ADVERTISEMENTS:
Introduction:
Of all political associations, the State commands the fullest attention since all power culminates in it, in its government that political scientists discuss upon, in its legal provisions that jurists consider to be important, and in other welfare functions which qualify for scientific study in different fields. None of these functions of the State is directly concerned with the sociologists’ efforts and yet each and every State act is in some way or the other a subject of study for the social scientist.
In other words, the State does not perform any duty which is not concerned with society and social relations, and the sociologist seeks to find a suitable place for the State as a political association in shaping and moulding human behaviour in society. According to McIver and Page, while economic associations are basically utilitarian in character and religious ones are based on cultural considerations, the State as a political association tends to remain utilitarian though it is not totally devoid of cultural interests.
The utilitarian character of the State is well understood when one considers that this political association with its utmost coercive powers stands distinct from any other association grounded on any interest whatsoever. Whether or not a political scientist would accept the Machiavellian concept that power is the very essence of State authority is not the concern of the sociologist.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The social scientist knows that the State has the exclusive powers of coercion. But State power must be understood in its proper perspective. Private use of force is not tolerated by the State and, in fact, it uses public force in order to curtail private use of force. Political scientists who place social welfare above all other considerations maintain that power in the form of use of force is best exercised by the State when it helps society in general.
When other political thinkers maintain that political associations exist for the struggle for power, they are not taking into consideration the fact that power does not necessarily mean authority. Some political thinkers therefore, maintain that power, and particularly State power, rests on the principle of reciprocity. When the use of brute force is accentuated by State power, it cannot build up a lasting proposition for the State.
The use of power, in order to be effective must rest on authority and, therefore, the Machiavellian doctrine that power determines State authority cannot be accepted. The question may then arise as to what gives authority to persons who wield power. Psychiatrists may maintain that environmental conditions shape individual or group behaviour, and that individual or groups almost instinctively obey the laws made by the State because they consider it more advantageous to their interests to conform to the State codes than to revolt against them.
If this view is adopted by the sociologist, he would not find much difference between the Machiavellian explanation and the psychological explanation as to the basis of State Power. The social scientist would make a mistake if he equates power with authority. Max Weber observes that when power rests on authority, the State can harmonize the interests of the ruler and the ruled, and the subjects can then accept the State codes spontaneously, thereby expressing their tacit support for them.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
If laws are forced down the throats of unwilling subjects, the social process of alienation begins to operate. Weber finds that authority may be traditional, charismatic or rational-legal in nature. In the pre-industrial times, people followed tradition, and traditional values determined the authority for the person who wielded power. Charismatic authority, as we have observed before, rests on an attitude of confidence that the populace shows in favour of a person or a body of persons.
Authority is rational-legal when it is tested by reasoning as is the case with all power that emanates from democratic institutions. Weber feels that if authority were not tested by reason and logic, laws made by the establishment would not have found acceptance with people in general. Today, every developed society would then hand over to the State such power as is linked with rational-legal authority.
However, writers like McIver and Page would not fall exactly in line with Weber’s thinking when they maintain that in the modern world State power is taking the shape mainly of exploitation by the dominant class; and in this respect their views are not totally different from those of Karl Marx.
McIver and Page even observe that the very fact that the State has compulsive powers makes it lose its control over the spirit of the people. Hence, authority in a State does not seem to rest on rational thinking of the citizens; and it rather appears to be an expression of strength of dominant sections in the society.
The State as an Organ of Society:
The State is a social association with very specialized functions; it becomes an organ of society in so far as it helps people to achieve their ends. Just as it is true to say that a State originates from the social nature of man, so would it be proper to hold that the State controls individual or group behaviour in order to maintain and uphold the values and norms of society. When an individual lives in society, he develops a social self and takes upon himself various social obligations.
He begins by being a member of a family; then he associates himself with an educational institution, a religious organization or an economic association. In each case, his behaviour establishes himself as a social being and, for each association of his, he has a social obligation. Similarly, when we consider the individual as a citizen of a State, he becomes a member of that political association and as such he undertakes certain obligations.
