Concept of Rights and Duties Under Jurisprudence:

Introduction

The law protects the legal right of every citizen. By being a citizen of the country, the people are given the
legal right. It is the duty of every individual to protect the rights of each individual.

Meaning

In general word, it means that the action which is permitted by the law is called legal right or the act which
is recognized or protected by the state is called legal right. The definition is given by the number of jurists
like Holland, Austin, Pollock.

According to Salmond:

A legal right is an “interest which is protected and recognized by the rule of law. It is an interest which has
its duty and disregard of which is wrong”.

According to Gray:

A legal right is “that power which the man has, to make a person or persons to do or restrains from doing
a certain act or acts so far as the power arises from society imposing a legal duty upon the person or
persons. He states that the “right is not the interest itself, it is the means to enjoy the interest secured”.

In the case of State of Rajasthan vs Union of India[1], the Supreme Court stated that “Legal rights in the
strict sense are correlatives of legal duties and legal rights are defined as the interests which the law
protects by imposing duties on other persons. But the legal right in the strict sense means right is the
immunity from the legal power of another. Immunity is no subjection at all”.

Essential conditions of legal right

According to Salmond, there are five essential conditions that need to be fulfilled:

The person of inheritance/ Subject of right:

He shall be the person who is the owner of the right. He is the subject of the legal right. Such a person is
called a person of inheritance. Example:-Y purchase a van for Rs 20,000. Here Y is the subject of the right.
Even in the case when the property is bequest to the unborn child, the unborn child is the owner of the
property even though he is uncertain.

The subject of duty/ the person of incidence:

It is the duty of another person or persons to respect and recognize the right of the person. Such a person
who has a legal duty is called a person of incidence. Example- If A has a legal right against B, then it is the
duty of B to respect the right of A.

Contents or Subject Matter of legal right:

The subject matter of legal right is an essential element. It deals with the subject matter of the legal right.
It is related to do something or to refrain from doing certain acts or forbearance. It obligates the person
to forbear or act in favour of the person possessing a legal right. Example-Y purchase a van for Rs 20,000.
Here Y is the subject of the right. The subject matter ( Y) has a legal right and he can exclude others.

The object of the legal right:

The object of the legal rights is a thing or object over which the legal right is exercised. Example- A
purchases the car for Rs 1,00,000. Here the car is the object.

Title of the legal right:

The title is the process by which the right is vested or conferred on the person. It is certain events by which
right is acquired from its previous owner. Example- By purchase or gift or will etc.

Theories Related To The Legal Right

Interest Theory

Developed by: Rudolf Von Jhering

Rudolf Von Jhering stated that Legal right is the legally protected interest. He gave importance to the
interest of the people rather than the will of the people. The main objective is to protect the interests of
the people and to avoid the conflict between the individual interest.

Their interest exists in the life of the community itself. They are not created by any statute.
Salmond positive view:

He supported this theory but he stated that its enforceability is an essential condition.

Salmond criticism:

He criticized the interest theory on the ground that the interest is not protected by the state. In order to
confer a legal right, it is essential that interest should be protected and recognized by the state.

Gray view:

He said that this theory is partially correct because a legal right is not an interest in itself but it is only
meant to protect the interests of an individual. He also stated that legal rights confer the right on the
person to do a certain act / to forbear by imposing a legal duty on them through the agency of law “state”.

Dr Allen view:

It can be said that both the theories are not contradictory to each other but it is the combination of both
the theories. He tried to combine these two theories by pointing out that the essence of legal right seems
to be, not legally guaranteed power by itself nor legally protected by itself, but the legally guaranteed
power to realise an interest. It can be concluded that both theories are the essential ingredients of the
legal right.

Will theory

Supported by: Kant, Hegel, Hume

According to his theory “rights is an inherent attribute of the human will”. The purpose of the law is to
permit the expression of free will. The subject matter is derived from the human will.

Rights are defined in the terms of will by Austin, Pollock and Holland. According to John Locke, “the basis
of the right is the will of the individual”. According to Puchta the legal rights gives power to the person
over the object which by means of right can be subjected to the will of the person who is enjoying the
right.
Criticized by: Duguit

According to him the basis of the law is not a subjective will but it is an objective will. The purpose of the
law is to protect only those acts which further support social solidarity. He further stated that the theory
of subjective right is a metaphysical abstraction.

Classification of Legal Right

Right in rem and Right in Persona

The right in rem is the right available against society at large. For Example:- a crime committed under I.P.C
because it is a crime committed against the state.

Right in Persona means right that is available against an individual. Example breach of Contract. When
there is a breach of contract, the party who has performed the act files the suit against the breaching
party. Right in Persona is temporary in nature, which can be converted into right in rem. Right in rem is a
permanent in nature.

Positive Rights and Negative Rights

A positive right is a right when some action needs to be done by the person who has the corresponding
duty. The person on whom the duty lies must perform some positive acts.

The negative rights are the rights which omit the person from performing certain acts. Negative rights
correspond to negative duty. The person on whom such duty is imposed is restrained from performing
certain acts.

Personal and Proprietary Rights

Personal rights are the right to respect the owner of the right. The personal right has no economic value
and this right is related to personal status or well being. Example the right to live with dignity, the right to
freedom of speech and expression.

The proprietary right is given in respect of the owner of the property. These rights are rights which has
some monetary value or economic value and constitute the estate of the person. Example-patent rights,
right to land, debt etc.
Perfect and Imperfect right

Perfect rights are protected and recognized by law and the suit can be instituted in the court against the
wrongdoer for the breach of it. Example: A has taken the loan from B. B has the duty to pay the loan and
A has the perfect right to claim the loan amount. If B fails to pay then A has the right to file the suit in the
court.

Imperfect rights are those rights which are neither recognized nor protected by law. Example: if the loan
becomes time-barred, then he can claim his money back but it cannot be enforced by law.

Principal and Accessory Rights

The principal right is the most important rights. They are the basic right that is vested on an individual.

The accessory right is the consequential or incidental right. They are not important but they are ostensible
to basic right.

Right in Re-aliens and Right in Re-propria

Right in Re-aliena is the right available against the property of another person. Example- The right of
easement. It is the result of jurisprudence concept of dominant heritage and servient heritage.

Right in Re-Propria is the right available in respect of one’s own property. It results in absolute ownership.
This is the result of jurisprudence concept of ownership.

Corporeal and Incorporeal right

Both the rights are protected by law. The corporeal right is the rights over tangible objects or material
objects. Corporeal rights are having the rights over the objects which can be seen, touch or perceived.
Example: I purchase the watch. The watch has physical existence so I have a corporeal right over it.

The incorporeal right is the right over the object which cannot be seen or touched. Example right to
reputation.

Legal and Equitable Right

Legal rights are protected by the common law i.e Court of England. Common law depends upon the usage
and custom.

Equitable rights are protected by the equity court or the court of chancellor. The basic principle is natural
justice, equity, justice and good conscience.

Primary and Sanctioning Rights

The primary right is important and is a very basic right. These rights are ipso facto. These rights are
independent in nature. It has a binding force. They are right in rem. Example: the right to reputation. If
these rights are infringed in such case a person can approach the Courts of Law. A legal remedy is available
against such right in the form of compensation or imposing a penalty or imprisonment.

Sanctioning rights are resultant rights. They are supporting rights to primary rights. They are right in
persona, which results from some wrongdoing. Example: it arises when there is an infringement of
primary rights.

Public and Private Rights

The public right is the right that is exercised by the State. Example- right to vote, right to use road etc. The
private right is exercised by an individual for his personal benefit. Example:- right to sleep, right to clean
water.

Vested and Contingent Rights

A vested right is a right which is vested on the person from the very beginning. No events are required to
take place for conferring the rights of an individual. It depends on the present situation.

Contingent rights are rights which are conferred on the happening or non-happening of certain acts. This
right depends upon future acts. If the act which is prescribed take place then only the right will be
conferred on the person.

How Legal Right is Enforced

Ubi jus ibi remedium which means where there is a right there is a remedy. If the person’s right is violated
that can be approached to the court. They can get relief in the form of compensation. When the
compensation does not satisfy the claim of the plaintiff then the court may order for the specific
performance of the Contract. It is governed by the Specific Relief Act.
Duties

When the right is given to the person then it is assumed that certain duties are also imposed on the
person. The right has its correlative duties. There are two kinds of duties when it is the obligation of the
person to perform his duty when he has a legal duty but in case of moral duty he has no obligation. It is
on the discretion of an individual. The duties are classified into absolute and relative duty, positive and
negative duty and primary and secondary duty.

Conclusion

We can conclude that rights and duties are co-existent. In the words of Salmond, it can be said that no
right exists without the corresponding duty. Every duty of the person must be the duty towards some
person, in whom the right is vested and conversely every right must be against some persons upon whom
a duty is imposed.

