74th Republic Day : Lets Build A 'Constitutional Democracy' And Not A Mere 'Democracy'

Thucydides, a well-known Greek historian, criticised democracy by opining that democratic governments failed miserably “in the search for the truth." He believed that democracies produced demagogues who could sway public opinion with their rhetoric and rabble-rousing oratory skills, imposing their own interpretations of the truth on the masses. He further argued that this led to a failure of epistemic knowledge, leading citizens to believe in “silly things about their own past." 

What was true of the Athenian democracy during the time of Thucydides more than two thousand years ago is perhaps true today as well.

The world over, democracy is facing its biggest challenges ever. Majoritarianism, ideological extremism, political instability, increasing corruption, propaganda driven governance, political takeover of public institutions, manufacturing and distorting of public opinion by political rhetoric with the help of new age technologies and over-centralisation of executive power have all collectively raised serious doubts about the efficacy of democracy.   

Back home in India, we are faced with a much larger quandary. We today stare at problems such as rising political intolerance, suppression of dissent, hero-worship of political leaders, declining reverence for state institutions, rewriting of history, misuse of state power, arbitrary exercise of brute parliamentary majority, bulldozing of key legislations without following principles of deliberative democracy, religious polarisation, hate speech, and amidst all this, an ever increasing poverty. 

These issues raise serious existential questions for us as a democracy. In this piece, I ask myself, have we miserably failed in achieving the goals that were set out by our founders more than 75 years ago?

We increasingly find ourselves today surrounded by questions about whether the path that India chose in 1947 i.e. the path to a “liberal democracy” was well thought out and did it envisage a situation like the one we find ourselves in today?   

During India’s constitution-making process, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar on various occasions warned the Constituent Assembly of the various challenges democracy could face in India. He very famously said, “Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic”.

However, Ambedkar was highly optimistic about the success of ‘constitutional democracy’ in India. He pointed out the difference between the two terms on several occasions. He believed that cultivating "constitutional democracy" could cure the maladies which "democracy" have because of the latter’s tendency to slip into "violent revolution, hero-worship, and inability to bring in social democracy." 

Constitutional democracy, for Ambedkar, just like for the famous classicist Grote, meant diffusing and nurturing "Constitutional Morality" throughout the country. ‘Constitutional Morality’ for Grote meant, “a paramount reverence for the forms of the constitution, enforcing obedience to authority and acting under and within these forms, of action subject only to definite legal control.” 

So, while democracy could be distorted to mean rule by the majority, constitutional democracy, on the other hand, has its own set of inherent safeguards.

State actions in a constitutional democracy are authorised and limited by a Written Constitution and the power of the majority is restricted by legal and institutional means so that the rights of the minorities are very well protected. 

A constitutional democracy is characterised by limitations on state power both at the institutional as well as the procedural levels. It has features such as separation of powers, an independent judiciary, checks and balances, due process of law, and free and fair elections.

A constitutional democracy equally encourages distributive, corrective, and procedural justice. It encourages equality in a rule of law based society. Its larger political philosophy is to encourage transparency and support a free marketplace of ideas, thereby facilitating the foundation for a ‘deliberative democracy’.

75 years ago, India chose the path to a "constitutional democracy" as opposed to being a mere "democracy".  During the Independence struggle and during the framing of the Indian Constitution, the founders never intended for India to merely become the ‘world’s largest democracy’. They carefully and patiently drafted a document to transform India into a ‘constitutional democracy’ built by cultivating ‘constitutional morality’ in the country.

India today is undoubtedly a democracy, perhaps the world’s largest democracy, but clearly a declining one. One that is riddled with ironies and contradictions. Ambedkar’s fears are still relevant in the India we all live in. His dream of ushering in an era of social democracy, remains a distant goal. Our goal posts have dramatically changed since 1947. 75 years later, it is more than just clear that our political elite, the bourgeois and the capitalists have only used the term ‘democracy’ as a tool to suit their own private and vested interests.                    

It's high time we get together to build a truly ‘Constitutional democracy’. How do we build a society based on the principles of Rule of Law is an important question? Instead of producing ignorant citizens whose contribution to our democracy is simply by way of exercising the right to vote once in every five years, perhaps we should begin to train our next generation of citizens by instilling within them a love for 'constitutional morality'.    

The role of the judiciary, too, is extremely significant in a constitutional democracy. The courts are not just expected to be dispassionate in their approach, but are also expected to uphold the rule of law and protect those who are the most under threat.

Perhaps we could start by training our next generation of citizens by instilling within them a love for 'constitutional morality' Instead of producing ignorant citizens whose contribution to our democracy is simply by way of exercising the right to vote once in every five years.