Though these obligations are not to be regarded as general social obligations in as much as they are defined and circumscribed by constitutional and legal provisions, they are not fully dissociated from social considerations. A man’s existence as a citizen or a subject of a State is very much a part of his social subjects himself to a political association which becomes a part of society. The State as a political association cannot be regarded, therefore, as society itself; it is but an organ of society.
It is true that the functions of a State are not all pervading in any society. McIver and Page observe that for some matters the State is the most suitable agency; for certain others the State acts as a better agent than other associations; and for still a few other functions, the State is unsuitable and most ill-adapted.
Yet the importance of the State as a distinct social association cannot be negatived and no profitable thought can entertain the idea of a society without a State. Simple societies perhaps functioned effectively in maintaining social norms and regulating individual and group behaviour since groups and associations were few in such societies.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
But in the complex society of our times the State has become an essential organ for several reasons and the State as a political association can function more effectively in holding society together than any other association. Though writers like Karl Marx and some subscribers to anarchism conceive of societies where the State as an agency would be eliminated, a society without a State is not a practical proposition.
Individuals as social beings cannot exist without a State mainly for the following reasons:
(1) While there are provisions for winding up or liquidating all different types of associations, there is no agreed and conceivable mode of terminating State authority. What anarchists truly mean when they advance their thoughts is that State power would be replaced by certain voluntary associations which would take up the obligations of performing the essential services for society.
But P. Gisbert states in his Fundamentals of Society that moral, economic, religious and cultural associations in society represent such distinct interests that it would never be possible for them as a single structure to harmonize the diverse social interests of individuals and groups.
(2) Secondly, in order to harmonize the various social institutions, it is necessary to have a superior association with supreme authority. No single institution, be it economic, cultural or religious, can represent social activity in its entirety. Every association breeds distinct interests and these interests may not build up a sense of solidarity which is so essential to the subsistence of society. The State as the political association wielding supreme power co-ordinates and harmonizes these interests and lays down their scope and their limits in the form of laws.
(3) In harmonizing the different interests of society, the State makes laws that are enforced with its coercive authority. The violator of the law is punished; and one may assert that, in regulating the structure of society by harmonizing its interests, the State with its compulsive powers is the best suited social agent since no other social organization can with competence maintain order and discipline in today’s complex society.
Only the State can formulate an elaborate network of laws not only for protecting private property, but for ensuring equality of every individual in terms of opportunity and State protection. We have already seen that the force’ element in State power has been the subject of much criticism, but it cannot be denied that this very attribute of State authority helps in the development of individual personality by investing rights and obligations upon the person. The State appends a legal characteristic to social practices and behaviour and the legal sanctions that follow make them stable modes of social relations.
(4) Above all, the State stands at the pivot of all structure of social control. In simple societies, the community itself undertook the obligation of controlling individual members, but in complex societies, the nature of interests that an individual has is diverse and his activities are so variegated that conflicts between interests and group actions may arise.
The State becomes a necessity in the midst of all possible conflicts as an agent of control. State control is better than the control that may be exercised by any other association since the State would found all its powers upon principles of justice, while any other association would be likely to give precedence to its particular interests.
The State as a superior association will be in the position of general control, since all members of the society concerned will be under its authority. The State can be regarded as the only social association that can represent all sections of the society, since membership of this association is totally involuntary.
The Functions of the State:
Although to some erudite imagination the State may appear to be the co-efficient of the society or the nation, considerable differences between the terms exist. Society as a term comprehends all human relations and it is an acknowledgement of the fact that human beings have established relations between them. A nation is a concept which aims at establishing a bond between like-minded persons and the bases of like-thoughts may be factors of ethnic, religious or linguistic semblances.
The State in all its activities stands on a different footing not only because, unlike other associations or organizations, it can make its own laws for making its commands compulsive, but because it does not control and regulate all activities of citizens or subjects.
Once it is conceded that the State is not concerned with matters like private morality, private hygiene or the simpler ethical principles while the society is very much concerned with them, the question that may actually arise would be the one related to the exact term and scope of State functions.