PERILS OF DEMOCRACY – IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT:

The victim of democracy is the politics itself. As they say familiarity breeds contempt, politics in a
democratic set up tends to be looked upon with contempt by the people. If, in India, people are asked to
vote for an institution that has maintained some level of integrity – they would vote for the Supreme
court, Election Commission or to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India – reserving their last
preference to either Parliament or state Assemblies.

Romanticizing the concept of democracy has shadowed the perils of its empirical implementation.
Freedom is an essential part of democracy. But unfettered freedom brings with it its own hazards that
would undermine the institutions that help sustain democracy. Here freedom is essential for both the
ruled and the ruler. Either way, absolute liberty would make it difficult to govern as it would lead to
evolution of new challenges which would pose threat to the state and its people.

It is clearly evident in the context of India – a country much hailed as the largest, vibrant and stable
democracy in the world. Indeed we are fortunate to experience the fruits of democracy – rights
guaranteed by the constitution, empowered to vote and chose the ‘right’ representative to frame the
laws, rule of law etc. While gleefully listening to the paeans, we seldom realize the threats posed by the
very nature of democracy.

Politics, Corruption and Violence

In the beginning I mentioned about politics becoming the victim in democracy. It is much maligned and
abused field in all the democracies – whether in USA, Europe or in India, politics is reviled and looked upon
with disdain. There is a reason for this. Politicians, whom we elect with much fanfare hailing free and fair
elections, tend to become the arbiters of ‘power’. In India, they become the custodians and abusers of
power. Unfortunately it is the people who vest them with this ‘opportunity’. As democracy with weak
institutions gives them free hand to run the government, they tend to err, and err with impunity.

It’s not uncommon to see criminals getting repeatedly elected to the legislature. Only democracy bestows
that ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’ both for the people to vote and for the ‘representative’ to chose to contest
either from the jail or even when slapped with multiple criminal charges.

Criminalization of politics is the biggest peril of democracy. With it comes misuse of position and authority.
It inevitably leads to corruption.

A democracy is not a democracy unless it has independent and strong institutions that help facilitate good
governance and right thinking citizens demanding accountability and transparency.

Bad politics leads to corruption. India has been rightly recognized as the most corrupt nation in the world.
Thanks to democracy. It is mean to blame democracy for the state of affairs. But, you can only blame
democracy for it – as the people responsible for corruption are ‘enabled’ to loot the exchequer either by
the loopholes in the laws or indifferent ‘people’ who form the very basis of democracy.

If corruption has reached gargantuan proportions, it is because of the indifferent attitude of the people
and enabling environment provided by democracy for the corrupt to practise their art.

The very notion of ‘chalta hai’ attitude is the gift of democracy. Post 1992 reforms, it’s individualism which
has been strengthened by certain set of laws, which has become the root cause of corruption. We aid the
corrupt to preserve our individuality, hence freedom. A voter reveres a corrupt politician because that
politician is not a threat but a perceived benefactor to that voter. A capitalist, knows that his business
would thrive if he can preserve his individualism by bribing an official or a politician. Democracy aides
both the individual and the ‘corrupt’ authority.

Violence – between citizens belonging to two disparate groups, classes, religions, castes or genders
blossoms best within a state that has deregulated its authority on its citizens. And violence – citizens
versus state is the result of authoritative state using its power to do injustice to a section of people, e.g.
Naxalism and insurgency in north-east. There is also a state sponsored violence against its own citizens
misguided by certain ideology and perception of threat that is non-existential.
A better democracy is the one which has strong checks and balances in place. It may be educated citizens,
independent institutions, strong civil society and strong laws.

Democracy in itself is not a threat. But, any weak link within it is bound to weaken the whole structure of
its.

Development, Underdevelopment and Poverty

Democracy has become synonymous with elections. Or it is reduced to the process of elections.

In democracy poor people vote, and the elected become rich at the cost of the poor. It’s a government of
the rich, for the poor to sustain the poverty. This sounds cynical, but hard facts are there to vindicate the
statement. If 80% of India’s population still earns less than Rs 50 per day, should we compliment ourselves
or introspect?

Development has suffered more in democracy than in other forms of governments. Though it is
fashionable to say that democracy is better than despotism despite lack of development, does it do justice
to the vast millions who go to sleep with hunger in their bellies?

This is not to suggest we should bring an authoritarian government to bring change. Within democracy,
we need a change of mindset both of the people and politicians in their attitude towards development.
We are witnessing the loot of our resources by the powerful few who are covertly supported by the
government machinery. Every penny that’s put to improve the lot of this country is unaccounted for. The
crux is lack of accountability.

Corruption directly brings underdevelopment. And this spawns poverty. In India poverty is the major
benefactor for the politicians. As long as poverty is sustained, they can amass wealth – always
unaccounted.

Solution

Education of the masses and strong institutions. Institutions which are not pestered and interfered by the
ruling classes perform better. The fear that these institutions if given complete autonomy would grow as
a threat is unfounded. The Supreme Court of India has acted truly as the custodian of our constitution and
also public faith in the system we live in. The election commission of India has become the role model for
other countries for emulation in conducting free and fair elections. These institutions are governed by
bureaucrats, not by the elected politicians. These institutions function well within the scope of our
constitution.

Even our military has gained reputation for being fair to its people and the constitution. It can be safely
assumed that where there is no interference by the politics, the institutions serve well. For a democracy
to thrive and bring development to the masses, we need independent institutions to act as check and
balances on the government and make accountable people responsible for policy implementation.

We need universities which are not at the mercy of government; we need public service commissions not
interfered in their functioning by the government; we need a strong Lokpal to punish the corrupt; strong
local governments to bring development at the bottom; independent CBI and a police force which is pro-
people; the list goes on.

These changes are not difficult to bring on. It is the will which is missing, lest it affects the power of few
to amass the wealth.

Perils of democracy are the result of loopholes within it. To plug them, we need to fight. Of course, non-
violently.
1. Popular Sovereignty:

Democracy is based on sovereignty. People can exercise their power in democracy. They elect their
representatives. The government remains responsible to the common mass for its every omission and
commission.

2. Political Equality:

Democracy is based on political equality. It means all citizens irrespective of caste, creed, religion, race or
sex are considered to be equal before law and enjoy equal political rights. Political equality gives the right
to vote to every citizen.

3. Majority Rules:

In a democratic set-up actual government is carried out with the help of the party which obtains the
majority of votes. Support of majority is accepted by all.

4. Federal:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

It is another feature of Indian democracy. The Article 1 of Indian Constitution describes India as a union
of states. According to our Constitution, the states are autonomous. They have full freedom in certain
matters, and in some other matters they are dependent on centre.

5. Collective Responsibility:

In the Indian democracy, the Council of Ministers both in states and centre are collectively responsible to
their respective legislatives. No minister is alone responsible for any act of the government. The entire
council of ministers are responsible for all the activities.
6. Formation of Opinion:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Democratic government must provide institutions through which public opinion on various matters can
be formed. Legislature provides the most important platform to estimate and express the public opinion.

7. Respect for Opinion of Minority:

In a democratic set up majority rules but opinions of minorities are also given respect. They are
encouraged to give their opinion. Democracy being a government by free discussion and criticism
encourages both the positive and negative aspects of any proposal. The majority must tolerate the opinion
of the minority otherwise democracy will degenerate into authoritarianism.

8. Provision for Rights:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Democracy provides the individual dignity by giving various rights to the individual. For example, the right
to freedom of speech and expression, right to form association or union, educational and cultural rights.

9. Rule of Laws:

In democracy there is rule of law. It means supremacy of law over all. Under any circumstance law cannot
be compromised.
10. Rule by Consent:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Democracy is based on consent in general but not on force or coercion. By collecting consent from
majority through dialogue, debate and discussion the problems can be solved.

11. Implies open Society:

Democracy implies free and open society. Every activity of the government is based on the public opinion.
Different associations, unions, organisations are formed to discuss the problems openly and to find out
solution for the problems.

12. Government by Compromise:

Democracy is a government by adjustment and compromise. Different opinions are to be considered

within the ruling party and outside of the party. There is plurality of ideas to which the government has
to take into consideration.

13. It is a welfare Government:

Most of the democratic countries have welfare government. Democracy is a powerful weapon through
which all round welfare is possible. As a welfare government it retains individual’s freedom, liberty, dignity
etc.

14. Independent Judiciary:

Democracy is characterised by independent judiciary. The judiciary does not depend on executive or
legislature. No government organ can influence judiciary.
What Are The Different Types Of Democracy?

Anyone reading this is probably quite familiar with the word democracy. Thanks to years of schooling
under our collective belts, we know that democracy is a form of government that has played a major role
in modern history. Democracy dragged us away from archaic systems, such as authoritarian monarchies,
into more liberal and rational forms of governance.

What is democracy?

