Before analyzing crisis in contemporary democracy and about Gandhian alternative, it is inevitable to know about the meaning and evolution of democracy. Generally perceived democracy means a form of government ruled by the people in opposite to the rule by one or a few as run by aristocracies and monarchies. Concept of democracy is derived from the Greek word demokratia, which is amalgamation of two words, demos (people) and kratos (rule). The concept of democracy as visualized in present times did not spring suddenly rather its origin goes back to the dawn of civilization. Historically speaking its institutionalization can be traced only to the Greek era particularly its functioning in Athens. It is because democracy in Athens was marked by a general commitment to the principle of civic virtue, liberty, dedication to the republican city state, subordination of private life to public affairs and the emphasis on common good. Later on the development of free institutions and importance of law can be traced back to Rome. But the concept of representative government started with the foundation of liberalism in Europe and consequently, government's accountability to the people was initiated at this stage. This happened due to popularization of the idea of representative form of government by Lock, on the one hand, and initiation of the idea of direct democracy by Rousseau, on the other hand.

One very influential form of the belief in the equal rights for individuals was found in utilitarianism of Bentham and J.S Mill. Bentham indirectly emphasized upon different principles of democracy, such as: voting rights, the secret ballot, competition between potential political representatives, a separation of powers, and freedom of the press, speech and public association. This ideology considered that liberal democracy is associated with a political apparatus that can ensure the accountability of the governors to the governed. J.S Mill largely set the course of modern liberal democratic thought. He defended individual liberty, accountable representative government and an efficient governmental administration unhindered by corrupt practices and excessively complex regulations. Further the idea of institutional arrangement of democracy was enlarged and strengthened by the ideas of Schumpeter. His theory of democracy strengthened the features of modern western liberal democracies: the competitive struggle between parties for political power, the important role of bureaucracies, the significance of political leadership, and the way in which modern politics deploy the methods of advertising. Therefore, it seems that democracy in twenty first century is blend of two political traditions: one is liberty and other is popular sovereignty. In this context, origin of liberty can be traced back to ancient Greece and Rome; whereas idea of popular sovereignty at world stage made its debut at the time of French Revolution, whose architects asserted that right to govern belonged to people rather the hereditary monarch. Thus, the worldwide demand for democratic government in the modern era became manifest due to increasing success of these concepts being practiced by the developed world. The success of these countries, particularly the countries like UK, USA etc motivated most of developing countries to adopt democratic forms of government in the post second world war era.

Success of this system of governance is, however, confined to a handful. It seems paradoxical that numerically expansion of democracy being witnessed throughout the world but is failure in terms of its success. Even the efforts of powerful nations like USA to export of democratic government has proved ineffective. Answer to this question lies in the fact that the system is facing institutional crisis. According to report of Democracy Index 2012 of The Economist Intelligence Unit, even the developed world is facing sovereign debt crises and weak political leadership. Popular confidence in political institutions continues to decline in many European countries. The USA and the UK remain at the bottom end of the full democracy category. In America democracy has been adversely affected by deepening of the polarization of the political scene and political brinkmanship of its leaders. The UK is also beset by a deep institutional crisis. In Eastern Europe democracy declined in 10 countries in 2012.² The major causes of decline have been erosion of people's trust in parliament, politicians, political parties and political system as a whole. Inability of democratic governments to address the needs of their people has, in turn, increased popular disaffection, further undermining the legitimacy and efficacy of representative institutions. The process of globalization once benefitted the liberal democracies, now posing threats to them. These countries themselves are proving incapable to respond to the decline in living standards and the growing inequality resulting from unprecedented global flows of goods, services, and capital. Free market economy, the most vital component of liberal western democracies, itself has become responsible for the economic crisis in the advanced democracies of North America, Europe, and East Asia. In the United States, partisan confron-t-ation is paralyzing the political system. The underlying cause is the poor state of the American economy. Since 2008, many Americans have lost their houses, jobs, and retirement savings. These setbacks are being witnessed on the heels of back-to-back decades of stagnation in middle-class wages. Since last one decade average household income in the United States has fallen by over ten percent. Rising of income inequality is making the United States the most unequal country in the industrialized world. The primary source of the declining fortunes of the American worker is global competition of jobs have been heading overseas. Similarly economic conditions are proving the root cause of the problem in European countries. Over the past two decades, middle-class incomes in most major European economies have been falling and inequalities have been rising.