Political thinkers look upon the State as the supreme organization in human affairs that controls and gives directions to human behaviour. The sociologist considers the State as a superior social association which not only co-ordinates the activities of all other associations but through such co-ordination harmonizes human social relations. Quite evidently, the sociologist would not be willing to accept the views that the State is an all-powerful organ of society that must necessarily dictate its terms upon every type of human social activity.
It may co-ordinate and harmonizes for the ultimate welfare of the society and the individual, but several matters will naturally escape its direct control. Political scientists who subscribe to socialistic views or any other collectivist view would assert that unless the State extends its strong arm over matters like economic pursuits and educational, spiritual or even cultural activities, social welfare would not be achieved. For them, collective good is the exact measure of individual welfare, if the State were to be the custodian of principles of justice and equality.
However, the individualistic thinkers cannot surrender to the State unqualified powers, as they assert that no social welfare can be achieved at the cost of individual welfare. Some political thinkers as well as certain economists hold that social advancement must have at its roots unstinted competition; and if the individual is deprived of the opportunity of developing himself, he will not be able to engage in competitive efforts and, as a result, society will tend to stagnate.
Collectivist thinkers would maintain, on the other hand, that unbridled competition would lead to the exploitation of the masses. As such, for the sociologist the question becomes all the more intriguing as to what and how much the State can stand for in any given society.
For Hegel, the State stood for bureaucracy itself and, at the same time his State through all the actions of its officials was the very society itself. Hegel thought that State officials performed their legitimate duties in the set up of hierarchical authority for the good of the society, for the State in the ultimate analysis was seen as unified with society itself.
The extent of state power was to him all that stood for social benefits. Marx objected to the Hegelian idea of unifying the State with the society and he advocated that the State as a general interest of the society was separate in itself from the bureaucracy and would make the latter work to the common weal.
In other words, though both Hegel and Marx advocated full state powers, they had different ideas about the role of bureaucracy; Marx being opposed to bureaucracy particularly because, according to him, it represented certain class interests. When Max Weber came up with the thoughts of what is called the ‘structural school’, the idea emerged that the State is a political association, similar to various corporate groups with religious, economic or cultural interests.
He advocated the propositions relating to power and authority as discussed earlier, and stressed the need of legitimacy in State action. Weber’s ideas of a State organization do not entertain absolute powers for the State and, in any case, he does not follow Hegel to show that the State and the society are one.
The State may perform several functions but none of its objectives would be to return to the state of nature as envisaged by Hobbes. Hence, keeping control and maintaining discipline would be the essential function of a State; the discipline and order that it would secure with its laws would avert internal disorder and ward off external aggression. Some political thinkers maintain that the other State functions may be regarded as non-essential or discretionary.
Gettell divides State functions into the essential and the optional categories; the essential functions are those of protecting the country from external attack, maintaining internal discipline and securing private life and property from unlawful violation. The optional functions are aimed at the well-being of citizens and these include primary education, health programmes, development of agriculture, communications and the like.
Today, there is a distinct preference in a number of free countries for the Welfare State and this simple division between the essential and the optional would appear to be outdated. Ogburn and Nimkoff observe that on the bases of their respective activities, states can be divided into three categories.
The ‘War state’ depends upon the conviction of citizens that power lies at the roots of State strength and prosperity, and this power can be acquired by the State by vanquishing other states in war. ‘Total War” them becomes the philosophy of the State and, for considerations of the war, individual liberty may be controlled and curtailed by the State.
The ‘Production State’ allows production activities and all other economic activities to be pursued only under definite schemes of control; and the ‘Social service state’ is the closest approximation of the concept of the Welfare State, for such a State would help citizens to maintain minimum standards in keeping with human dignity, provide assistance to the unemployed and the old, and maintain parity of opportunity at social and cultural levels of activity.
The fascist concept of statecraft comes near the War State the communistic and socialistic theories envisage the Production State and democratic countries prefer the Social Service State as a model. In India, the constitutional provisions relating to the Directive Principles of State Policy endeavour to apply the welfare character to the State machinery.
The analysis that McIver and Page make as to the functions of a State seems to satisfy the sociologist’s concept of the State as a political association in society rather than as a co-efficient of society itself.