A democracy is simply a system of government where the citizens directly exercise their power, and have
the right to elect government representatives who collectively create a government body for the entire
nation (like, a parliament). Another way to say the same thing is that it’s a type of government that’s ruled
by citizens, or in other words, people who are members of a society. In a democratic government, people
have certain basic rights that the government can’t take away from them, and these rights are
internationally recognized and guaranteed.

Types of democracy

The main types/forms of democracy are:

Direct democracy

Representative democracy

Presidential democracy

Parliamentary democracy

Authoritarian democracy

Participatory democracy

Islamic democracy

Social democracy

Every country interprets the meaning of democracy in their own particular way. With a wide range of
different geopolitical atmospheres, we see a large spectrum of democratic governments in existence
around the globe.

Direct Democracy

A direct democracy is when citizens get to vote for a policy directly, without any intermediate
representatives or houses of parliament. If the government has to pass a certain law or policy, it goes to
the people. They vote on the issue and decide the fate of their own countries. The people can even bring
up issues themselves, as long as they have a substantial consensus on the issue. Even taxes cannot be
raised without the public support!

When the population is small, educated and mostly homogeneous (at least politically), a direct democracy
doesn’t seem like a bad idea. Switzerland, for example, has had a long history of a successful direct
democracy. In certain places of the country, they still have Landsgemeinde – assemblies where people
come together in open air on a certain day and vote on the laws of their society.

This model of democracy drives people to form parties for their own agendas. Comically enough, due to
this system of governance, one of the political parties in Switzerland is called, believe it or not, the Anti-
Powerpoint Party. The party’s singular aim is to prohibit the use of Powerpoint in office presentations!

Although direct democracy does not exist in the United States in its true form, certain elements do exist
at state and local levels in the form of referendums and initiatives (or propositions). A referendum can be
used by ordinary citizens to ask the government to repeal a certain law, if the citizens manage to achieve
a majority vote. On the contrary, an initiative gives citizens the power to create a law if they achieve
majority vote.

However, most countries are too large and too complicated for direct democracy to work within their
political borders. In those cases, people prefer to elect representatives on their behalf, rather than vote
on every single issue.

Representative Democracy

Representative democracy or indirect democracy is when people choose to vote for who will represent
them in a parliament. This is the most common form of democracy found across the world. It takes
advantage of division of labor: a small group of representatives can use their expertise in policy-making,
freeing everyone else to pursue other tasks.

In addition to this, it emphasizes on protecting the rights of not only the majority of the people in the
state, but also the minorities. By electing a more qualified representative, a minority population would be
able to vocalize its grievances in a more efficient manner.
The downside of this form of democracy is that the elected government may fail to pursue the interests
of the citizens. Referendums and initiatives, the elements of direct democracy discussed above, serve as
remedies for the ills of representative democracy.

Most of the representative democracies of the world consider themselves to be liberal democracies. This
is because they value the needs of their individual citizens more than that of the entire state. This is why
in countries like India and the USA, it is difficult to proclaim a state of emergency.

A liberal democracy can take on different forms, since different countries have different needs and
different ideologies. The following types are just a few subsets of representative democracy.

Presidential Democracy

Under a presidential democracy, the president of a state has a significant amount of power over the
government. He/she is either directly or indirectly elected by citizens of the state.

The president and the executive branch of the government are not liable to the legislature, but cannot,
under normal circumstances, dismiss the legislature entirely. Similarly, the legislature cannot remove the
president from his/her office either, unless the case is extreme. The president has the power to veto a bill
to prevent its adoption. However, if the legislature can muster enough votes, it can override the
president’s veto.

In a presidential democracy, the head of state is also the head of the government. Countries like the USA,
Argentina, and Sudan employ this kind of democracy.

Parliamentary Democracy

A democracy that gives more power to the legislature is called a parliamentary democracy. The executive
branch derives its democratic legitimacy only from the legislature, i.e. the parliament. The elected
legislature (parliament) chooses the head of the government (prime minister), and may remove the prime
minister at any time by passing a vote of no confidence.

The head of state (president) is different from the head of government (prime minister), and both have
varying degrees of power. However, in most cases, the president is either a weak monarch (e.g. the United
Kingdom) or a ceremonial head (e.g. India).

Authoritarian Democracy

This is when only the elites are a part of the parliamentary process. The individuals of the state are allowed
to vote for their chosen candidate, but “regular people” cannot enter the elections. Therefore, in the end,
it is only the ruling elite that decide on the various interests of the state’s population. Modern-day Russia
under Vladimir Putin is a classic example of this type of governance. Even Hong Kong generally falls under
the same category.

Participatory Democracy

The exact opposite of an authoritarian democracy is the participatory form of democracy. There are
different types of participatory democracy, but all of them yearn to create opportunities for all members
of a population to make meaningful contributions to the decision-making process. It empowers the dis-
empowered by breaking up the state into small networks and prefers to empower community-based
grassroots politics. It values deliberation and discussion, rather than merely voting.

Today, no country actively practices this form of democracy. Although the theories behind it are sound,
the real-life application of this approach is fraught with complications. However, many social movements,
like the international Occupy movement, the Bolivarian movement in Venezuela and the Narmada Bachao
Andolan in India organize themselves around a participatory model of democracy.

Islamic Democracy

This form of democracy seeks to apply Islamic law to public policies, while simultaneously maintaining a
democratic framework. Islamic democracy has three main characteristics. Firstly, the leaders are elected
by the people. Secondly, everyone is subject to the Sharia law – including the leaders. Thirdly, the leaders
must commit to practicing ‘shura’, a special form of consultation practiced by Prophet Muhammad.

Shura signifies that the political body is in place for consultation on any problem. It is the basic principle
of the Islamic political system, which is recommended in the Quran, although some classical jurists
maintain that it is obligatory and must be adhered to it under all circumstances. (Source)

The only countries that fulfill these three characteristics are Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Other Islamic
countries, such as Saudi Arabia, fit the bill of authoritarian regimes better than that of democracies.

To state iranian democracy is complicated and convulated would be an understatement

To state Iranian democracy is complicated and convulated would be an understatement

Social Democracy
As you can see, I tried to avoid including individual stances or opinions of varying political parties (such as
a religious democracy, i.e. political parties that advertise themselves to be the upholders of religious
decorum). However, one particular stance is worth mentioning. This is simply due to the sheer number of
political parties that swear by it – Social Democracy.

Social Democracy arose as a reaction to neoliberal policies in international economics. Under

neoliberalism, profit-making entities like multinational corporations can easily infiltrate other political
states. They maintain a level of sovereignty and mobility that no government can counter. The power of
the political state seems flimsy in comparison.

Social Democracy aims at empowering the state over the mere whims of the neoliberal market. The state
can increase its expenditure by providing free alternatives to overpriced private ventures. It may focus on
providing free education or free healthcare, so that people don’t have to depend on profit-making
corporations.

This list obviously does not claim to be an exhaustive discussion around the different types of democracy
that exist today. There are as many theories concerned with democracy as there are governments in the
world! Nevertheless, while democratic models might differ, the spirit of democracy continues to be
upheld in almost every corner of the world!

References

Direct Democracy

Representative Democracy

Presidential System

Parliamentary System

Islamic Democracy

Social Democracy

Authoritarianism and democracy

Participatory democracy

Types of democracy

There are several types of democracy. In this article, learn about participatory democracy, pluralist
democracy, and elite democracy.

Key points

Participatory democracy is a model of democracy in which citizens have the power to decide directly on
policy and politicians are responsible for implementing those policy decisions.
Pluralist democracy is a model of democracy in which no one group dominates politics and organized
groups compete with each other to influence policy.

Elite democracy is a model of democracy in which a small number of people, usually those who are
wealthy and well-educated, influence political decision making.

Models of democracy

When the United States was founded, the Founders created a democratic republic, a system of
government in which the power to govern comes from the people, but elected officials represent their
interests. This system of government allows American citizens to participate in government in many ways.

The United States also has many different levels and branches of government that any citizen or group
might approach. Many people take this as evidence that US citizens, especially as represented by
competing groups, can influence government actions. Some political theorists, however, argue that this
is not the case. These different opinions have sprouted three popular models of democracy: participatory,
pluralist, and elite.

We can see each model of democracy in the American government today. In this article, we’ll define
participatory, pluralist, and elite democracy and describe examples of each.

Participatory democracy

A participatory democracy is a model of democracy in which citizens have the power to make policy
decisions. Participatory democracy emphasizes the broad participation of people in politics.

However, this is not a direct democracy, in which citizens are directly responsible for making policy
decisions. In a participatory democracy, citizens can influence policy decisions, but do not make them.
Politicians are still responsible for implementing those policy decisions. The United States does not have
a pure participatory democracy, but at some levels of government, we can see examples of a participatory
democracy playing out.

Examples of participatory democracy today

We can see participatory democracy in local and state forms of government, where citizens have multiple
access points to influence policymakers. Town hall meetings are a way for local and national politicians to
meet with constituents to hear their opinions on topics they are interested in or to discuss upcoming
legislation.

