The Future of Democracy in India

Scheme of the Essay

Exposition: Democracy is more a way of life.

Rising Action: It was thought that the Asian countries were not suitable for democracy.

Climax:

1. India does not have healthy opposition.
2. Voters are not much educated.
3. The judiciary and press are not independent to a great extent.
4. There is a lack of moral integrity.

Falling Action: It seems that the future of democracy is not bright.

Ending: The tolerant and secular attitude of Indians will make democracy a success.

Democracy is more a way of life than a form of government. Till people are democratic in outlook, democratic in thinking, and democratic in behaviour it is not possible for democracy to stabilise itself. That is why it was generally thought that the Asian countries were not suitable for a democratic set up. Several European political thinkers expressed doubts about the future of democracy in India. Immediately before the 1977 elections a state of emergency was declared and the freedom of people was limited. European observers started thinking that democracy would come to an end in India. Even after the elections, there were dissensions among the ruling party and so the government seemed to be unstable. That was also taken to be a bad omen for democracy.

For the proper working of democracy, there should be a healthy opposition, educated voters, an independent judiciary, a free press and moral integrity. In India we do not have healthy opposition because the opposition is very weak and it cannot assert itself; this means danger to the country. Moreover, there is no well-organised opposition because the leaders are more interested in retaining power than in working for the welfare of the people. It was only during the 1977 general elections that the opposition became quite strong.

Similarly, Indian voters are not much educated. In spite of the best efforts that have been made by the government only 26% of the people in India are educated. Uneducated voters can never make a correct judgement and may not cast their votes with a sense of responsibility. The latest two general elections have shown that there is some sort of political maturity on the part of the voters.

Judiciary and press have been independent since we got freedom from the colonial rule, but there were attempts on the part of the ruling party to make the judiciary committed to certain policies. Some of the chief justices were superseded. This does not mean that the judiciary is no longer independent. Indian judiciary has been trained for a quite high standard of impartiality. Similarly press, despite certain checks upon it during some periods, has been quite independent in its opinion.

One of the serious dangers to Indian democracy is the lack of moral integrity on the part the leaders. There have been defections in the political parties and many leaders have not shown any respect for their commitments to the public.

Under such circumstances it seems that the future of democracy is not very bright. But it is a wrong inference. No institution can establish itself immediately; there are always certain initial hurdles and initial difficulties. Moreover, Indian culture has given to the people unbounded patience and the power to cooperate with the people belonging to different religions and castes. These are absolutely essential for making democracy stable. It seems that with the passing of time, democracy will stabilise itself and this experiment of adopting democracy on such a big scale would be successful.