Real or Pseudo Democracy (Comparative assessment of Indian and UK Democracy)
Malkeet Singh Advocate Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Mail:
[email protected] Introduction: Democracy is a political system in which all the members or citizens have equal share to power. People can elect their representative and the person to head the country or an organization for a limited term. People are free to criticise their representatives and reject them to elect a new one according the procedure. This way the ultimate power rests with the people and their representatives work in the interest of public at large and are responsible to the electorate. This way they exercise the sovereign will delegated to them by the people of the country. In this way, Democracy is anti-thesis of Monarchy or Dictatorship and this is considered eternal. Abraham Lincoln said, “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth”. In Europe, Athenians were the first to establish democracy in their Polis (CityStates), wherein all adult male citizens used to elect government by exercising their voting rights. Almost that same time, in Ancient India, instances of democratic organisations and republics are found. However, with the passage of time and due to certain historical events, republics were transformed into monarchy and empires. Democracy in India: Before Independence in 1947, there were 562 Princely States (Native States) in India those were not part of British Empire. However, dominance of British Empire on Indian political structure and discrimination meted out by the British to Indian people brought enlightenment in Indian People and they made them to join together for a common cause. This common cause ultimately took a concrete shape in a freedom movement to liberate the Indian Sub-Continent from British and establish Self-Rule. Therefore, in disguise, the British Empire over India was a boon for the people of this part of world. National movements for the liberation of India changed the mindset of people to establish a self rule for the entire sub-continent, India as one country. And for this, all agreed on formation of democratic government than to surrender the country to various monarchs. This was the public opinion that led to formation of Indian Constitution with special features of a Republic working on democratic principles. Indian Constitution completely ruled out the concept of Monarchs or Emperor and given power to the citizens. For this purpose, the Constitution of India in Part V declared the President of India as an Executive Head of the Country, who is elected through indirect election
for the period of five years only, contrary to the Monarch or Emperor who is a life time head of the Country and the offices passes on by inheritance. It is also important to note that under Article 56 (1) (b) read with Article 61 of the Constitution the President can be recalled by way of impeachment. Hence, the real power remains with the people. Apart from this, the President cannot assume character of Monarch or a Dictator as he has to act only on the advice of the Council of Ministers (see Article 74). Similarly, Parliament of India is composed of two houses, Upper (Rajya Sabha or Council of States) and Lower (Lok Sabha or House of People) those are generally compared to British parliaments House of Lords and House of Commons, respectively, but there is a lot of difference. For the House of People, representatives are elected directly by the qualified voters according the representation of Peoples Act, 1951 every five years. However, members of the Council of States are elected through indirect election process i.e. by members of Legislative Assemblies of the States. The President can also nominate only 12 members to Council of States of 238 members from amongst persons having special knowledge or practical experience in certain matters (see Article 80). Again the President is to act on the advice of Council of Ministers. Functions of the Parliament are to enact Laws and take up other matters as prescribed but the Parliament who makes the Laws has been given no authority to interpret Laws. This judicial power vests in the Judiciary (see Articles 124 to 147 and 214 to 237). The Supreme Court has the power to interpret laws or Constitution under Articles 132 to 134. It is further necessary to mention that all the three wings of the states i.e. Executive, Legislative and Judiciary are independent from each other and hence, the Executive Head or the Legislature cannot pass arbitrary laws and declare it valid because the power vests in an independent institution i.e. Judiciary. Democracy in UK: Situation is different in UK. In UK, most of the members of the House of Lords (Upper House) are appointed by the Queen, though as suggested by the Prime Minister. The origins of the House of Lords reach back to the eleventh century, when Saxon monarchs established that advice should be gained by consulting what was then called the Witangemot (the assembly of the wise.) This was made up of powerful landowners and church leaders. The House of Lords and its powers and also its relationship with House of Commons kept on changing through centuries under different Monarchs and reactions from the House of Commons and particularly “the glorious revolution” in 1688. But the House of Lords remained strong and very much the upper house of the parliamentary system until, in the late 19th century when, along with the industrial revolution social and politics conditions were changing. Powers of the Lords were further affected by the parliament Act, 1949. Finally, by the passing of the House of Lords Act, 1999, by virtue of Section 1 of the Act, 1999, it has been declared that no one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. However by virtue of Section 2 (1) and (2) a provision has been carved out as an exception to section 1 of the Act, 1999. But one
