Understanding
B. R. Ambedkar UNIT 16 PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
Structure
16.0 Objectives
16.1 Introduction
16.2 Meaning of Parliamentary Democracy
16.3 Ambedkar’s View on Parliamentary Democracy
16.4 Let Us Sum Up
16.5 Questions to Check Your Progress
Suggested Readings
16.1 OBJECTIVES
This unit would enable you to understand:
the meaning of parliamentary democracy;
the contribution of B. R. Ambedkar to parliamentary democracy;
the challenges and prospects of parliamentary democracy; and
the contribution of parliament to democracy.
16.1 INTRODUCTION
In this unit we will discuss the meaning of parliamentary democracy and
Ambedkar’s contribution of parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy
is a democratic form of government in which the party (or a coalition of parties)
with the greatest representation in parliament (legislature) forms the government,
its leader becoming prime minister. Executive functions are exercised by members
of parliament appointed by the prime minister to the cabinet. The parties in the
minority serve as opposition to the majority and have the duty to challenge it
regularly. The prime minister may be removed from power whenever he or she
loses the confidence of a majority of the ruling party or of parliament.
Parliamentary democracy originated in Britain and was adopted in several of its
former colonies.1
Broadly, parliamentary democracy functions are according to certain postulates,
the most important being responsibility of the executive to the legislature; and
through the legislature ultimately to the electorate and the country. Another
postulate is a peaceful transfer of governmental authority from one party to another
either as the result of an adverse vote in parliament or after a general election. It
presupposes a party government founded on collective responsibility. This is
how the British Parliament has evolved. Parliamentary institutions elsewhere
have copied this pattern with modifications and deviations; and India is no
exception. Parliamentary democracy here bears about it the marks of its parentage.2
In a parliamentary democracy, the government must maintain the confidence of
parliament at all times. Therefore, government formation and legislative decision
154 making are necessarily intertwined, and a bargaining perspective is a natural
approach to coalition formation and policy choice. Moreover, as both government Parliamentary
Democracy
formation and legislations depend on representation in parliament, voters, to
the extent that they respond to incentives related to policy outcomes, must base
their voting decision on expected coalition formation outcomes. This is true
especially in proportional representation systems, the modal electoral institution
in parliamentary democracies. The incentives present in a parliamentary system
also affect the continuity of governments and policy. In equilibrium, governments
generally do not persist from one inter-election period to the next and neither do
their policies. Government transition and policy change thus should be expected
in parliamentary systems, independently of whether there are shocks to the system.3
16.2 MEANING OF PARLIAMENTARY
DEMOCRACY
India is the largest democracy in the world. Scholars have defined democracy in
different ways. Dicey defines democracy as “that form of government in which
the governing body is a comparatively large fraction of the entire nation. Bryce
accepts the definition of Herodotus and says that democracy denotes that form of
government in which the ruling power of the state is largely vested in the members
of the community as a whole.4 Bryce adds “This means in communities which
act by voting, that rule belongs to the majority, as no other method has been
bound for determining peacefully and legally what is to be declared the will of
the community which is not unanimous.” 5 Bagehot defines democracy as
“government by discussion,” Lincoln as “the government of the people, by the
people and for the people.”6 But Ambedkar was not satisfied with the definitions
of democracy given by Walter, Bagehot or Abraham Lincoln.
He viewed Grothe’s notions about freedom, self-government and democracy as
fallacious and misleading. Ambedkar writes:
For, words such as society, nation and country are just amorphous if not
ambiguous terms. There is no gain saying that ‘nation’ through one word
means many classes. Philosophically, it may be possible to consider a nation
as a unit but sociologically, it cannot but be regarded as consisting of many
classes and the freedom of the nation, if it is to be reality, must vouchsafe the
freedom of the different classes comprised in it, particularly of those who
are treated as the servile classes.7
According to Ambedkar, democracy means, “a form and method of government
whereby revolutionary changes in the economic and social life of the people are
brought about without bloodshed. If democracy can enable those who are running
it to bring about fundamental changes in the social and economic life of the
people and the people accept those changes without resorting to bloodshed, then,
I say, that there is democracy. That is the real test. It is perhaps the severest test.”8
He desired to remove the contradiction created by economic and social
inequalities. He wanted to establish the principle of one man, one vote and one
value not only in political life of India but also in social and economic life; in
other words, he wanted political democracy to be accompanied by social
democracy. He was conscious of the social and economic inequalities which
corrode the national consciousness of the Indian people. He said, “we must
make our political democracy a social democracy as well, political democracy
cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy.”9 155
Understanding Democracy means that political power is ultimately in the hands of the whole
B. R. Ambedkar
adult population and that no smaller group has the right to rule. “Democracy
only takes on a more useful meaning when qualified by one or the other word
with which it is associated, for example, liberal democracy, representative
democracy, participatory democracy or direct democracy.”10 Although all free
societies are democratic, democracies can fail to protect individual freedom.
