voting leads to the proper selection of government officials 3. Deal with conflicts 4. Enhances women empowerment

Where is ‘Zimbabwe’ located?

Zimbabwe, a landlocked country in South East Africa, is separated from Zambia by the Zambezi River.

What is a ‘Legal framework order’?

The Legal Framework Order refers to presidential decrees issued during military rule in Pakistan in 1970 and 2002 over the organization of elections.