Moreover, impact of the process of globalization in the form of widening gulf is between rich and poor people within the nations, as well as between the developed and developing world. The economic globalization is not contributing towards the growth of equalitarian and just global order; rather the demand for developing countries for the establishment of New International Economic Order (NIEO) has been further pushed back. Even the opening up of markets of developing nations have failed to ameliorate the economic conditions of recipient states. The rising gap between the rich and poor people in these countries has resulted into social tensions, political upheavals and other such problems.³

Technology and capitalism, twin political offsprings of modern democracy are acting as destabilizing catalyst, manifesting strains on bonds of social control and political sovereignty. Computerized world is also posing problems for democracy. It is because, if the Industrial Revolution has created more jobs, computer revolution threatens to destroy them with more pace than it generated them. It also threatens to erect new and rigid class barriers, especially between the well-educated and the less-educated strata of the society. It creates economic inequality in people and the wealth transfers from the lower skilled labour intensive class to the owner of the assets and technological aristocracy. The computer revolution offers new possibilities for creative destruction. One goal of capitalist production is the globalized economy. Through its weapon of economy it is raising the question mark on relevance on the nation-state, the traditional seat of democracy. The computer turns the unrestricted market into a global juggernaut crashing across frontiers, enfeebling national powers of taxation and regulation; undercutting national management of interest rates and exchange rates; widening disparities of wealth both within and between nations; dragging down labour standards; degrading the environment; denying nations the shaping of their own economic destiny, accountable to none; and, creating a world economy without a world polity. Cyberspace is beyond national control. No authorities exist to provide international control. Where is democracy now?

Besides, the democracy in developing countries and post - communist world is also facing the challenges in the form of bad governance, misuse of authority by officials, domineering local oligarchies; incompetent and indifferent state bureaucracies; corrupt and inaccessible judiciaries and representatives who are contemptuous of the rule of law; and, accountable to no one but themselves. There are elections, but they are contests between corrupt, parties and are meant only for people who can use money and muscle power. There are parliaments and local governments, but they do not represent broad constituencies. There are constitutions, but not constitutionalism. Popular sovereignty is on name only but political participation of people is less. Democratically elected regimes are ignoring their constitutional responsibilities, depriving the people of their liberties and constitutional rights. Fareed Zakaria has rightly observed, “We see the rise of disturbing phenomena in international life- illiberal democracy.”⁴ Public confidence in constitutional regimes has been declining. In these countries only procedural democracy is there, substantial democracy is yet to be established.

Every wave of democracy, thus, has been followed by setbacks in which the system was seen as inadequate and new alternatives were sought by ambitious leaders and restless masses. Current situation, therefore, may seem discouraging that the democracy in some of the countries is giving a way to authoritarian and autocratic rule but there is hope. Totalitarian regimes still persist but it is no longer respectable alternative to democracy. Now there is need to adopt a different kind of strategy to stop the multiplication of democratic setbacks because majority of people in different regions of world believe that democracy is the best form of governance. In this moment of crises it is appropriate to examine the ideas of Gandhi whether they can be useful for restructuring existing form of democracy and consolidating the roots of democracy.

Gandhian model of democracy was conceived by him at two levels evolving from a grass-root level. At one level, he conceived of an ideal polity which he termed as Ram Rajya. He stated that, “…Politically translated, it is perfect democracy in which, inequalities based on possession, non possession, colour, creed or sex vanish; in it, land and State belong to the people, justice is prompt, perfect and cheap."⁵ Other level of polity was conceived at the sub - ideal level which would have a government that would permit maximum freedom to individuals. These two forms of polity evolved from one into other involving a movement from the lower to higher form of democracy.

