Among all the political systems, democracy is inarguably the best. In discourses on political systems comparisons are often between Greek and modern democracies. Greek democracy during the fourth century B.C. was a direct democracy based on actual participation of the citizens in their Government, a Government of the people over the people in which all commanded each, and each in his turn all; operated as a “town-meeting” democracy in which some thousands of citizens expressed their ayes and nays and consisted largely of decisions made by acclamation; and so on.
Greek democracy was thus the closest approximation to the literal meaning of the term and the Athenian demos (populace) had more kratos (power) than any other people since. But, it was still not a full democracy; for, at the time of Plato, the earliest Western philosopher (c. 427-347 BC), it covered only about one-third of the population who alone were freemen or citizens, while the remaining 2,50,000 were slaves without political rights of any kind.

Modern democracies are based on representation and not on participation; presuppose delegation and not direct exercise of power; are a system of control and limitation of Government and not a system of self-government; people who are governed are not the same as who govern; and “electoral participation” does not in anyway resemble the real participation of the Greek citizen. Though power is legitimate only when it is derived from the authority of the people and based upon their consent, consent can be a mere presumption; though democracy is only one type of political system, the attempt made is to qualify it with reference to an ought rather than to the is; for, the identity of a political system can only be assessed on factual and not on normative grounds; and at times democracy is taken to include all political systems falling short of outright dictatorships. For these and other related reasons, the more “democracy” has come to be a universally accepted honorific, the more it has undergone verbal stretching and has become the loosest label of its kind.

Consequently, any and all political systems can easily claim to be democracies. For example, though democracies are broadly the minimal or initial type when the standards of democracy are minimal; medium or normal type when they are higher, and democracy is identified positively by the existence of developed representative institutions and establishment of constitutional government; and the advanced type, when the reference is to maximum achievement; the label “democratic” can be easily turned into “undemocratic” and vice-versa simply by switching from one standard to another. Seen against the above background, the recent proliferation of democracies, tempting some to term the 20th century “the century of democracy”, is more spurious and illusory than real.

Going by an important estimate, by 1900 there were only 25 countries with restricted democratic practices, accounting for 12 per cent of the world’s population; these included the U.S. and Britain with their denial of voting rights to women, workers, to black Americans, and so on; by 1950, there were 22 electoral democracies accounting for 31 per cent and 21 countries with restricted democratic practices accounting for 12 per cent of the world’s population; electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries accounting for 58 per cent of the world’s population; of them, liberal democracies, that is, countries regarded as free and respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law are only 85 in number and represent 38 per cent of the world population. These figures, however, may not add up; for, as many new democracies are fragile, the gains could well be reversed.

In this context it is important to know how Indian democracy has measured up against the overall democratic conditions in the world. With as many as 395 Articles spread over 22 chapters, amongst the Constitutions of the world, the Indian Constitution is the largest, and has been a model for developing countries. As the Constitution was a well thought out attempt to leave behind India’s rigid hierarchical, discriminatory and exclusionary social and cultural baggage of some 3,000 years, and usher in a new egalitarian social order devoid of caste, class, and other features of the traditional social order, it included every Indian, irrespective of status and social placement, under its purview, and committed the nation to bury deep this baggage at the earliest opportunity. In other words, in striking contrast to the restricted democratic processes in the West, with the right to vote reserved to men of property, and the working class and women granted the right only later, only after they had struggled hard for it, the Indian Constitution mandated the country to move straight into the universal adult franchise mode and to impart to every Indian of voting age, regardless of social standing, the right to elect his Government.

The task of honouring and transforming into reality the Constitutional vision into action was entrusted to its trustees, the pillars of Indian democracy namely, the Legislature (State Assemblies and Parliament), Executive, Judiciary and the Election Commission. In retrospect, however, it is paradoxical that the people of India who supposedly framed the Constitution, and who in reality should have worked it through these trustees remain largely neglected, oppressed and exploited by the very same trustees. That raises the question whether the Constitution has failed the people, whether the people have failed the Constitution, or whether those who were entrusted to work it have failed the people and the Constitution. Going by the United Nations, the track record of Indian democracy on human rights promotion and development has sweeping significance for a rights-based approach to progress, it is a powerful example of the creative use of human rights instruments in social transformation, and encourages the capacity of people to change laws, institutional arrangements and norms to consistently fight for improvement in the quality of their lives. To these some might add the survival of democracy in India for more than 50 years now as its greatest gain, the hitherto excluded and disenfranchised classes now participating in growing numbers in the political process, the flourishing of freedom of thought and expression, and so on.