Amartya sen:

Throughout the nineteenth century, theorists of democracy found it quite natural to discuss whether
one country or another was “fit for democracy.” This thinking changed only in the twentieth century,
with the recognition that the question itself was wrong: A country does not have to be deemed fit for
democracy; rather, it has to become fit through democracy.

Amartya Sen is saying that religious and community differences in India can sometimes be misused
by politicians to create divisions and gain power. This has happened many times, even recently,
causing fear and tension in the country.

However, most people in India reject such division and violence. Whenever there is religious
conflict, people from all backgrounds speak out against it. This strong public response is what helps
protect democracy and stop politicians from using religion to divide people.

there is overwhelming evidence to show that what is needed for generating faster economic growth
is a friendlier economic climate rather than a harsher political system.

Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing
elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make
such an effort.

The positive role of political and civil rights applies to the prevention of economic and social disasters
in general. When things go fine and everything is routinely good, this instrumental role of democracy
may not be particularly missed. It is when things get fouled up, for one [End Page 8] reason or
another, that the political incentives provided by democratic governance acquire great practical
value.

The functions of democracy

Amartya Sen is explaining why democracy is essential in three main ways:

1. Freedom to participate – Political freedom is an important part of overall human freedom.

Being able to vote, express opinions, and take part in politics makes life better. If people are
stopped from participating, they lose an important part of their rights.

2. Making voices heard – Democracy helps people express their needs, including economic
ones (like jobs, education, and healthcare). Governments in a democracy must listen to the
people, making it easier to push for better policies.

3. Learning from each other – Democracy allows people to discuss and decide what is
important for society. Even understanding economic needs requires open discussions. When
people talk, debate, and share ideas, they make better decisions together.

Kerala now has a fertility rate of 1.7 (similar to that of Britain and France, and well below China’s 1.9),
and this has been achieved with no coercion, but mainly through the emergence of new values–a
process in which political and social dialogue has played a major part. Kerala’s high literacy rate (it
ranks higher in literacy than any province in China), especially among women, has greatly
contributed to making such social and political dialogue possible.

1. Freedom and participation – Being able to take part in politics and have a say in decisions is
important for everyone’s freedom and well-being.
 2. Holding governments accountable – Democracy keeps leaders responsible because people
can question them, vote them out, and demand better policies.

3. Shaping society’s values – Through democracy, people discuss and decide what is important
—including rights, responsibilities, and what society needs to improve.

Because of these benefits, Sen argues that democracy is a universal value, meaning it is important
for all societies, not just some.

From today's perspective, conspicuously absent from all these systems were at least three basic
political institutions: a national parliament composed of elected representatives, and popularly
chosen local governments that were ultimately subordinate to the national government. A system
combining democracy at local levels with a popularly elected parliament at the top level had yet to
be invented.

When we discuss democracy perhaps nothing gives rise to more confusion than the simple fact that
"democracy" refers to both an ideal and an actuality. We often fail to make the distinction clear.

Philosophers have engaged in endless debates about the differences between our judgments about
goals, ends, values, and so on and our judgments about reality, actuality, and so on. We make
judgments of the first kind in response to questions like "What ought I to do? What is the right thing
for me to do?" We make judgments of the second kind in response to such questions as "What can I
do? What options are open to me? What are the likely consequences of my choosing to do X rather
than Y?" A convenient label for the first is value judgments (or moral judgments), for the second,
empirical judgments.

If we assert, "A government ought to give equal consideration to the good and interests of every
person bound by its decisions:' or "Happiness is the highest good;' we are as close to making "pure"
value judgments as we can get. An example at the opposite extreme, a strictly empirical proposition,
is Newton's famous law of universal gravitation, asserting that the force between any two bodies is
directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the
distance between them.

Page 40-43

A word of caution: to say that certain institutions are necessary is not to say that they are enough to
achieve perfect democracy. In every democratic country a substantial gap exists between actual and
ideal democracy. That gap offers us a challenge: can we find ways to make "democratic" countries
more democratic?

"What is What Lies Ahead? { 31 } 44 democracy?" we make judgments that depend almost
exclusively on our values, or what we believe is good, right, or a desirable goal. When we move on to
the question "Why democracy?" our judgments still strongly depend on ideal values, but they also
depend on our beliefs about causal connections, limits, and possibilities in the actual world around
us-that is, on empirical judgments. When we try to decide what political institutions democracy
actually requires, we rely even more on evidence and empirical judgments.

What does democracy mean? Alas, you soon learn that the term is used in a staggering number of
ways. Wisely, you decide to ignore this hopeless variety of definitions, for your task is more specific:
to design a set of rules and principles, a constitution, that will determine how the association's
decisions are to be made. And your constitution must be in conformity with one elementary
principle: that all the members are to be treated (under the constitution) as if they were equally
qualified to participate in the process of making decisions about the policies the association will
pursue. Whatever may be the case on other matters, then, in governing this association all members
are to be considered as politically equal

CRITERIA FOR A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS Within the enormous and often impenetrable thicket of
ideas about democracy, is it possible to identify some criteria that a process for governing an
association would have to meet in order to satisfy the requirement that all the members are equally
entitled to participate in the association's decisions about its policies? There are, I believe, at least
five such standards (fig. 4). Effective participation. Before a policy is adopted by the association, all
the members must have equal and effective opportunities for making their views known to the other
members as to what the policy should be. Voting equality. When the moment arrives at which the
decision about policy will finally be made, every member must have an equal and effective
opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal. Enlightened understanding. Within
reasonable limits as to time, each member must have equal and effective opportunities for learning
about the relevant alternative policies and their likely consequences.