Initiatives and referendums are two ways in which local and state governments allow for citizens to
influence policy decisions. An initiative is a process that allows citizens to bypass their state legislature by
placing proposed laws on the ballot. Some states even allow citizens to place constitutional amendments
on the ballot.

Only 24 states have an initiative process. Nevada is one of those states, and in 2016, the state of Nevada
voted on Nevada Background Checks for Gun Purchases, Question 1 which would require individuals who
intend to purchase guns from someone who does not have a firearms license to undergo a background
check.

[Example: deep dive into Nevada Background Checks for Gun Purchases]
A popular referendum, on the other hand, allows voters to approve or repeal an act of the state
legislature. Similar to initiatives, voters sign a petition to get the measure on the next ballot, but popular
referendums differ in that the law in question has already passed in the state legislature. In 2016, Maine
conducted a referendum vote on a measure that would outlaw hunting bears after baiting them with
doughnuts. Because doughnuts are so popular for controlling Maine’s bear population, voters
overwhelmingly defeated the measure.

Both initiatives and referendums show how local and state governments allow for the broad participation
of voters to influence policymaking. Elected representatives are then responsible for enacting the
decisions of their constituents.

Pluralist democracy

Pluralist democracy is a model of democracy in which no single group dominates politics and organized
groups compete with each other to influence policy. We see examples of pluralist democracy at both the
state level and the federal level. As in a participatory democracy, anyone can participate in influencing
political decisions, but in a pluralist democracy, individuals work through groups formed around common
causes.

Theorists who back pluralist democracy argue that people self-select which causes they want to spend
their time on and then support those groups. Those groups then compete over gaining support from
notable politicians who will advocate their interests.

Examples of pluralist democracy today

The most notable example of pluralist democracy in the American political system is the role that interest
groups play in political decisions today. Interest groups are groups of people who attempt to influence
policymakers to support their position on a particular common interest or concern.

We’ll go into more detail about interest groups later in the course, but for now, what you need to know
is that groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Organization for Women (NOW)
influence policymakers in many ways. They influence politicians through monetary donations, lobbying,
and testifying in Congressional hearings.

Interest groups are an example of pluralist democracy because people join groups that are focused on
issues that they care about.

Elite democracy

Elite democracy is a model of democracy in which a small number of people, usually those who are
wealthy or well-educated, influence political decisionmaking. Advocated by some of the Framers, like
Alexander Hamilton, the elite democratic model argues that participation in politics should be limited to
a small group of highly-informed individuals who can make the best decisions for all citizens.

Examples of elite democracy today

We can see the influence of elite democracy today in the structure of the Electoral College. Although the
people popularly elect a presidential candidate, the Electoral College serves as a check on the potential
tyranny of the majority. In US history, there have been three presidential elections in which the people
popularly elected one candidate for president, but the other candidate won the Electoral College and
therefore the presidency.

Electoral college map for the election of 2000.

Electoral college map for the election of 2000. Look at which candidate won the electoral college and
which candidate won the popular vote. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

The Electoral College is an example of elite democracy because it places a small group in charge of making
major political decisions, even if those decisions contradict the popular will.

Review questions

CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING

Match each type of democracy with its definition.

Type of democracy

Definition

What is Democracy

Man has a dynamic nature. He is always in search of something that is better. Even in political field man
has made many experiments. The idea behind all these experiments was to find a kind of government
under which state's sovereignty and individual's liberty would remain balanced. The latest experiment is
known as Democracy.

The word 'Democracy' is derived from two Greek words "Demos"which means 'the people' and "kratos"
which means 'the rule. So originally and really Democracy means the rule of people.

Definitions of Democracy

Democracy has been defined by various philosophers and writers in different ways e.g.

Aristotle definition of democracy, It is the rule of mob and condemns it.

Seelay defined it as a government in which everyone has a share.

In short democracy is that form of government in which sovereignty remains in the hands of the entire
nation, which can make and unmake the government.

Types of Democracy

Following are two types of democracy

1. Direct Democracy

Under this system the people take direct in the affairs of the state. The people themselves are the rulers
and they are the ruled at the same time. They themselves make the laws, enforce them and decide cases
according to these laws. Such a democracy existed in City States of ancient Greece and Rome. Some
practices of direct democracy are still observed in Switzerland and in some states of the USA.

2. Indirect or Representative Democracy

After the creation of large nation states, it became impossible for all the people directly to participate in
the affairs of the state. Under this form of government the people elect a small number of representatives
or delegation and give them the authority to run the government. Since the people rule through these
representatives, we give the system the name of indirect or representative democracy. Today in almost
all the countries of the world there is indirect or representative democracy.

Models of Democracy: 6 Models:

About the models Held has said that the models are complex networks about economic and social
conditions of the democratic state. While presenting the model Held has not allowed his prejudices to
dominate. He has impartially portrayed the picture of democratic structure. Explaining the nature of
models Held maintains, “Models of democracy involve necessarily a shifting balance between
descriptive, explanatory and normative statements”.

The following are the six models of democracy:

1. Classical Democracy:

Location and Nature:

The classical democracy was direct democracy and Athens was the abode of such a democracy. There
were, besides Athens, other Greek city states but among all the city states Athens was most prominent
and powerful. Direct democracy in Athens developed in between 800-500 BCE (Before Christ Era). The
Athenians were really proud at the type of direct democracy that worked in their city-state.

What were the characteristics of Athenian democracy which was the symbol of classical democracy?

(1) The classical democracy of Athens assumed the form of mass meeting. The Athenians periodically
met together to take stock of the situation of the state and make policies and decisions.

(2) All the full-time public officials were chosen by the Athenians through lottery or election.
(3) The arrangement was made in such a manner that every citizen could get (at least once in his
lifetime) the scope of participation in the offices of the state.

(4) The Athenians never hesitated to participate in the affairs of state or to shoulder the responsibility.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(5) Official positions rotated among all the citizens and no special training was required to run the
administration.

(6) However, there were special training arrangements for military generals. In this way the Athenian
democracy—the representative of classical democracy—worked in ancient Greece.

Ideals of Classical Democracy:

The ideals of classical democracy or Athenian democracy (these two terms may be used
interchangeably) can be stated in the following manner. The chief political ideals were equality among
all people (here the appropriate word is citizens), liberty and respect for law and justice. The Athenians
paid high and glowing tribute to justice and law. What we now call rule of law, that system prevailed in
ancient Greece and from there it later on, ramified in other parts of Europe.

Because of the prevalence of equality in Greek city-states all the citizens could get the opportunity to
participate in the policy/decision making process of the state. Thucydides stated the ideals and aims of
Athenian democracy in an address attributed to Pericles’ funeral.

ADVERTISEMENTS:
Thucydides (460-399 BC) claimed that Athenian democracy was unique in the sense that its constitution,
system of administration, institutions were not copied from other systems. Rather the Athenian
democracy was a model to be followed by others. Every Athenian had equal right to be equally treated
by law.

Equality before law and equal treatment of law enabled justice to prevail in almost all the spheres of
society. Political life was free and open. All the citizens took active interest in public of fairs and
naturally they were not at all neglected. Every man showed obedience to law and authority. Disputes
were settled among themselves.

Aristotle’s Account of Democracy:

Aristotle’s The Politics (written between 335 and 323 BCE) provides a very beautiful account of
democracy. He said, “The foundation of democratic constitution is liberty. People constantly make this
statement implying that only in this constitution is there any share in liberty at all. Every democracy has
liberty for its aim. “Ruling and being ruled in turn” is one element of liberty.

Then there is the democratic idea of justice as numerical equality, not equality based on merit and when
this idea of what is right prevails, the people must be sovereign and whatever the majority decides that
is final and that is justice………. The result is that in democracies the poor have more sovereign power
than the men of property.”Live as you like” is another mark of a free man. “Living as you not like is the
mark of one enslaved”.

In this lengthy passage Aristotle has delineated the basic features of democracy. Needless to say that
all these are today treated as valid. Liberty, justice and sovereignty of the people or popular sovereignty
are the basic pillars of democracy. Aristotle gave priority to these three features.

He believed that only in democracy ruling and being ruled in turn take place. It is absent in a state which
is not democratic. The absence of the opportunity to rule is the symbol of slavery. He also asserted that
in his democracy equality is to be interpreted numerically and it is not based on merit.

Principles of Democracy:

Aristotle has laid down certain fundamental principles of democracy. These may also be called the basic
features of democracy. We have already noted the conception of democracy as it obtains in The Politics.

Following are the fundamental principles:

1. Officials of the city state will come through the elections and all citizens are eligible for all posts or
offices.

2. A common rule will operate throughout the state and this rule is rule over each and each by turn over
all.

3. All the citizens are eligible for all posts excepting the posts which require special qualifications or
experience.

4. No tenure of office dependent on the possession of property qualification.

5. The same man not to hold the same office twice. A man will be allowed to hold office only for once
in his lifetime. However, in the field of warfare this principle will not hold.