Since the State is only one of the social associations that regulate human relations, it is expected to take care of certain aspects of human behaviour very well; it being a political association with compulsive powers, political functions suit it best, while those matters that are not amenable to organizational force, like matters of faith and creed, cannot be subjected to State mandates.
According to McIver and Page, therefore, State functions can be classified as follows:
(1) Functions Peculiar to the State:
These are functions that cannot be performed in society by any other social association. For example, the State makes the laws that are to be obeyed and it gives equal opportunity to all citizens in respect of amenities and advancement in occupations. The lowest standards of social behaviour are ascertained by the State so that every citizen knows his obligation. We have already observed that these State fixed obligations must secure a co-ordination of all the obligations that any individual may have as a member of the society.
Exploitation or extortion of the weak by the strong shall be prohibited by the State, and this can be achieved only if State orders are based on ethical principles and justice. Determination of private interests as opposed to public interests is a delicate task, but only the State is qualified to engage in that task by rationally prescribing rules and scrupulously enforcing them.
McIver and Page hold that order is best established on the principle of equal opportunity and the State acts to the utmost benefit of individuals when it does not become a despot, but assumes the role of a trustee or a custodian of discipline and order in society.
(2) Functions for which the State is Well Adapted:
Some functions may qualitatively be performed by the State better than by any other social association. These functions may be left to be performed by social and cultural as well as economic associations for their performance, but, when the State takes charge of them, their performance improves qualitatively as well as quantitatively.
If the economic resources of a country are utilized by the State it may secure a better distribution of the economic wealth than what would be effected by a sectional association like the private economic enterprise. Similarly, the State can with its laws curb ambitious spirits more effectively than moral persuasions can, and economic exploitation of the weak by the strong can be counteracted.
Now-a-days, there is a strong demand for the State to consider the taking of education in its own hands; and it is argued that when the State sets down guidelines for education, it must necessarily foster the national and the patriotic spirit, while parochial associations will impart only limited knowledge to youngsters.
Similarly, pursuits in scientific and technological research and advancements of the arts can rise above narrow considerations of the church and of the advocates of feudalism if the modern State can become their Patron and custodian.
Collection of census statistics and planning the general welfare of the citizens according to the available figures while backward peoples are provided special assistance are other instances of functions which the State can perform more efficiently than any other organized group.
(3) Functions for which the State is not Adapted:
As soon as it is admitted that there is much of difference between a horse being led to water and it’s actually taking a drink, one would know that the State as a compulsive and coercive association cannot well succeed in matters that fall directly within the ambit of the spirit and the intellect. Apart from physical comfort and material amenities, man requires nourishment for the spirit and the intellect.
Whether man can live by bread alone or by dogma too is a matter that requires a debate, but every individual yearns for recreations that would refresh his mind, raise the intellect or culture his spiritual intentions. Inquisitions and religious persecutions were in the past attempted by despotic establishments, but till this day no State has found any perfect means of subjecting unwilling individuals to ways of worship or modes of recreation that are devised and sanctified by it.
Several martyrs in the past have established that the State is not all that mighty in this regard as it might appear to be. Religious and cultural associations directly establish their superiority in these matters.
(4) Functions that the State is Incapable of Performing:
The State has no mechanism that can control men’s thoughts and opinions. Totalitarian States strive to control thoughts with harsh laws, brand defectors with infamy or death, but the Orwellian Big Brother has not in reality been able to see through man’s hearts and analyse the graphical workings there, lago tells Othello
‘Good my Lord, pardon are;
Though I am bound in every act of duty,
I am not bound to that all slaves are free to.’
He would not utter his thoughts even though the superior were to command him to do so, for even a slave would be at liberty to keep his counsel to himself. The State may have its official opinions but, if force were to be combined with it, it would only establish the hollowness of such convictions. Concepts of ethics and morality are also likewise not answerable to any State dictum; neither is moral sensitivity plastic enough to be moulded at the sight of a frown on the monarch’s brows.