The notion of Western democracy deals with proper functioning of the institutions like legislature, executive, judiciary and political parties. Gandhi was not in favour of structural adjustment of democratic institutions and arrangement, rather he was in favour of total transformation. Therefore he suggested the idea of holistic democracy where core values are placed in individual, national and international context. In this context, it is not limited to political system; rather a multifarious change in all spheres of life is envisaged.

Gandhi considers the problems of democracy from the ethical rather than the political point of view. His ideas are more important because, he wanted to bring into prominence of those moral standards, which have declined in modern age. He accepted many of the underlying ideas of liberal democracy like popular sovereign representative government, party system, freedom of thought and expression, but he was more concerned with the means for the achievement of the democratic ideal. He believes that true democracy can be brought about only through non - violent methods. He once stated that, “In the democracy which I have envisaged, a democracy established by non violence, there will be equal freedom for all. Everyone will be his own master.”⁶

The democracy in West is state - centric where the power flows from top to bottom which is totally negated by Gandhi. He was not in favour of state - centric but individualistic centre democracy. Gandhi assigned prime importance to individual freedom without which the democratic society cannot be built. He opined that, “If Individual liberty goes, then surely all is lost, if the individual ceases to count, what is left of society? Individual freedom alone can make a man voluntarily surrender himself completely to the service of the society. If it is wrested from him, he becomes automation and society is ruined. No society can possibly be built on a denial of individual freedom. It is contrary to the very nature of man.”⁷ He considered state as an agent of violence and exploitation which through its coercive powers kills the individuality by curtailing the freedom of individual. Though he looked upon enhanced power of state with great fear, yet he was also aware of the fact that unrestricted individualism could create anarchy in the society. Thus he admitted that, “In a democracy the individual will be governed and limited by the social will which is the state which is governed by and for democracy. If every individual takes the law into his own hands, it becomes anarchy.”⁸ In democracy, people are allowed to draw the government's attention to mistakes, if any. They can also remove the government if they wish to do so, but at the same time they should not obstruct it by agitating against it, as the government itself derives the strength from the people. Thus his conception of freedom has some restrictions in the form of social control and self restraint which is different from western notion of individual liberty. He was of the view that, “A democrat must be utterly selfless. One must think and dream not in terms of self or party but only of democracy.”⁹

Gandhi was also in favour of equalitarian order without exploitation. He believed that democracy must be free from any kind of exploitation. State should make endeavours to promote equality and equality does not mean that everyone will possess equal worldly goods, but it means every person should be able to fulfill his basic needs; everyone should have a proper house to live in, sufficient and balanced food to eat; and, sufficient khadi to cover him.¹⁰ Consequently, he advocated trusteeship, decentralization of economic activity and labour intensive industries to establish equalitarian order in society. Since men are born with different talents, some will necessarily earn more than others. Those with superior intellect and talent should regard themselves as trustees, and the bulk of their earnings should be used for the good of all the citizens. “It means the leveling down of the few rich in whose hands is concentrated the bulk of the nation's wealth on the one hand, and the leveling up of the semi – starved naked millions on the other. A non violent system of government is clearly impossibility so long as the wide gulf between the rich and the hungry millions persists.”¹¹ These ideas of Gandhi have great significance in the age of development when democracy is being threatened by dangers.

