Democracy signifies the rule of the people, and if it means anything it means equality, not merely the equality at election time in the sense of each person possessing a vote, whether rich or poor, high or low, but also social and economic equality. Of course, democracy does not imply that all men are equal; such equality just cannot come about, because there are numer­ous differences between people—physical as well as mental. There are also moral inequalities by which some people are able to observe high moral standards in their life and daily conduct, while others remain basically dishonest and of low morals. . .
Democracy does not seek to bring about equality among the numbers of the various groups, who will continue to follow their own convictions and pursue their own life-style. But democracy does mean that everyone will have an equal chance or development; that there will be no exploitation of one group by another; the millionaire and the pauper will both exist in a democratic set-up, but both will have more or less equal political rights and equality of-opportunity, with each individual free to go as far as he can.
Mr Jawaharlal Nehru said that no democracy can exist for long in the midst of want, poverty and inequality. This sometimes does not prove to be true. For instance, there is stark poverty in India and some other countries, but these countries cannot be described as undemocratic on that account. There are glaring economic inequalities in the USA, but that country continues to be a democracy. Essentially, democracy is a scheme of values and moral standards in life. Whether a person is democratic or not depends, for the most part, on how he acts and thinks as an individual or as a member of a group. Democracy also implies discipline, not mob rule.
Equality must not be stretched to mean that no person in a democracy should recognise the superior merit of others, and the need of choosing a group of people who would carry on the government on behalf of the people as a whole. This small number of people are not supposed to impose their will on the rest; they merely act on their behalf, like trustees.
This brings in the leadership principle in a democracy. In every re­gime there are leaders and there are followers; in a democracy too, there are
I, that is, persons of greater merit than ordinary ones, who are chosen IfpfWontatives by the process of free vote and free choice, and not by im-pMillon. These leaders or spokesmen act on the people’s behalf and hold uffltt) only so long as they continue to command the confidence of the people. Thtrolo lies the difference between leaders in an undemocratic set-up and Indira In a democracy. In an undemocratic country the leaders are not freely fjttifln, but force themselves on the regime by virtue of their superior wealth If influence. In a democracy everyone has the chance and the opportunity Hi b»comc a leader.
It is obvious that if people live together and work together, they must llVi In an orderly way, and not in utter confusion, with each fighting another Mtd questioning his right to order him or to hold office. So, some people hiVt to be chosen to function as leaders. It is common knowledge that even nflftl* of animals have leaders; they follow one of their lot who walks ahead, While others follow him blindly and with implicit faith. Since ancient days, Iflbtl and groups of people living in jungles have selected someone as head H loader whom they agree to obey in order that the affairs of the group or may be carried on smoothly. In old days, of course, physical i mattered most, since a great deal of fighting had to be done and _„. J was no such thing as rational argument, discussion, debate or attempts (6 Convince others by reasoning out things; all these are essential features of iffcmocracy.
!, , The point is that leaders and followers have been in existence since
I’Uflllint times. Great religious leaders moved millions and were worshipped
fH, highly respected by the masses. There were military leaders and
•tytquerors in the past who dominated the rest of their countrymen and
lUfMklned as leaders as long as their strength and influence lasted, sometimes
[;$•£ long periods, sometimes for short durations. Clearly, leaders
- HI the products of the existing conditions. This holds good for democracy
filO. Leaders emerge, especially in a crisis; a particular situation creates
In a democracy, the leaders are mostly political men and women who ^ i superior politically, who are good speakers and orators, and who are jif’lilpected, and who—and this is the most important distinction in a Sir dflDOCracy—enjoy the confidence of the people generally, or at any |,.HH of the majority. So, the majority party leaders are the ones who carry if1 IN day, and as long as the majority support is behind them, they hold offica f Hid wield power—on behalf of the people. Majority rule becomes I Indispensable because unanimity is rare in this world, and it is not always a healthy symptom either. It indicates the absence of independent Judgement and the tendency to blindly follow others; it also indicates |M absence of a sense of discrimination between right and wrong, between good and bad. Education and enlightenment cotne through die spoken word and, better still, through the newspapers. In fact the exten to which the people develop this power of discriminating between individuals reflects the degree of success of a democracy.
onnnr, minority in a de™eracy has the right and the requisite
opportunity to convert itself into . majority and assume?
stnve constantly to remforce their ranks, by conviction and not by force whICHacontradiction made mocratic and popular set-up. Thus, there are no permanent majority leaders and permanent minority leaders in a truly ptCll of government, can mean better choice of leaders and better all-round Bifformance of the government of the day. In such an advanced stage of democracy, third-raters and fourth-raters will not be able to emerge as leaders if the people. It is when talented, upright, honest and sincere people are fleeted leaders that democracy proves a real success. False values and luperficial attractions have to be resisted if the people want the basic §|(jectives of democracy to be achieved. Wealth does play a part, but merit Ultimately triumphs The general elections held m India in March, 1 911, provide an instructive and m many respects historic example of the power of the people ove’r the
” and ™ guilty °f excesse’ and
tha Tf rT ^ h°St ^ ^PS thCSe leaders °n the* toes’ W know hat if they abuse their authority, and if they behave as autocrats and
nf^ ^ 3 dem°Cracy « » a different position than leaders
mnl ^HmOCraCy 1S g°vemm»t by response and consent, and consent
implies confidence; where such confidence is lost, the leaders must quit Aga n, democracy implies the greatest happiness of the greatest number;
o^vthe i? T “, ? ‘” P°Wer Seeks to Promote the haPPiness of only me ruling family or the privileged classes, and ignores the welfare of the masses, a change in leadership becomes inevitable
tistruethatinademocracy.morethaninanyotherformc/govern-
ment, the demagogue, the political boss, the windbag and the lawyef-politi-
cians often seize power and place the truly intellectual and capable group at a disadvantage.