The State in INDIA:
India is a democratic Republic with secular and socialistic principles applying to ail its official pretensions. Under the British, the country was a bureaucratic State at least until 1919 when the Civil Service was functioning practically as the Government. In his Bureaucracy in India, B.B. Misra says that ‘a partial and circumscribed democracy was in principle provided for the first time by the Government of India Act, 1919’.
Initially, this kind of democratic set-up was limited to some of the provinces until 1937 when ‘all provincial subjects came under the popular control of ministers who did the administering with the help of the bureaucracy placed under them.’ Bureaucracy as established by the British in India helped to create conditions that would lead to the establishment of representative government and democracy in later times.
The bureaucratic system of government generally worked as an antithesis to rule by aristocrats or the structure of feudahsm, particularly with the help of a growing middle class who acted in the administration through codified laws and contracts. The middle class inducted in the Civil Service naturally opted for the competitive system as a kind of a counterforce to old aristocratic systems of government.
However, the Indian bureacrats did not quite usher in democracy, which was truly an aftermath of the introduction of provincial autonomy in 1921. In fact, elected ministers were not accepted as a very helpful factor in the administration by the bureaucrats. As B.B.
Misra observes, the establishment by the British of the bureaucratic system of government followed later by representative governments created a governmental condition in the country which could be described as a diarchy, and this conditions still persists with the democratic government institutions in free India.
Thus, the democratic government in India is not wholly popular, representative; it has, on the one hand, elected personnel who must not be treated; part of the bureaucracy and, on the other, the Civil Service which is still the strong area of the administration.
Besides bureaucracy, the State in India operates with the party system of government that is so essential to the functioning of a democratic administration. The pa system is allowed to operate in the context of elections that are to be held assessing the importance of that party which must give shape to the administration and elections are to be founded on a clear concept that the establishment must ha» as regards the citizen’s right of franchise.
In other words, in adopting the democrat form of government, India has opted for the three essential institutions of democracy: the party system, elections and the citizens’ right of franchise. Each of these institutions, therefore, requires separate consideration.
(a) The Party System:
According to McIver, a political party is an organize group that believes in an ideology and seeks to establish a government on its basis. In England, the party system was introduced by King William IV who was in need of raising money for the wars and, as long as Parliament remained united, he could get no additional allowances. He was advised that if he chose his government from the dominant group in the Parliament, his objectives could be fulfilled.
This might have been the political background for the development of the system of political parties: but psychologists like Mcdougall offer other explanations for it. According to Mcdougall, competition and conflict is almost instinctive in every human being. These instincts in olden times found expression in physical encounters like duels and fights; but in civilized societies they have now taken the shape of arguments.’ discussions and polemics. Persons who subscribe to certain ideals spontaneously- group together and in politics, they tend to operate as a particular party seeking to promote particular political ideals.
A ‘faction’ is not a party even though certain individuals group together in it with certain ideas; it fails to qualify as a political party when personal interests or small, narrow interests are sought to be served through such groupings.
In a democratic set-up, every political party prepares a manifesto of its own with which it seeks to impress the electorate as to its programmes on political, economic and other social issues. Their programmes virtually divide them into different brands of social and political thought, and citizens with formed ideas as to the efficiency of any particular philosophy of action can fix their sympathies upon their favoured political organization.
The parties air their programmes in meetings, through the Press and the other mass media and, above all, through movements and demonstrations that they launch from time to time on public issues outside the precincts of the legislature, though legislative debates on the floor of Parliament are of no less value in this regard.
When elections are held, the manifestos of different parties virtually act as advance announcements of all prospective governments and the voter is enabled to make his choice. The party that secures majority support in the elections is taken to represent the wish of the people in general and the head of the State requires it to form the government.
The political party that gets minority support acts as the opposition, and the opposition is expected to act at all times as an indicator of a possible alternate government that would take over if and when the party in authority fails. In England, Her Majesty’s opposition prepares a list of the Shadow Cabinet presided over by the formally recognized leader of the opposition.
There was no opposition in India strong enough to execute this function at least for the first 27 years of the Republic. In 1977, when the newly formed Janata Party formed the Government, the Congress emerged as the recognized opposition and the status of the leader of the opposition was formalized.