6. Aristotle prescribed short tenure of office.

7. Jury courts will be chosen from all the citizens and will adjudicate on all.

8. The Assembly (in Greek it was called Ecclesia) will have the sovereign authority over anything except
minor matters.

9. Payment services in assembly, in law courts and in the offices shall be regular.

10. Good birth, wealth and culture shall be the marks of the rule of the few. The opposite shall be the
rule of the many.

11. Perpetual tenure of office is not favoured by democracy.

Criticism:
Whatever may be the novelty or importance of classical democracy of Athens, the critics: are not
sympathetic to it.

Some of the criticisms are:

1) The Athenian democracy was limited only to a small fraction of population. The male citizens above
the age of 20 could take active part in the affairs of state. The female citizens, irrespective of their
qualification, had not the liberty or right to participate in the policy-making affairs. So the classical
democracy was the democracy of the male citizens or patriarchs. The women had no civil or political
rights.

2) Large numbers of Athenians were also ineligible to participate in the proceedings of the city-states.
They were immigrants and slaves. In Athens large numbers of immigrants lived and their contribution
to Athenian culture, development etc. was not negligible at all. The slaves in Athens constituted a major
part of the whole population and the Athenian economy and development rested on their labour. But
they were not permitted to take part in the offices and other branches of the state.

3) The treatment meted out to slaves and immigrants does not prove the existence of rights and
equality in Athenian society.

4) All citizens did not enjoy equal status and all the opportunities were not open to all.

5) Many have called Athenian democracy as the tyranny of the minority.

6) Held has said that various aspects of the classical democracy can legitimately be questioned.

2. Protective Democracy:

Definition:

The main theme of classical democracy was the participation of all citizens in the processes of state and
the Athenians (where the classical democracy flourished most prominently) believed that they could
achieve equality. So the basis of classical democracy was equality in respect of rights and privileges.
But the protective democracy highlights a quite different aspect. In the words of Heywood “democracy
was seen less as a mechanism through which public could participate in political life, and more as a
device through which citizens could protect themselves from the encroachments of government, hence
protective democracy”.

Here democracy has been viewed as a means at the disposal of individuals which they can use to
safeguard their rights and liberties. In the middle Ages and early modern period the autocratic rulers
on any flimsy ground and in most of the cases without any ground encroached upon the basic rights
and liberties of the citizens and they were absolutely helpless on the face of the steamroller-like
administration.

In ancient Greece many had the idea about protection of rights and liberties. Plato thought that the rule
of the guardian class could serve the purpose properly. But Aristotle asked —”quis custodiet ipsos
custodes?” Its English meaning is who will guard the guardians? From all these conceptions arise the
idea of protective democracy.

Origin of the Protective Democracy:

The origin of democracy as an instrument of protecting human rights and liberties can conveniently be
traced to the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.

More specifically John Locke (1631-1704) is regarded as the great apostle of protective democracy. His
civil society based on democratic principles was created through the instrumentality of social contract
to protect the right to life liberty and property and ensure pursuance of happiness. Another person who
acted behind this type of democracy was James Madison (1751-1836), a key architect of American
constitution.

The three stalwarts of utilitarianism were also the important figures of the protective democracy. They
were Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) James Mill 1773-1836) and John Stuart Mill. The utilitarianism was
forcefully advocated in favour of protective democracy. The leitmotif of utilitarianism was to safeguard
right liberty and opportunity and these are basic principles of democracy.

These must be protected at any cost and democracy according to them was the best form of
government which could guarantee these. Bentham, James Mill and his philosopher son argued that
only in democracy all sorts of individual interests could be protected and advanced.
Locke, Madison, Bentham, and the Mills-all were in favour of protective democracy and it is an aspect
of liberal democracy. In their hands this received best treatment. In fact, Bentham and the Mills were
the representative thinkers of protective democracy.

Basic Features:

The following are the basic features of protective democracy:

(1) Protective democracy believes in popular sovereignty. But since people cannot directly take part in
the processes of state, they do it through their representatives.

(2) Both the popular sovereignty and representative form of government are legitimate.

(3) It is the primary duty of the state to protect the rights and liberties of citizens and whether this is
properly performed or not people keep a strong vigilance over the functions of state

(4) The authority is accountable to the People and in order to establish it elections are held on regular
basis. There are also other ways of establishing accountability

(5) A very important way of protecting the rights, liberties and distribution of privileges is the division
of powers among legislature, executive and judiciary. This is done in all liberal democracies.

(6) There is prevalence of constitutionalism. Both the ruler and the ruled are controlled by the principles
laid down in constitution.

(7) Constitution is the source of power for all and is the guarantor of rights and liberties. There are also
measures to prevent the violation of rights and liberties.

(8) Organisations associations groups have enough freedom and they always act as friends of citizens
and fight against any violation of rights or encroachment on liberty.

(9) Competition in all spheres is a feature of protective democracy.

(10) A clear distinction between state and civil society is strictly maintained.

Mechanisms of Protective Democracy:

Bentham, J. Mill and J.S. Mill elaborately discussed the various aspects of protective democracy. They
were firmly convinced that only a democratic government could secure all rights and liberties for all
citizens.

In our analysis of theory of rights we have noted that Bentham disapproved the natural rights because
they were not recognised by the state and the state owed no responsibility for their protection Bentham
and the Mills (J. Mill and J.S. Mill) were convinced that if proper mechanism is not provided for the
protection of rights they were liable to be violated and the proper mechanism could be ensured only in
a democracy. Hence to the three utilitarian philosophers democracy meant a mechanism for protecting
rights and in that sense it is protective democracy.

Mention has been made earlier that C.B. Macpherson (The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, 1977)
drew our attention for the first time that one of the very important functions of democracy was to
protect rights and privileges of citizens and this could be done through accountability. “For Bentham
and Mill liberal democracy was associated with a political apparatus that would ensure the
accountability of the governors to the governed”.

Accountability, therefore, possesses sufficient potentiality for the realisation of rights and liberties.
Once Bentham said, “A democracy has for its characteristic object and effect securing its members
against oppression and depredation at the hands of those functionaries which it employs for its
defence”.

James Mill in An Essay of Government stressed elections, separation of powers, liberty of the press,
freedom of speech and expression and freedom to form association and organisation as the basic ways
to protect rights and liberties. Through these machineries general interests of the community could be
sustained.

The continuity of competition among the citizens, free play of variety of ideas and thoughts were
necessary for the proper development of individuals’ faculties. In the conception of protective
democracy the free markets have a special place. The utilitarian thinkers were of opinion that free
elections and free vote were no doubt important ingredients of protective democracy.
But along with these free markets system was essential because this could give the individual’s right to
earn living and right not to be neglected. Also is required right to property. All these, however, are to
be protected, through the mechanism of law, by the state. James Mill even went a step forward by
saying that any threat to the free market system and the right to property is also a potential threat to
the realisation of rights and privileges. For this reason the utilitarians argued with strong assertion that
these two must have their rightful and convenient place in the society. Otherwise rights could not be
protected.

Minimal State and Protective Democracy:

To cut the state to size is an important way for the realisation of rights and liberties of the people. The
term to cut the state to size means to limit the functions of state within specific limitations.

Again, specific limitation means the state will perform certain minimum functions which the individuals
cannot normally do. Beyond these specific limitations the state would keep itself away. This is generally
called the minimum state or minimal state. Bentham and J.S. Mill also advocated such a state and theirs
was called theory of limited state.

Theory of minimal state does not mean absolute nor-intervention. To maintain general public good the
state must see that rights and liberties are properly realised because it is the primary duty of the state.
Moreover, in democracy, if successfully implemented, people will enthusiastically and voluntarily
shoulder the responsibility of policy-making processes and that will reduce the burden of state.

“Free vote and the free market were the sine qua non. For a key proposition was that the collective
good could be properly realised in many domains of life only if individuals interacted in competitive
exchanges pursuing their utility with minimal state interference”.

Robert Nozick was also an advocate of the minimal state theory and his contention was that only
through a minimal state concept could justice be realised. He believed that only in an atmosphere of
minimum state intervention there could be proper justice.

Functions of the State:

If the functions of the state were to protect the democratic rights and liberties it is essential to throw
light on certain principal functions which a democratic state must perform and Jeremy Bentham in
Principles of Civil Code has pointed out four such functions. These are: to provide subsistence, to
produce abundance, to favour equality, and to maintain security.
Let us briefly state these functions. It is an important duty of the state to see that all the citizens are in
possession of sufficient materials for comfortable and smooth livelihood and the failure on the part of
the state will create resentment in the minds of men. In order to achieve the first goal the state must
adopt all measures for the production of consumers’ goods in abundant amount and without it the
citizens can never get the taste of comfort and demands will not be satisfied.