Countries are considered democratic to the extent that they have fair and frequent
elections in which nearly all adults have the right to vote, citizens have the right
to form and join organizations and to express themselves. Democracy must
ascertain the constitutional structure that best suits the needs of a particular
country. Alternative forms of constitutional democracy include parliamentary
versus presidential forms of government, plurality versus proportional
representation system and federal versus unitary systems.
16.3 AMBEDKAR’S VIEW ON PARLIAMENTARY
DEMOCRACY
According to Ambedkar, “Parliamentary democracy is unknown to us at present.
But India, at one time had parliamentary institutions. India was far more advanced
in ancient times. If you go throughout the Suktas of Mahaprinibbana, you will
find ample evidence in support of my point. In these Suktas it is stated that while
Bhagwan Buddha was dying at Kusinara (Kusinagara) a message to the effect
was sent to the Mallas who were sitting in session at that time. They decided that
they should not close the session but would carry on with their work and would
go to Kusinara after finishing of the business of Parliament.”11
Ambedkar was a fervent believer in democracy. He took a rationalistic and
comprehensive view of democracy. He was, by philosophical persuasion, a liberal
democrat. While pursuing the cause of justice for the Untouchables, he was
in fact enunciating the democratic principle as the bedrock of justice.
His vision of a democratic society was one in which there will be neither an
oppressor class nor a suppressed class; equality before law and in administration
and functioning of moral order in society. He wrote elsewhere that a society
based on liberty, equality and fraternity should be the only alternative to a caste
society. It should be full of channels for conveying a change, taking place in one
part to other parts. It should be mobile. There must be ‘social endosmosis’. This
is fraternity which is only another name for democracy. He writes:
Democracy is not merely a form of government. It is primarily a mode of
associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an
attitude of respect and reverence towards fellowmen.12
He was aware of the fact that equality is a fiction and is “glaringly fallacious,
“but believed that we cannot escape it. We can get the most out of people by
“making them (everyone) equal as far as possible at the very start of the race.”13
It is quite clear from this that he was taking a purely ‘secular’ approach to the
problem of democracy, and he believed in democracy that was complete and
real. He firmly believed that political democracy could not succeed without
social and economic democracy. According to him, social and economic
democracy is the tissue and the fibre of political democracy. He did not make a
156 secret of his utter dissatisfaction and dismay at the inadequacy of the democratic
edifice created in the Constitution of India, of which he himself was the chief Parliamentary
Democracy
architect.14 In his address to the Constituent Assembly, he said:
On the 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions.
In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will
have inequality. In politics we will be recognising the principle of ‘one man
one vote, and one vote one value’. In our social and economic life, we shall,
by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle
of one man one value. How long shall we continue to deny equality in our
social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so
only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this
contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from
inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this
Assembly has so laboriously built up.15
So, he attached high importance to establishing the principle of ‘one man one
value’ along with the principle of ‘one man one vote and, one vote one value’,
that alone can make democracy complete and real. This is the soul of democracy.
In other words, political power, economic strength and social position should be
shared equally by all sections of society in a democracy. He pleaded for a share
for the Dalits in the political power of the country so that they could influence
decision making and participate in the policy- making process in their favour.
“His idea of democracy is thus, tinged with social realism, human experience
and reason, pragmatic and humanistic outlook on life.”16 He accepted the theory
of state socialism instead of communism or capitalism for achieving economic
equality and prosperity.
To Ambedkar, three main things were inherent in parliamentary system of
government. These were17:
1) Parliamentary government means negation of hereditary rule. No person can
claim to be a hereditary ruler. Whoever wants to rule must be elected by the
people from time to time. He must obtain the approval of the people.