This was the case in our country because for the initial three decades after our independence a number of small political parties filled the political scene and the Congress was the only unified large party. In 1982, according to notifications issued by the Election Commission of India, there are as many as seven national parties in the country: the Janata, the Congress (S), the Congress (I), the B J P, the Lok Dal, the CPI and the C.P.I. (M). Besides these, there are numerous regional parties and other organizations which, being unable to find recognition as political parties, operate as independents.
If indirect democracy is adopted for the country’s governance and if the representative form of government has to be the order of the day, political parties become an essential feature of the set-up. Political parties not only vie with each other with their respective programmes for establishing ideological superiority, but in a country like India where the apathetic, the phlegmatic or the placid voter has to be dragged into a State of political consciousness for his own and his country’s benefit, the parties act as indispensable organizations and almost as the right arm of democracy.
It is not being asserted that tall claims are never made by these parties but, as long as different political ideologies are admitted for consideration, the different parties must continue to do their work. The parties first begin to realize the differences in their respective ideologies and this knowledge is finally passed on to the electorate. The electorate is then conditioned to the demands of the other democratic institution, the elections.
(b) The Elections:
The political parties seek to capture power with the help of elections and elections in that regard can be considered to be an essential institution in a democracy. Elections can be regarded as a lawful contest in democratic countries.
If direct democracy operates in a country, however, the need for elections may not arise since every citizen is likely to participate directly in decision-making; but wherever indirect democracy is accepted as the philosophy for forming governments, representatives have to be elected by citizens, and these representatives will take part in decision making for the benefit of their respective electors.
The mode of elections may also be direct and indirect. Direct election’ stands for the practice of getting representatives elected directly by citizens as is the law in India in respect of the election of legislators, whether to the Lok Sabha or to State Assemblies. ‘Indirect election ‘ means that the citizens hand over to certain elected persons the choice of legislators or of the head of the State.
In India, members of the Rajya Sabha and the State Legislative Councils as also the President and the Vice- President of the country are elected by electoral colleges that are formed with the help of primary election processes, in which the average citizen has acted as the voter.
There are advocates of both these systems of elections, the protagonists of the direct type of election emphasizing that the system fosters and develops political consciousness in every citizen which, in turn, ensures that the government of the country is truly representative. Some criticize the method by holding that unless the electorate is properly trained and enlightened as to political processes, the participation of the average voter in election programmes would only induct unsuitable representatives into the government.
These critics prefer indirect election mainly because they can rely on the wisdom of the adept in politics for the choice of the right candidate. Besides that, the advocates of indirect election maintain that the common citizen can remain outside tensions of polemics which may at times vitiate the social atmosphere. But then, indirect election methods very naturally tend to cause a cleavage in society and to create dominant interests that would exploit the weaker sections.
The electoral colleges will naturally work for retaining power for their < classes, and overall development of society and social relations will be hinder Besides that, if it is argued that the common citizen should not directly elect legislator since he is inefficient, much credence cannot be placed upon the voter i the electoral college whom he has elected.
In societies that have heterogeneous, ethnic, religious or linguistic elements living together, egalitarian principles may demand that further safeguards against la suppression of minority interests by majority groups be provided. The method voting may come in for review in this regard. Wherever the single non-transferable vote becomes the only right of the elector, the minority groups can hardly expect any representation.
Political scientists like John Stuart Mill advocate that since the State represents general and not parochial interests, the minority must be represents in the legislature in democratic countries so that he can participate in the decision making processes of the government. Some countries have, therefore, adopted the ‘limited vote plan’ in this regard and the scheme followed is that of allowing every voter limited voting rights so that no group can seek to win for itself all the seats h the legislature; since no voter is allowed to cast as many votes as there are seats for which elections are held, different groups are enabled to look for minimum representation.
Similarly, the method of proportional representation seeks to ensure the maximum possible acceptability of a candidate before he can get elected, since grades of preferences of the voter are taken into account for every candidate. The ‘cumulative method’ of voting makes available to the voter as many votes as there are seats to be filled in, and a voter may cast all his votes in favour of a single candidate or distribute them among many. The minority groups can take advantage of this system of multiple voting and the chances are that some of their candidates will be able to secure legislative representation.