The state’s another duty is to ensure equality in all spheres and if this is not achieved the state should
take steps to reduce gross inequalities. Finally the citizens expect security from the authority and the
latter must provide it. We know that the inhabitants of the state of nature were in insecure condition
and this impelled them to find out a security and for that purpose they setup a civil society. (Here the
term civil society is not used in Gramisci’s sense) They believed that only a political organisation/civil
society could meet their demand.

When Democracy Becomes Protective?

If the state administration and structure are rearranged and remodelled properly and successfully, it is
believed democracy will ultimately become protective in nature and when it assumes that character
what will be its nature? Let us now state it.

When a democratic state gives special attention for the fulfilment of rights and liberties in that state
there shall grow a number of power-centres and various interest groups will grow.

(1) An important aspect of a protective democracy is a clear line of difference will be drawn between
state and civil society and the latter will have sufficient autonomy.

(2) There will be domination of private enterprise in the field of production as well as distribution. In
other words, the economy will be privately managed and operated and this will make open for the
furtherance of liberty and rights.

(3) A corollary to the second condition is the advent of market economy which indicates free
competition among all participants in the economic activities. A number of fora will be engaged in
economic activities with full freedom. The appearance of market economy is not all, the guarantee of
freedom and autonomy is also important.

(4) Within the boundary of civil society there shall arise political, cultural and economic organisations.
People’s freedom will thrive through these institutions. The protagonists of protective democracy
stressed all these.
3. Developmental Democracy:

Introduction:

In the last sections we have focused our attention on two aspects of democracy— classical democracy
and protective democracy. Though these two models are important, there are other models and we
shall now deal with developmental model, or we may call it developmental democracy.

Before going to the details of the matter we want to quote a lengthy passage from Held’s book Models
of Democracy:

“If Bentham and James Mill were reluctant democrats but prepared to develop arguments to justify
democratic institutions, John Stuart Mill was a clear advocate of democracy, preoccupied with the
extent of individual liberty in all spheres of human endeavour. Liberal democratic government was
important to him (J. S. Mill)…because it was an important aspect of the free development of
individuality. Participation in political life was vital to create a direct interest in government and
responsibility a basis for an informed and developing citizenry……….. and for a dynamic developmental
policy”.

J. S. Mill is a prime advocate of developmental democracy. He did not concentrate his attention mainly
on the power and function of democracy to protect rights and liberties but also on its power to develop
the faculties of man. J. S. Mill viewed democracy in this light and C, B. Macpherson first drew the
attention of political scientists to it.

Definition and Origin:

According to Macpherson and Dunn to J. S. Mill (henceforth only Mill) democracy was a very powerful
mechanism of moral self-development and highest and harmonious expansion of individual capacities.
We are thus in a possession of two elements of development. One is moral self-development and the
other is development of individual capacities.

We know that Rousseau prescribed a form of democracy known as direct democracy of the Greek city-
state type. His main concern was all- round development of moral qualities of men which were
degraded (Rousseau believed so) in the midst of development of art, culture and civilisation.

Rausseau’s view is quite polemelical, but he thought so. By individual capacities Mill meant the
argumentative power of men, intellect, reasoning, to understand the distinction between right and
wrong and above all the ability to participate in the processes of government. Mill was also indebted
to de Tocqueville Democracy in America. It was the conviction of Tocqueville that the increasing
intervention of state was bound to curb the freedom of individuals and that would be harmful for
progress.

The government must keep itself away from the intrusive interference. Mill whole-heartedly subscribed
to this contention of de Tocqueville. Like Tocqueville, Mill concluded that if it is not countered, it “would
become a recepe for capitulation to the dictate of the administrator”.

Summary of Mill’s Analysis:

Mill viewed his contempory state from a very close distance and what appeared to him was that:

(1) The state apparatus was accumulating more and more power jeopardising freedom of individuals.

(2) The increasing appearance of state on every aspect of social life was making individuals extremely
dependent on the state. This threatened both spontaneity and freedom of men. This tendency is against
devel-opment.

(3) Mill did not think that the efficiency and pervasiveness of administration were not helpful for
progress of individuals because these are anti-freedom.

(4) The ceaseless expansion of administration blocked the free flow of information because the
government would try to withhold information for its own sake.

(5) To Mill an efficient and scientific administration meant overall control of bureaucracy. But he had
no favourable view about it. The greatest shortcoming of bureaucracy is it is not accountable to the
electorate/individuals. This unaccountability encourages it to act in the most irresponsible way.

(6) He believed that the ever rising expansion of state activities posed serious danger to mass
participation in the governmental process.

(7) There is tendency of government to bring under its fold maximum number of people —particularly
the educated, intelligent and efficient people. Later on the state uses them to support its functions,
policies, and various schemes and in this way it grabs the entire society and the whole society becomes
stooge of state apparatus.

Way Out:

After considering all the types of government or state Mill drew the conclusion that only the
representative form of government was suitable for the realisation of rights and liberties without which
no individual could develop his moral self- development and manifold capacities. In Mill’s account a
representative form of government was quite equivalent to all types’ of freedom and various categories
of liberty.

In other words, in a representative democracy an individual could find a favourable atmosphere for the
development of freedoms and rights. Any alternative to representative democracy is direct democracy
of the Athenian type. But, Mill argued, such a form of government was not possible for modern state.

So representative form of government, in the background of the attainment of right and liberty, was in
a sense, quite unparalleled. It would act as a watchdog and from Mill’s assessment some people started
to call state night-watchman. Since then we are accustomed to view the state in this light.

It is not true that a representative democracy protects right and liberty, through free elections, voting
system, free competition among the parties etc. It inflames the urge to debate any matter and to act in
accordance with reason. It may be added here that all these Mill said in the sixties of the nineteenth
century and by that time Britain’s representative democracy attained certain amount of maturity.

Development and Intervention:

From the just-concluded analysis one can frame the conclusion that Mill did not approve state
intervention. But such a view does not carry the exact stand taken by Mill in this regard. He supported
interference of state for the protection of self. If the liberty or the life of the individual is in danger, the
state intervention will be justified. Mill, in this connection it may be noted, divided the actions of the
individuals into two broad categories—self-regarding and other-regarding. So far as the actions of the
individuals concern their own interests or issues they should be allowed to enjoy absolute liberty.

This is called self-regarding. Men must have complete freedom. But if their actions concern others’
interest that is other-regarding, that is, the actions are likely to inflict harm to others; the state must
have the right to interfere. It is the strong belief of Mill that “liberty and democracy create the possibility
of human excellence.”
He was also very anxious about the emancipation of women. He believed that without women’s
emancipation the progress of society was impossible; women were not born to be confined within the
boundary of domestic affairs. It is, therefore, the duty of the state to adopt appropriate steps for the
emancipation of women. We thus see that Mill was not against state interference. The interference, if
done, must be based on solid ground and this is attainment of human excellence.

Features of Developmental Democracy:

1. In a developmental democracy citizen’s involvement is generally found and it is done through the
voting mechanism which is held regularly.

2. There is a decentralisation of power. All the powers are extended up to the grass-root level and this
enables citizens to participate in the various affairs.

3. Legislature and bureaucracy are separate from each other and the latter has no control over the
legislators. However, as specialists the bureaucrats enjoy certain amount of freedom.

4. There are constitutional and legal provisions which guide both the ruler and the ruled as well as all
the branches of state administration and judiciary.

5. Special arrangements are available for the promotion of right and liberty. Various social economic
rights are given priority.

6. A system of checks and balances exists in developmental democratic system.

7. Representative form of government is the main type of developmental democracy. No other form of
government is suitable for developmental democracy.

8. In developmental democracy, it has been observed, popular sovereignty is vested in people.

9. Powers of the government are generally separated from each other which stands in the way of the
domination of one department.
10. The rule of law (which means equality before law and equal protection of law) is the important
feature.

State Structure:

Let us see what is the exact structure of democracy which aims at development. In the first place, in
such a democracy a clear demarcation (it is claimed by many) between the state and civil society is
found. Each has specific area of jurisdiction. Secondly, under normal circumstances, the state does not
interfere with the functions of civil society or different organisations.

These two arrangements ensure the autonomy of civil society. Thirdly, almost all the exponents (such
as Hayek, Rawls, Nozick etc.) have supported market economy. In such an economy not only individuals
get full freedom for the development of their faculties, it ensures economic liberty. Fourthly, all the
agencies and departments are so arranged that a free competition can thrive. People get ample scope
to set up or organise institutions in accordance with their choice and liking. Fifthly, a representative
form of government is a party government.

The majority party in the lower house of legislature forms government. Party government has also other
variations. But all the forms, more or less, adhere to the same principle that is party forms government.
Finally, administration is so structured that one party, after the election, comes to power and the other
party sits in the opposition. This does not lead to the break of administration.

