Democracy and Socialism

Democracy offers freedom of choice to the individual, a most cherished goal for the human being. Democracy in economic activity is expressed as capitalism.

Socialism offers dignity to every individual, no doubt a must for every individual. Socialism in economic activity expressed itself as communism.

Democracy and Socialism being basic requisites for the society, the problem is to have a model that will offer both. Both capitalism and communism have by themselves proved to be bad.

Democracy by itself can be meaningless: capitalist exploitation, endless bickering among political political parties, dominating ideologies or personalities progressing to authoritarianism or dictatorship, can all come with it.

Socialism by itself, in the form of communism has fallen into disrepute since the individual's freedom is curtailed. What then is the ideal model which will ensure both Democracy and Socialism?

Why Nehru's Socialism could not succeed

Nehru wanted to modernize India quickly, the idea being that India should become free from poverty, become prosperous and happy. He wanted the benefits of development to reach all sections of the society. He was attracted by the socialism of the Soviet Union and wanted to combine it with the freedom offered by Democracy.

Socialism and Democracy, both are noble ideas. He adopted the 5 year plans based on the Soviet model and tried to achieve the goal. But after a decade or so it was clear that his plans went awry. Poverty persisted and the rich-poor divide was increasing. What went wrong?

In spite of a Constitution that guaranteed a life of dignity to all of its citizens, results were not forth-coming. The politician's were more self-centered, the bureaucracy tied down to the political bosses and the poor and the needy, in effect, were left uncared. The rich continued to become rich. Democracy and Socialism were not enough to achieve Nehru's dreams.

Why Gandhi's vision of Partyless Democracy was unacceptable

Most persons today would say that political parties are a necessary evil. In India, it is clear to the general public that political parties and politicians leave much to be desired and yet very little can be done about this matter.

Mahatma Gandhi foresaw this situation soon after India's independence in 1947; he felt that soon the voice of the people would be forgotten. He contemplated a system of partyless democracy so that the elected representative would be directly accessible to the voter.

The political genius of Gandhi, which put an end to the British raj non-violently and brought the curtains down on the colonial era would have ushered in a new, vibrant form of democracy. But this was not to be.

Gandhi could have convinced Nehru and other leaders about the grassroots transformation partyless democracy would bring about. Gandhi's emphasis on the development of villages was possibly a hindrance. No doubt 80% of the population lived in villages. But Nehru wanted to modernize India quickly and he was perhaps not attracted by Gandhi's proposal of 'Village Swaraj'.

Grass roots transformation is not antagonistic to modernization. While Gandhi saw spiritual transformation preceding material development, Nehru saw the need for urgent material development to end widespread poverty and party-based democracy was apparently not a hindrance. But times were such that a in-depth discussion between them on the pros and cons of partyless democracy was not possible.

All that was needed was a formulation of partyless democracy in terms that would be attractive to both the spiritual and the modern mind.