In India, an average legislator is elected with the help of the single non-transferable vote that every elector enjoys, while the President and the Vice-President of the country have to be appointed on the basis of proportional representation. In order to help culturally backward communities like the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, some constituencies are reserved for them; and the system ensures that these backward classes find suitable representation in the legislature.
(c) The Right of Vote:
The franchise, or the right to vote, must be taken to be a basic political right in countries where the common citizen has the right of participation in the government. Whether we follow Edmund Burke when he says ‘no taxation without representation or we find logic in Abraham Lincoln’s concept of democracy, as ‘the government of the people, by the people and for the people’, it becomes an inescapable conclusion in a democratic institution that the citizen must be the elector, that is, the voter.
There are differences among political thinkers as to whether the right of vote should be extended to all citizens who can think for themselves or it should be scuttled in favour of those who qualify according to certain materialistic standards, like possession of property or training in a formal institution like the school or the college.
Those who advocate ‘Universal adult franchise’, as we do in India, argue that while incompetent and disqualified adults along with minor persons should not be given the right of vote since they cannot, or should not decide for themselves, denying the right to an average adult would be ramifying the democratic processes and adding reservations to them.
Those who oppose universal adult franchise hold that in any society if the electors are not sufficiently educated and made conscious as to their own political as well as social well-being, indiscriminate voting by them will bring incompetent persons to rule the country; and that itself will spell the ruin for the democratic system.
John Stuart Mill, for example, advocates education for the citizen before the right of vote is conferred on him. Not that the political thinkers of Mill’s type do not have any substantial arguments to offer, but the sociologist cannot accept the proposition that formalized education is the only measure of an individual’s mental and intellectual accomplishments; society is larger than the schools and the universities and socialization is a more comprehensive educative process than any training according to fixed curricula of studies.
In India, the Constitution confers the right of vote on all citizens above the age of 21 even though literacy in the country has not risen above the level of a mere 29.45% of the total population.
Our arguments in favour of equality in respect of franchise, which is regarded as the fountain-spring of our democracy, are the following:
(1) If the state shall stand for the interests of all, citizens in general must participate in the decision – making processes of the state. When the British extended the right of representative government to Indians under the Acts of 1919 and 1935, they did not extend the franchise to more than a mere 10% of the total population in the country.
The Constitution of free India has extended this right to all citizens, irrespective of caste, creed or other parochial interests like provincialism. Undemocratic standards or standards that are irrelevant to a democracy like property holding, status, incomes etc. have been left out of reckoning.
(2) The laws made by legislators are meant for general application, and these laws can find a moral basis only when they are enacted with the direct support of the representatives of all groups in a society; or else the codes tend to act as instruments with the help of which dominant sections of such society can seek legitimately to exploit the deprived sections and groups. Laws are, therefore, best implemented and enforced when conditions of equality before the law are created by systems like the universal adult suffrage.
(3) If the right of vote is given to some and denied to others, the latter groups will continue to remain unenlightened about their political rights, and the absence of political consciousness on the part of some citizens can be ruinous for a democracy.
Such conditions can easily pave the way for autocratic and despotic rule and, even if individual will does not become predominant in the State, class and sectional interests will find nourishment from discrimination and such interests will use the State machinery primarily for their own advancement.
(4) The Indian system of granting the right of vote to all citizens has ensured that women too participate in the decision making processes in the State. We in our country do not admit of any difference between the sexes, except that of the necessary physical one, and no endorsement is accorded to either martial thoughts of certain communities that women being unqualified for war purposes are unsuited to governmental activities, or to some European political ideologies about the weaknesses of the fair sex and their helpless reliance on the menfolk.
(5) If the right of vote is denied to those that are formally uneducated and the illiterate, there would creep into the Indian polity an element of immorality, since the fact that so many of our people remain uneducated is not a contribution made by these people themselves; it is a sin that the entire society is guilty of being unable to provide large-scale opportunities of education to one and all.