thing is sure, that House of Lords, primarily is a house of feudal but not commons; and who mostly side with the queen. It is worth to mention here that the House of Lords in UK that has the power to stamp bills to be passed and make it law also had Judicial Powers to interpret and apply the Law, which was contrary to the Scheme of Indian Constitution and making it less democratic. It is natural to doubt integrity as to how an authority can question the laws made by him. And this aspect makes it arbitrary and less democratic. However, by Section 23 of The Constitutional Reforms Act, 2005 the Supreme Court for the UK has been created that started to work in 2009. But this Supreme Court has been given very limited Judicial Powers. It can declare only secondary legislation as ultra vires but not primary, because the touchstone is the primary legislation. Anyway, the Supreme Court has come in, though with shredded powers. The reason behind all the developments in the UK is that it is not purely People’s Democracy but a Constitutional Monarchy. Why UK democracy is a Pseudo Democracy: The UK was and is being still run by the Monarchy. The house of Commons which was an elected house, was not being treated at par with House of Lords and was given its due. In the first session of his first parliament, in 1604, the commons were not summoned to the House of Lords to hear the King’s speech, and some who went up on their own were insulted. This was a clear case of disrespect of people’s democratic mandate. Hence, this is the projection of the Monarch of UK, who wants to make UK citizens believe that He or She is superior to all. Not only this, the Queen (now) is an Executive Head of the state and her authority is imposed upon the people by the reason of her descendency—a hereditary right. The people of UK are not entitled to elect Executive Head through democratic process. No matter how bad or biased he or she is but can’t be removed by any democratic process. In India by virtue of Article 361 of the Constitution the President of India has been given certain immunities from law but under Article 61 he can be impeached by the Parliament. Additionally, his conduct can be reviewed by any Court or tribunal designated by either House of the Parliament for investigation of a charge under Article 61. Further any person can sue the Government of India. Immunity from Civil or Criminal liability and from arrest and imprisonment is given only during the term of office of the President. But in UK, the Queen is considered above law and no criminal or civil action can ever be brought against her. As such, contrary to the President of India, the Queen is UK can neither be sued nor impeached. This aspect also casts a stigma on UK democracy. It is again a strange thing that who made the law had powers of judicial review also. Before the Constitutional Reforms Act, 2005, the House of Lords was a final judicial authority in UK. However, now Supreme Court has been established but not given full powers of Judicial Review. The Supreme Court cannot strike down laws made by the legislation, no matter how bad it is. The Supreme Court can only strike down secondary legislation i.e. any law/rule made by the executive under some
primary legislation. With this crippled power of the Supreme Court, citizens have to abide by whatever kind of law made by the parliament and can’t challenge it. In this way, Parliament is made superior to the Supreme Court; whereas in true democracy Executive, Judiciary and Legislature are independent and none is superior to other so that anything undemocratic can be curbed and real power goes to the citizens. But this aspect is lacking in UK system of governance. More importantly, the Queen can create Orders-in-Council and Letters Patent which regulate parts to do with the Crown, such as precedence, titles. Orders in Council are often used by Ministers nowadays to bring Acts of Parliament into law. Once passed as Law by the parliament they can’t be questioned in the Supreme Court. This is a sort of Slavery in the most developed Country that once ruled on such a large area of the globe that it was being said that in the kingdom of the queen sun never sets. But it is a matter of speculation only as to when the Sun will rise in the Country of the Queen i.e. UK. This is probably because of lack of written Constitution of UK but that is also a matter of discussion, whether it will abolish hereditary Monarchy or grant it permanency. However, a few believe that Constitutional Monarchy in UK exists as a means of protection of democracy in that country ensuring that no one can simply seize power. But this has already happened in India in about 4th century, inter alia, as an outcome of invasion by Alexender. When the Republics felt insecure they chose to appoint an authority for them to protect from any outward onslaughts. However, that ended up in dictatorial Monarchy and Empires. This is what has been going in the UK. Constitutional Monarchy cannot replace Democracy. Certainly, the democracy in UK is not a real but a pseudo democracy. +—Malkeet Singh (27.07.2015)