Control of the agenda. The members must have the exclusive opportunity to decide how and, if they
choose, what matters are to be placed on the agenda. Thus the democratic process required by the
three preceding criteria is never closed. The policies of the association are always open to change by
the members, if they so choose. Inclusion of adults. All, or at any rate most, adult permanent
residents should have the full rights of citizens that are implied by the first four criteria. Before the
twentieth century this criterion was unacceptable to most advocates of democracy. To justify it will
require us to examine why we should treat others as our political equals.

each is necessary if the members (however limited their numbers may be) are to be politically equal
in determining the policies of the association. To put it in another way, to the extent that any of the
requirements is violated, the members will not be politically equal.

Democratic government has, however, varied considerably over the centuries. Perhaps the most
fundamental distinction is between democratic systems, like those in Ancient Greece, that are based
upon direct popular participation in government, and those that operate through some kind of
representative mechanism. This highlights two contrasting models of democracy: direct democracy
and representative democracy. Moreover, the modern understanding of democracy is dominated by
the form of electoral democracy that has developed in the industrialized West, often called liberal
democracy.

democracy may have its vices as well as its virtues. Although representative democracy may not fully
realize the classical goal of ‘government by the people’, it may nevertheless make possible a form of
‘government for the people’.

The most fundamental objection to direct democracy is, however, that ordinary people lack the time,
maturity and specialist knowledge to rule wisely on their own behalf. In this sense, representative
democracy merely applies the advantages of the division of labour to politics: specialist politicians,
able to devote all their time and energy to the activity of government, can clearly do a better job
than would the general public.

The most fundamental objection to direct democracy is, however, that ordinary people lack the time,
maturity and specialist knowledge to rule wisely on their own behalf. In this sense, representative
democracy merely applies the advantages of the division of labour to politics: specialist politicians,
able to devote all their time and energy to the activity of government, can clearly do a better job
than would the general public. . Liberal democracy is thus a form of electoral democracy, in that
popular election is seen as the only legitimate source of political authority. Such elections must,
however, respect the principle of political equality; they must be based upon universal suffrage and
the idea of ‘one person one vote’. For this reason, any system that restricts voting rights on grounds
of gender, race, religion, economic status or whatever, fails the democratic test

Liberal democracies are therefore described as pluralist democracies: within them political power is
widely dispersed among a number of competing groups and interests, each of which has access to
government.

, liberal democracy does not command universal approval or respect. Its principal critics have been
elitists, Marxists (see p. 82) and radical democrats

Radical Democrat Critique of Liberal Democracy

 Liberal democracy is a "façade" (fake democracy):

o People vote every few years, but real power stays with politicians and elites.

o Many people become disconnected, passive, and uninterested in politics.

The Arguments Against Democracy

 Ordinary people are not capable of ruling:

o Some thinkers believed that most people do not have the knowledge or wisdom to
make good political decisions.

 Plato’s argument (Rule by the wise):

o Plato believed that only the most intelligent and virtuous people (philosopher-
kings) should rule.

o He thought people were born with different abilities, and only those with "golden
souls" were fit to govern.

 Elitist argument (Democracy is an illusion):

o Thinkers like Pareto, Mosca, and Michels argued that a small group of elites will
always control power, no matter what.

o They believed democracy is a myth because real power always stays with a
privileged few.

Critics of democracy

To prevent the majority from having too much power, the U.S. created a system of
checks and balances to divide power between different government branches.

  Elitists believe that democracy is an illusion because a small, powerful group

always controls things.
  Some thinkers fear that majority rule can crush minority rights and personal
freedom.
  Others worry that giving power to uneducated masses leads to poor decision-
making and chaos.
  Representation means politicians act on behalf of the people, but there is
debate on how they should do this.
  Should they follow public opinion exactly, or use their own judgment?
  Edmund Burke believed politicians should make decisions based on their own
wisdom rather than simply obeying voters.
  Politicians as Wise Leaders:
 Some believe politicians know better than ordinary people and should use their own
judgment rather than strictly following public opinion.
  Politicians as the People's Voice:
 Others argue that since politicians are elected, they must follow the will of the people
because they have been given a mandate (authority) to do so.
 However, there is debate over what this mandate really means.

  Elections don’t always mean true representation.

  Some systems (like First-Past-the-Post) favor big parties and do not match
votes to seats.
  Proportional Representation is fairer because it gives parties seats based on
their actual vote percentage.
  The idea of a mandate says that winning an election means a government must do what
it promised.
  This is useful because it gives meaning to elections and holds politicians accountable.
  However, it can be too rigid, preventing governments from adapting to new situations.
  Some argue for a more flexible approach, but that can give politicians too much freedom.
  Finally, not all voters choose based on policies, so the idea that a win = support for all
policies is questionable.
  The idea that winning an election gives a government a clear mandate to carry out policies
is flawed.
  Voters are not always rational, and elections don’t always reflect specific policy
preferences.
  Electoral systems can distort results, making it unclear whether the government truly has
public support.
  In coalition governments, policies are often negotiated after the election, meaning voters
never directly approved the final plan.
  Because of these issues, some argue that no government truly has a mandate from the
people.
 This theory says that for a government to be fair and truly representative, it should include a
diverse mix of people from all parts of society. Many believe this helps ensure that all voices
are heard, especially those from marginalized groups. However, others argue that empathy
and competence matter more than background.
 While it is important to have diverse representation, choosing leaders only based on
background may limit democracy, divide society, and reduce government quality. The key
debate is balancing diversity with competence and national unity.