Hereditary rule has no sanction in ParliamentarySystem of Government.
2) Any law, any measure, applicable to the public life of the people must be
based on the advice of the people chosen by the people. No single individual
can presume the authority that he knows everything, that he can make the
laws and carry the Government. The laws are to be made by the
representatives of the people in Parliament. They are the people who can
advise the men in whose name the law is proclaimed. That is the difference
between the monarchical system of government and the democratic system
of government. In monarchy the affairs of the people are carried on in the
name of the monarch and under the authority of a monarch. In democracy
the affairs of the public are carried on in the name of the head of the state, but
the laws and the executive measures are the authority on which the government
is carried on. The head of the state is the titular head; he is merely a symbol.
He is a concentrated ‘Murti’. He can be worshipped but he is not allowed to
carry out the government of the country. The government of the country is
carried out, though in his name, by the elected representatives of the people.
3) Parliamentary system of the government means that at a stated period those
who want to advise the head of the state must have the confidence of the
people in themselves renewed.
157
Understanding According to him, “this is also not enough. Parliamentary system of government
B. R. Ambedkar
is much more that government by discussion. There are two pillars on which the
parliamentary system of government rests. These are the fulcrums on which the
mechanism works. Those two pillars are (1) an opposition, and (2) free and fair
elections.”18
About his preference of parliamentary system of government, Ambedkar wrote:
During the discussion in the Constituent Assembly, there was a variety of
opinion as regards the nature of the Constitution that we should have. Some
preferred British system; some the American system, there were others who
did not want either of these two types of government. But after a long
discussion a large majority of members came to a conclusion that the system
of the parliamentary government as it is in Britain is best suited to our country.
There are some sections of people who do not like the parliamentary
government. Communists want the Russian type of government. The socialists
are also against the present Constitution of India, they are agitating against
it, they have declared that if they come to power they will modify it.
Personally speaking, I am very attached to the parliamentary system of
government.19
According to Ambedkar, there are some limitations leading to failure of
parliamentary democracy in a country.
In a parliamentary democracy, the Executive may be held up by the Legislature
which may refuse to pass the laws which the Executive wants and if it is
not held up by the Legislature it may be held by the judiciary which may
declare the laws as illegal. Parliamentary democracy gives no free hand to
dictatorship and that is why it became a discredited institution in countries
like Italy, Spain and Germany which readily welcomed dictatorships.20
Ambedkar analysed the reasons for the failure of some parliamentary democracies.
He noted that even in countries pledged to democracy there may be a great
deal of discontent and dissatisfaction against parliamentary democracy. “The
discontent against parliamentary democracy is due to the realization that it has
failed to assure to the masses the right to liberty, property or the pursuit of
happiness.”21
The cause of this failure, he said, may be found in either wrong ideology or
wrong organisation or both.
One such erroneous ideology is the idea of freedom of contract and its ignorance
of the economic inequalities of the parties in the contract. Another wrong ideology
that has vitiated the institution of parliamentary democracy is the failure to realize
and feel that political democracy cannot succeed where there is no social and
economic democracy.
About bad organisation, he says the following:
All political societies get divided into two classes, the Rulers and the Ruled.
This is an evil. If the evil stopped here it would not matter much. But the
unfortunate part of it is that the division becomes so stereotyped and stratified
that Rulers are always drawn from the ruling class and the class that is ruled
never becomes the ruling class. This happens because generally people do
not care to see that they govern themselves, they are content to establish a
government and leave it to govern them.22
158
Ambedkar warned the harbingers of democracy that if parliamentarian democracy Parliamentary
Democracy
fails in this land, the result will be rebellion, anarchy and communism. He says:
I want you to take note of these eventful certainties and if you wish that
parliamentary democracy prevails in this country, if you are satisfied that we
will be assured of our liberty of thought, speech and action, if we should
preserve our independence, if we cherish the inherent right of individual
liberty, then it is your duty as student, as intelligent community of our country,
to strive your utmost to cherish this parliamentary system of government in
its true spirit and to work for it.23
16.4 LET US SUM UP
In context of the preceding discussion it is now possible to set out the key
characteristics of a parliamentary democracy. Parliaments differ from one another
in terms of social and economic context. There are federal and unitary states.