4. Participatory Democracy:

Meaning of Participatory Democracy:

Two well-known political scientists Macpherson and Pateman (Participation and Democratic Theory)
.gave wide circulation to the concept participatory democracy and today we very often refer to it in our
academic purposes. Question is what do we mean by participatory democracy? Simply stated it means
a democracy which is conducted by people’s active or direct participation.

Every type of democracy is based on certain type of participation. Hence the problem here is why a
different model known as participatory democracy. The term participatory democracy has a different
perspective. It is that type of democracy where people assemble at an open place and directly
participate in all the deliberations.

There is no provision of participation through representatives. A participatory democracy never permits

its functions to be performed through representatives. People themselves enjoy supreme power and
by exercising it they enjoy the absolute authority to take decisions which generally affect the state or
body politic. C.B. Macpherson and Carole Pateman “have a number of common starting points and
commitments.

Together, they represent a model of democracy which I shall simply refer to as “participatory
democracy. This term is frequently used to cover a variety of democratic models ‘from those of classical
Athens to certain market position”.

Rousseau and Participatory Democracy:

Attention of the readers will be drawn to the fact that after direct democracy that took place in ancient
Athens, its revival occurred at the hands of Rousseau (1712- 1778). His chief concern was the protection
of liberty because every man was born with liberty. But in the course of time it was lost. His second
concern was how to revive liberty? The device he suggested was creation of a body politic which will be
conducted and administered by the people themselves through open assembly sessions.

In other words, the sovereign power shall be vested in the hands of the people and it will be exercised
by them. This is called popular sovereignty. In Rousseau’s thought system there was no place of
representatives, political parties or any form of groups functioning on behalf of people. Rousseau said
that sovereignty is inalienable and at the same time it cannot be represented. He had no faith on
representative system.

Rousseau said, “The idea of representation is modern if it comes to us from feudal’ government, from
the iniquitous and absurd system which degrades humanity and dishonors the name of man” (emphasis
added). Rousseau wants to say that it is the direct participation of people that will make their lives good
and help the development of morality. The participatory democracy of Rousseau wanted to make his
citizens active and to involve them in all the affairs of state.

Aims of Participatory Democracy:

The aims of participatory democracy have been best described by Rousseau. If the law and general
administration is meant for the people, it is logical that behind this law and running the administration
there shall lie the consent of the people. He said, “Every law the people has not ratified in person is null
and void”.

He also believed that the introduction of representative system was nothing but a device to insult the
people’s power of reason and his intelligence. So it is the only form of government that recognises the
worth and other qualities of human beings.
Mill developed different impression about this type of democracy. He has said that through the
participatory democracy the development of human being can be achieved. Supporting Mill’s view
Pateman says, “It enhances a sense of political efficacy, reduces a sense of estrangement from power
centres, nurtures a concern for collective problems and contributes to the formation of an active and
knowledgeable citizenry capable of taking a more acute interest in government affairs”.

The most important aim of participatory democracy is to make people interested in the political, legal
and economic processes of the state. Through this they will learn to think that the state affairs are their
own. In other words, it will make people more responsible. Every man has his own qualities and
importance. Direct participation will be able to enlighten them. It’s another purpose is to kindle up the
innovative qualities of man.

Features:

1. The important feature of participatory democracy is people will have the opportunity to directly
participate in the functions and decision-making processes of state and there shall be no provision for
delegating power to another body or organ.

2. At all stages of state administration (even local levels) people are the determining factors and that
cannot be challenged or “done away with to facilitate representative system.

3. Though Rousseau was the champion of participatory democracy he did not favour party system. In
modern times it is suggested that party system is essential for the smooth functioning of participatory
democracy. Only political party can organise such democracy and lead it to the stage of success.

4. A system which has adopted participatory democratic system remodels and remoulds the social and
political structure so that democracy can function smoothly.

5. Creation of institutions and organisation is not enough; in such a system there is an ever-vigilance to
maintain these in suitable manner.

6. Though unanimity is emphasised, to make this form of democracy workable there shall be an option
for majority decision system.

7. In participatory democracy equality is always stressed. Particularly political equality is the sine qua
non of such democratic system.
8. Rights, liberties are also equally emphasised.

9. Rousseau said that people participate in open assembly to exercise rights and get freedom. None will
be allowed to encroach others liberty.

5. Cosmopolitan Democracy:

Definition:

As a concept and as a form of government democracy envisages dynamism. As a form of government it

is extremely desirable, but, it is believed, it must be suitable for changed circumstances. This feeling or
attitude has led to reformulate it at different epochs. This may be regarded as background of
cosmopolitan democracy or cosmopolitan model. It is quite well known to us that democracy is
confined to the geographical area of nation state but cosmopolitan model thinks of democracy at global
level.

Held’s observation is: “A cosmopolitan democracy would not call for a diminution per se of state
capacity across the globe. Rather, it would seek to entrench and develop democratic institutions at
regional and global levels as a necessary complement to those at the level of the nation-state. This
conception of democracy is based upon the recognition of a continuing significance of nation-states
while arguing for a layer of governance to constitute a limitation on national sovereignty”.

Cosmopolitan model of democracy is a compromise between importance, significance and

requirements of nation states on the one hand and the globalisation or cosmopolitisation of politics,
economy and culture on the other. In this age of increasing dependence of different nation states upon
each other a revision of the attitude to democracy appears to be incumbent. So cosmopolitan model of
democracy is not an exclusively new idea, it is a concept viewed in the background of new situation in
international situation.

Assumption:

The cosmopolitan model of democracy is based on the following assumptions:

1. It assumes that in the present day world situation the nation-states are directly and indirectly
dependent upon each other. The activities, schemes and policies of one state will invariably influence
those of other states. Naturally “entrenchment of a cluster of rights and obligations” is necessary. If this
is not done various rights and liberties will be in problem. The individuals of all nation-states will be
deprived of some basic rights.

2. Social, political and economic rights and liberties are to be included in the basic laws of the nation-
states. Constitution will be framed or laws will be enacted to include them.

3. At global level an association or assembly would be formed with the help of all democratic states to
deal with all rights and obligations. For this purpose the jurisdiction of the international court should
be extended.

4. It also assumes that all the democratic states and societies will jointly form an assembly which would
not be under the control of any superpower. It may be called a supra-national authority or a world
government.

5. It assumes active cooperation among all states as regards the management of issues across the
border of nation-states.

6. There is a further assumption. All the controversial transnational issues shall be settled by
referendum. It denotes that the nation-states enjoy right to equal sovereignty.

7. The UNO must take initiative for the success of cosmopolitan model of democracy.

Causes of Origin:

In recent years the urge for establishing democracy at international level becomes active. Naturally
question arises why there is such an urge? Of late it has been found that certain tendencies are
weakening democracy in various parts of the globe. Proper measures are not being taken to protect
democratic rights and liberties and privileges are not adequately distributed among those who need
these. Above all, the most important aspect of democracy is its accountability to the citizens.

Whereas, democracy is an essential instrument for the protection of rights and development of the
capacities of individuals. We can say there is a crisis in democracy at the level of nation-states. It is a
firm belief of all lovers of democracy that it should not be allowed to reach the stage of impotency. At
an international level democratic institutions are to be set up to monitor the functioning of democratic
system of different states.
Globalisation and multinational corporations are becoming more and more aggressive and they have
tended, in some cases, it is alleged, to erode democracy. The essentiality and utility of MNCs cannot be
denied but it cannot be their function to curb democracy and to that end prophylactic device should be
adopted and that device is supposed to be to set up democracy at global level.

The superpower politics has not always helped democracy to flourish. The cosmopolitan democracy will
be an antidote to this ominous sign. There shall be a compromise between autonomy of state and
overall development of humankind.

Conditions for Cosmopolitan Democracy:

David Held admits that the demand for cosmopolitan democracy is rapidly rising but a favourable
atmosphere for it has not yet developed. He, therefore, suggests certain conditions for its creation as
well as successful working.

Some of the conditions are:

1. It is believed that for a cosmopolitan model of democracy all the states of the world will have to take
active interest, particularly big powers.

2. Reforming the principal organs of the UN especially the Security Council is necessary. The states such
as India, Germany, Japan, Brazil etc. are to be made permanent members.

3. Many provisions of the Charter shall be amended. The Charter was framed when the Second World
War was going on. The situation has changed since then.

4. It has been suggested that a global parliament should be set up to deal with the global issues.

5. Like European Union other regional bodies should be set up to deal with regional issues. It means the
UN should take up the matter of more and more regionalisation.

6. It has been suggested that there shall be a military body to settle military matters.
7. A functional body to deal with issues like rights, liberties, obligations is required to be set up and this
organisation should have enough power to see that citizens of all states are enjoying rights contained
in the universal declaration of human rights.

8. For the purpose of tackling the legal matters a judicial body should be set up or the present
International Court of Justice be armed with more powers.