Gandhi always supported the importance of public opinion for functioning of democracy. He adhered to the democratic concept that power belongs to people and the political power must be used with the active participation of all sections of society. He was opposed to the rule of some enlightened few or the alienation of any section of the society in the name of majority rule. He was so worried for the interest of individual that he thought of a political process which would take into account the interests of all when decisions are made and implemented. Infact, public opinion is the basis of democratic governance as a true democratic government derives its justification from its readiness and tolerance to public opinion. Therefore, Gandhi recognized that, “legislation in advance of public opinion, is often worse than useless. Non cooperation is the quickest method of creating public opinion.”¹² He stated that since democracy was a great institution, and as there was no human institution without its dangers, and greater the institution the greater the chances of its abuse. Therefore, it could have the chances to be greatly abused. With the result, the remedy to him was not avoidance of democracy, but reduction of possibility of abusing it to a minimum by honest and healthy public opinion.

Besides strong public opinion, Gandhi also presented a technique of Satyagraha to resist unjustified authority, injustice and exploitation. He considered Satyagraha to be the best weapon for the evolutionary process of social change. He thought that lover of truth devote his life to experience truth and be prepared to face any kind of suffering. Resistance to evil must be done with personal suffering to awaken the conscience of evil doer.

He suggested that democracy requires continuous creation of moral power to keep the rulers in control. According to him democracy can function properly only if the representatives think themselves as servants of people and the money power is not concentrated in few hands but all have enough to satisfy their basic needs. If the people voluntarily minimize their wants then the social evils can be reduced in these societies. The reforms can not be brought out unless the leaders sitting at the top of power structure themselves come to realize that they are not the masters but servants to serve and betterment of all of the people and for this they had to nurture the feeling of brotherhood in them. Moreover, if the people who are in power have purity of conduct, they can mobilize the people and contribute towards strengthening of democracy.

Western representative democracy is procedural where people have to exercise their power through elected representatives. Gandhi was not in favour of representative democracy of West because the power of people is limited only to the elections of representatives. In representative system of democracy people do not have their say in decision making process. Gandhi not only opined the principles of democracy but also put forth the indigenous structure of democratic system. He advocated that democracy is that form of government in which power is shared by all not by a few sitting at the centre. Gandhi opposed the democratic system of the western countries as it was based on force and injustice. It cannot protect the poor; rather it exploits their own people as well as, the developing countries. He wanted a democratic system in which equal opportunities are available for both the strong and the weak. Among the malpractices of the western governments; Gandhi listed not only direct resort to violence whenever the occasion arose, but also imperialism, suppression of the freedom struggles of the Asian and African nations, exploitation and oppression of the coloured people, the concentration of capital and economic inequalities etc. Although a fighter for the democratic conception of individual's civil, political and economic rights, Gandhi was opposed to the procedures and practices of British parliamentary democracy. He believed that it had to work under the pressure of different groups and individuals inside or outside the parliament. He was also not in favour that parliament should be directly controlled by a few individuals. Moreover, he was against the evils following from cabinet and the practical ministerial dictatorship. He had the fear that the members can become hypocritical and selfish, as each thought of his own interest. He also doubted the finality of the decisions of the parliament. Instead he pleaded for decentralization of power both at political and economic level.

For Gandhi the change in system has to be based on decentralization of polity where power reaches up to grass root level. Accordingly, he suggested evolving a decentralized people's democracy on non violent lines at the lower levels. He wanted to give a new direction to politics and for that he went to roots of democracy. He believed that power to be effective and genuine from the standpoint of the masses, must lie with the people which can only be possible in small communities of villages as the independence must begin at the bottom. It means that at grass root level people must be independent in making their policies and implementing them without any rigid and strict control from the above. Thus, every village, according to him, can become a republic having the institution of panchayat with sufficient authority and powers. It means every village had to be self sustained and capable of managing its own affairs and even to the extent of defending itself against the whole world. He wanted India to evolve decentralized structure of power, based on the effective reconstruction of self reliant and self sufficient villages. The village organization has to be based on the principle of constructive social and economic efforts, sacrifice and the abnegation of illegitimate self interest. He dreamed of village swaraj where every village has its own government in the form of panchayat which is independent in all spheres of administration. According to Gandhian blueprint, “The government of village will be conducted by a panchayat of five persons annually elected by the adult villagers, male and female, possessing minimum prescribed qualifications. These will have all the authority and jurisdiction required. Since there will be no system of punishment in the accepted sense, this panchyat will be the legislature, judiciary and executive combined to operate for its year of office.”¹³