There are presidential and parliamentary systems. There are single and dual-
chamber parliaments. Above all there are enormous differences between countries,
not only in their size, but also in their levels of economic development, and in
the resources that are consequently available to parliaments for carrying out their
work. Ambedkar firmly believed that without social and economic democracy
political democracy could not succeed. According to him, social and economic
democracy is the tissue and the fibre of political democracy.
16.5 QUESTIONS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1) If parliaments are to survive as an effective instrument of mankind, they
must adapt themselves to the great social and political forces and problems
of our time. Critically discuss giving suitable examples.
2) Discuss the challenges and prospects of parliamentary democracy.
3) Discuss in detail giving suitable examples of parliamentary contribution to
democracy.
4) Analyse the political philosophy of Bhim Rao Ambedkar in context of
parliamentary democracy.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Ambedkar, B. R. Annihilation of Caste. Reprinted in Government of
Maharashtra, 1979-98, 1936, volume I.
Ambedkar, B. R.States and Minorities:What are Their Rights and How to
Secure them in the Constitution of Free I ndia . Co mpiled by Vasant
Mo o n. Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar Writings and Speeches Vol. 1, Ministry of Social
Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, New Delhi, 2014.
Ambedkar, B. R.The Buddha and His Dhamma. People’s Education Society,
Bombay, 1957
Jatava, D. R. The Political Philosophy of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Phoenix
Publishing Agency, India.
Valerian, R. (ed.). The Essential Writings of B. R. Ambedkar. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 2002. 159
Understanding Endnotes
B. R. Ambedkar
1
See: http://www.britannica.com/topic/parliamentary-democracy (Accessed on
10/3/2016)
2
Dastur, A. J., and A. J. Dastoor, “Parliamentary Democracy in India,” in Indian
Journal of Political Science, Vol. 19, No. 4 1958, pp. 329- 334.
3
Baron, D. P., D. Diermeier, and P. Fong. “A dynamic theory of parliamentary
democracy,” Economic Theory, Vol. 49, No. 3, 2012, pp. 703-738.
4
A. C. Kapur. Principles of Political Science. S. Chand and Co (Pvt.) Ltd. 1987.
p. 327.
5
Ibid. P. 327.
6
G. S. Lokhande. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar: A Study in Social Democracy. New
Delhi: Intellectual Publishing House. 1982. p. 23.
7
G. S. Lokhande.1982. pp. 22-23.
8
Bhagwan Das. Thus Spoke Ambedkar. Jullunder, Punjab: Buddhist Publishing
Home. 1963. pp. 49-50.
9
G. S. Lokhande. 1982. p. 23.
10
Robertson, David. Dictionary of Politics (London: Routledge, 2004), Third
Edition, p. 136.
11
Prem Kumar Chumber and TakshilaChumber (2012). Future of Parliamentary
Democracy; This speech was delivered by Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar at D.A.V.
College, Jalandhar on 28th of October,1951. Ambedkar Times. (2012) VOL-4
ISSUE-6.(See:http://ambedkartimes.com/Ambedkar%20Times% 20(August%
2015,%202012).pdf (Accessed on 11-01-2017)
12
Ambedkar, B. R.Annihilation of Caste with a Reply to Mahatma Gandhi,
Compiled by Vasant Moon. Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar: Writings and Speeches Vol.
1, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, New Delhi, 2014.
13
Rajasekhariah, A. M., and Hemalata Jayaraj. “Political Philosophy of Dr. B.
R. Ambedkar,” Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 52, No. 3, 1991, pp.
357-375.
14
Constituent Assembly Debate (CAD), Vol. XI, p. 979.
16
Rajasekhariah, A. M., and HemalataJayaraj.1991. pp. 357-375.
17
Bharathi, K. S. (1998). The Political Thought of Ambedkar (Encyclopaedia of
Eminent Thinkers). Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi 110059, pp 78-79
18
Bhagwan Das. 1963. pp. 52-53.
19
Ibid.pp. 49-50.
20
K. S. Bharathi. Foundation of Ambedkar Thought. Nagpur: Dattasons
Publishers. 1990. pp. 140-141.
21
Bhagwan Das. 1963. p. 31.
22
Ibid. p. 31.
23
160 K. S. Bharathi. 1990. p. 141.