6. Marxist Model of Democracy:

Failure of Liberal Democracy:

From the 1960s the exponents of liberalism and liberal democracy had been clamouring for less and
less power of state and more freedom for men. Hayek, Nozick and Rawls are chief among them. And
practically in the eighties of the last century there was a spectacular upward movement of liberalism at
the helm of which were Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of Britain, and Reagan the ex-President of
the United States.

But at the beginning of nineties serious thinkers of political science witnessed the revival of Marxist
thought in general and Marxist model of democracy and behind this revival there was a clear case of
the failure of liberal democracy.

Alex Callinicos and several others observed that at least on three fields liberal democracy failed:

(1) In the field of political participation liberal democracy has failed to evoke sufficient enthusiasm in
the mind of men.

(2) Accountability of the government is not prominent. The chief feature of democracy is the authority
shall be accountable to the people and in most of the cases this did not happen.

(3) In almost all the liberal democracies there was clear erosion of freedom and because of this people
could not raise their voice against the policies of the government.

People’s lack of interest in participation is evident in American election. In the presidential elections of
USA generally 48% to 50% voters cast their votes. There are, of course, exceptions. For example, in the
2004 election percentage was higher. The same picture repeated in Switzerland. Liberal democracy is
characterised by positivity of citizenry. Expansion of bureaucracy reduces the accountability of
authority.

Direct Democracy Model of Marx:

After actively considering the various models of democracy Callinicos (The Revenge of History: Marxism
and the East European Revolutions) has offered his defence of classical Marxism which strongly
supports direct democracy. The various forms of liberal democracy suggest a type of government
conducted by people belonging to the upper echelons of society.

People belonging to the lower strata hardly get any scope to take part in the political process of state.
Callinicos feels that the prevalence of this system converts democracy simply into a farce. In the earlier
section we have pointed out the failures of liberal democracy and these failures were mainly due to the
structural constraints of liberal democracy.

Even if the administration desires to put into practice the basic norms of democracy they could not
achieve success due to these constraints. Marx envisaged direct democracy on the ground that only this
type could ensure participation of people in the democratic process. This form of democracy has been
called democracy from below.

The main features, in general terms, are that the public officials are subject to periodic elections, public
officials must feel that they are servants of people and their activities are subject to scrutiny. All the
elected officials are under the system of recall. There shall also operate the system of referendum and
initiative. These are the chief features of direct democracy and we shall now see relevance in Marx’s
thought.

Marx’s Commune Model:

Marx’s early conception of democracy was direct democracy and involved a “Rousseauesque critique
of principle of representation and the view that true democracy involves the disappearance of state
and thus the end of the separation of state from the civil society”.

The best exposition of Marx’s conception of democracy is to be found in The Civil War in France (1871).
He said, “Instead of deciding one in three or six years such member of the ruling class was to
misrepresent the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in
communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workmen and managers
in his business”.
Through his experience Marx learnt that the bourgeois democracy meant for a particular class which
was minority. So such a democracy could never be the real democracy, it was the democracy of the
minority and was based on complex process. It was characterised by suffrage to be availed of all adult
citizens, political liberty and rule of law. Marx believed that first of all communes would be constituted
and all the members of the commune would get the opportunity to participate in the processes of the
commune.

It might be called participatory democracy or direct democracy as was thought of by Rousseau. Both
Rousseau and Marx were dead against representative system of government. Rousseau once said the
British people were free only at the time of elections because they could elect men of their own choice.

Nature of the Commune Model:

Let us throw some light on Marx’s commune model of democracy. He said that the commune model of
democracy had the full potentiality to break the prevailing state power which arose or was created in
Mediaeval Europe. The constitution of the commune, under no circumstances, could represent the
interests of the bourgeoi-sie or any vested interest.

Let us quote him: “The communal constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces
hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon and clogging the free movement of society….The
communal constitution brought the rural producers under the intellectual lead of the central towns of
their districts and these secured them in the working men, the natural trustees of their interests. The
very existence of the commune involved local municipal liberty but no longer as a check upon the, now
superseded, state power”.

He further observes that the commune was formed of the municipal councillors chosen by universal
suffrage. The councillors were responsible to the electorate and were liable to be removed from their
position on notice. This commune was not a parliamentary body. In the commune form of democracy,
Marx said, there was no place of high dignitaries.

There was no scope for making any provision for high salaries of very few high dignitaries. The working
men would constitute the commune and they would be in the charge of the communal administration.
Thus commune would set up real democracy.

Marxist Democracy and Engels:

While Marx was in London, he wrote a very important book (all his writings are important no doubt,
but for the present purpose The Class Struggle in France) namely, The Class Struggle in France and it
was published in 1850 and in 1895 Engels wrote an Introduction. In this Introduction Engels stated
something which allows us to assess Marxist conception about democracy.

In the commune model we have seen that Marx practically had no faith on the bourgeois type of
democracy and because of that reason he thought of setting up a new model—commune model of
democracy. But when Engels wrote the Introduction he did not refer to this model. In it Engels exhorted
the working class and other sections of the exploited mass to fight against the bourgeois system and to
utilise all the machinery of bourgeois democratic structure as instrument of fight in order to emasculate
the entire structure of capitalist democracy or state.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

This introduction consisting of 20 pages fuelled controversy among non-Marxist and even Marxist
circles. Here Engels advised the working class to eschew the militant means such as armed struggle,
sabotage, and to destroy the entire bourgeois structure of state administration. The purpose of the
working class was to seize political power by revolutionary methods and not by constitutional and
democratic methods. Before he wrote the Introduction he could not realise the importance of the
bourgeois democratic methods.

What Engels Actually Said?

We have already noted that Marx ridiculed the periodic elections because it had not the capacity to
establish real democracy. But Engels in his Introduction said that the universal adult franchise offered
the scope for remodeling the bourgeois political structure. After every three years the proletarian
would get the opportunity through the implementation of universal franchise to elect a new set of
representatives who would rule the society.

The workers’ representatives would play active role in the parliament and fight for the causes and
interests of the workers. They would be able to corner the liberal and bourgeois political parties and
clip the wings of powerful bureaucrats. This would enable the proletarians to establish their authority
on the bourgeois state.

A new form of society would come which would be in the nature of democracy—not direct democracy
but representative democracy—which was earlier disapproved by Marx. Engels in his Introduction
planned for a combination between incessant fight and democracy. Somehow he came to believe that
real democracy or proletarian rule (also democracy) could not be set up overnight. Only the utilisation
of universal suffrage could empower the working class to have that.

They could send large number of representatives to the legislature, form the municipal councils with
their own representatives. Engels said, “Rebellion in the old style, street- fighting with barricades which
decided the issue everywhere up to 1848, was to a considerable extent obsolete”.

(1) Introduction: defining democracy and dictatorship (2) The advantages and disadvantages of
democracy (3) The uses and abuses of dictatorship (4) Pakistan and the two conventions (5) Conclusion:
Historical Perspective

Democracy means the "government in which the people hold the power either directly or through elected
representatives". It means that people are allowed to choose their representatives for running the
government. These elected members make laws and run government according to the wishes of their
people whereas dictatorship is a "state ruled by a dictator, absolute power or authority." In such a system
an individual may assume all the decision making of the state. Its examples are Kingship and Military rules
A democratic system is so disciplined with certain checks and balances that there are few chances of
corruption. There is a ruling and an opposition party. It makes the affairs of the state competitive. This
competition and the fear of exposition of the follies of ruling party keep things working in a fair manner
for the state. However, if the politicians are corrupt and they hijack the democratic system by rigging and
propaganda e.g. in third world countries, then this system is used merely for further degenerating and
polluting the already deteriorating state of affairs of the country. A dictator is powerful enough to take a
country to the heights of progress, provided, he is competent and a man of integrity. Bu he may also ruin
the nation because there is no check and balance on him. Both progress and downfall are swift with the
aid of dictatorship. Bacon says:" Nero could touch and tune the harp well; but in government sometimes
he used to wind the pins too high, sometimes to let them too low". Therefore, it is always risky with
dictatorship. Pakistan has been a great laboratory for the testing of the two conventions. Both the systems
failed here leaving remnants of a destroyed country. As discussed earlier, education of a nation in the
right direction would determine the right type of government for them; however, that must be democracy
wherein they may have their representatives in the assembly for resolving the issues being faced by them.
In countries like Pakistan, propaganda and influence did play important role so honest and valorous men
could not be elected to put country on the right track.

Conclusion: The state is not the property of an individual or a tribe; it is the ownership of all the inhabitants
without any discrimination of caste, colour or creed. Any system, be it democracy or dictatorship, should
be gradual. All western democracies were, in their initial periods of growth, dictatorship of one sort or the
other. They remained successful in educating their masses in the true sense of the word and this led them
to industrial and cultural revolutions. They excelled in all fields of life. They also enriched their older forms
of government with the better ones but it was all according to the traditions of those states. They did not
import a system from somewhere else to impose upon their people.