Gandhi not only talked about the democratic government but also responsibilities of people in democracy. Every government is tempted to misuse its power and a democratic government is in that respect not better than an autocratic one. What distinguished the two is the fact that one does and other does not succumb to the temptation. And this is so because, unlike the autocratic government, the democratic government knows that if it does succumb, its citizens would refuse to cooperate with it. Notwithstanding all its institutional checks and balances, a democratic government could easily turn evil if its citizens become apathetic or vulnerable to corruption and manipulation. As moral beings, citizens are duty bound to decide as to whom they should give their loyalty and support and under what conditions.

Theoretically Gandhi's ideas are relevant, but simultaneously some scholars believed that they are impractical. It is believed that Gandhi's ideas about non - violence and self suffering seem to be impractical methods against violent oppression. Gandhian Thinking seems other worldly and anti-humanist. It is not practical to use non - violence method to oppose the evil doer in all the situations. Sometimes stringent punishment is required to deter people who are involving in illegal and immoral activities. Moreover, self suffering unto death as an element of Satyagraha is questionable.

His techniques of Satyagraha, non cooperation and civil disobedience through peaceful methods can be applied if the political system of the country is not upto the mark of people. Besides, the tools applicable for the improvement of one country may not necessarily be applicable in case of another country because conditions and requirements of every nation are different.

Gandhi had just analyzed one aspect of human nature when he viewed that people as well as representatives should limit their wants for the betterment of others. But it is fact that human being is selfish, poor and brutish and when the person acquires the power he becomes greedier. It has been aptly remarked that power corrupts man and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

According to Gandhian thinking an individual has to live under social will and social restraint, which seems antithetical to individual liberty. Besides, his concept of trusteeship is negating the right of private property of individual. Moreover, it is liberty of individual where he wants to spend his hard earned income.

Gandhi was right when he observed that self sufficiency of even the small units i.e. the villages is essential, but in present era of globalization no country is self sufficient. Each nation is depending upon the other countries for its development. Moreover some contemporary problems like terrorism is not confined to one territory because the issue has acquired global manifestation and for the resolution of such problem concerted efforts of global community is required.

After the evaluation of contemporary crisis in the functional democracy at global level and Gandhian perspective as an alternative model it can be concluded that existing democracy is product of western capitalist countries and these countries themselves are facing crisis in one or the other form. Therefore, the need of hour is either to reconstruct the present democratic system or suggest some better alternate mechanism for governance. Besides, it is evident fact that authoritarian or totalitarian regimes have always been a danger to individual liberties and rights. Hence possibility of their replacement as alternative to democracy is ruled out at the outset. In present times there is need to reconstruct the values and principles of democracy and consolidate it where it has taken roots. In this respect Gandhi provides an interesting counterpoint. His form of democracy is different from all existing forms and envisaging betterment of all. In the democratic world large number of people are losing confidence in their political system because of bad governance, human rights violation, poverty, hunger, corruption, less participation of people in decision making process. Gandhi's assertion on non –violence, speedy and timely justice for all, fulfillment of basic needs of the poor, political and economic decentralization for ensuring larger participation in decision making process etc are some of the solutions for contemporary crisis in democracies. Democracy, as conceived by Gandhi, is incompatible with prevailing violence and centralization. It cannot be imposed from outside but has to be inculcated from within. The spirit of democracy is far more important and essential than its mechanism or external framework. It can be realized in a society whose members are self controlled and pure at their heart and who have been able to subdue the irrational elements through the spiritual or moral elements. For the growth of such attributes Gandhism definitely provides a sound alternative at this juncture.

Reference