Abstract

This article explores the concept of participatory democracy as a means to foster greater civic engagement beyond voting in India’s democratic landscape. Drawing on historical insights, legal precedents, and implementation measures, it delves into the “core objectives and operational dynamics of participatory democracy”. Through case studies and analysis, it highlights the potential impact of participatory democracy on governance, resource allocation, and social inclusion. Additionally, it examines recent developments and initiatives aimed at promoting participatory democracy, such as the “DISHA initiative and the Right to Information Act”. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of grassroots involvement, legal frameworks, and technological advancements in strengthening India’s participatory democracy and fostering a more inclusive and accountable governance system.

Introduction: Exploring the Idea of Democracy in India

On the 25^th Day of November 1949, The Architect of the Indian Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar offered profound reflections on the uncertainty about the eventual outcome of the essence of Indian democracy. “On the 26^th of January 1950, India would be a democratic country in the sense that India from that day would have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The same thought comes to my mind. What would happen to her democratic Constitution? Will she be able to maintain it or will she lose it again. This is the second thought that comes to my mind and makes me as anxious as the first.”[1] Here Babasaheb raised doubts about India’s ability to uphold its democratic Constitution or revert to previous forms. This article will delve deeper into democracy and examine how promoting participatory democracy can encourage greater civic engagement within society beyond voting.

Babasaheb further highlighted India’s past democratic practices, pointing to the existence of republics and elected monarchies. He underlined the parliamentary procedures followed by the “Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas”[2], indicating a deep-rooted tradition of democratic principles in the nation’s history. He emphasized on the need to extend beyond mere political democracy and strive for social democracy as well. He stressed that political democracy must be underpinned by social democracy, which entails a way of life founded on liberty, equality, and fraternity.[3] These principles are interconnected and cannot be separated without undermining democracy itself. Dr. Ambedkar pointed out the stark absence of equality in Indian society, both socially and economically, highlighting the need to address these contradictions to safeguard political democracy.

India’s historical narrative is rich with instances showcasing democratic values, from the ancient Harappan civilization to legendary figures like Lord Rama. Rama’s adherence to public opinion, exemplified by his decision to subject Sita to an agnipariksha, highlights his commitment to democratic principles.[4] Similarly, in the Mahabharata, Bhishma’s respectful conduct towards his adversaries underscores the democratic ethos ingrained in Indian tradition. This deep-rooted tradition, rooted in the concept of Dharma, has shaped India’s democratic fabric, influencing leaders like Mahatma Gandhi during the freedom struggle.

The system of “Panchayat” showcasing democratic principles, has its origins in ancient India, particularly in the Maha Janapadas, early republics. Among these, ‘Vaishali’, located in present-day Bihar, is renowned as the “world’s earliest republic”.[5] Also, through the case of “Manoj Narula v. Union of India”[6], the bench, including Justice Dipak Misra and Justice S.A. Bobde, affirmed that in “Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain”[7], the majority emphasized the inviolability of democracy as a cornerstone of the Constitution. This principle was reaffirmed in subsequent cases like “T.N. Seshan v. Union of India.”[8] and “Kuldip Nayar case”[9] highlighting democracy’s integral role in the constitutional framework and its aspiration for a fair societal order.

“India presents a real model of working Parliamentary Democracy to the world. In fact, India has the distinction of being the world’s largest democracy at work with a parliamentary system of coalition governance.”[10]

India currently operates under a representative democracy, alternatively termed as an indirect democracy, where the involvement of the populace in government affairs is of an indirect and representative nature. This article will delve into the broader engagement of citizens in the country beyond the act of voting, examining in detail the implementation of participatory democracy in India and its consequent impacts.

A comprehensive examination of participatory democracy and its associated components

Participatory democracy, a crucial facet of direct democratic principles, actively engages citizens in the collective process of decision-making. This model of democracy not only amplifies the voices of citizens but also ensures that their perspectives are valued and considered in the policymaking process. It is like a stage where citizens aren’t just spectators but active performers. It’s about everyone stepping up and contributing their unique perspectives to the democratic process, making it dynamic and inclusive.

Jean Jacques Rousseau is often credited with originating the theory of participatory democracy. According to him, authority over people is only legitimate if it allows them to remain as free as they were before submitting to that authority.[11] Participatory democracy allows individuals to take part in creating the laws they must follow. There is a long history of participatory democracy. In the West, its roots back to activist movements of the 1960s, such as civil rights and women’s liberation, where people demanded greater involvement in government decisions. Recent examples include the Arab Spring, Spain’s Indignados, and France’s ‘yellow vest’ movement.[12]

The development of participatory democracy can be linked to shifts in society and the need to respond to evolving community requirements. Its main aim is to make decision-making more democratic, empowering people and promoting fair distribution of power among different segments of society. Additionally, participatory democracy adjusts to both conventional obstacles and technological progress, thereby boosting citizen involvement in governance and enabling collective decision-making. Through adopting participatory democracy, countries aim to establish governance systems that are both inclusive and responsive, adhering to the core values of transparency, inclusivity, and accountability. This ongoing evolution reflects a steadfast dedication to democratic principles and acknowledges the pivotal role of citizen engagement in effective governance.

The significance of participatory democracy lies in its core objectives, which are outlined as follows:

• Gives power to citizens by involving them directly in decision-making.
• Boosts government legitimacy by engaging citizens in policy creation.
• Enhances policymaking by considering a range of perspectives.
• Holds elected officials accountable to the populace.
• Encourages creativity by involving citizens in decision-making.
• Ensures transparency and accountability in governance.[13]

In a representative democracy like India’s, elected representatives make decisions on behalf of citizens, whereas in a participatory democracy, citizens directly engage in decision-making processes. The key distinction is in who holds the decision-making authority: elected representatives or the citizens themselves.

Divergence in the operational dynamics between Participatory Democracy and Representative Democracy

Under a representative democracy, citizens engage by electing individuals to represent their interests in governance and lawmaking. Representatives are empowered to act autonomously in the best interest of their constituents without requiring direct approval for each decision, unlike surrogates whereas in case of participatory democracy, Rousseau’s notion asserts that authority can only be justifiable if it preserves the freedom of the governed. Participatory democracy empowers individuals to actively engage in the formulation of the laws they are bound to obey.[14]

In a hypothetical participatory democracy within India, envision citizens playing an active role in policy formation through local gatherings and grassroots campaigns, directly impacting the legislation that shapes their daily existence. Conversely, in India’s established representative democracy, voters select representatives who manoeuvre through parliamentary procedures to enact laws and policies on their constituents’ behalf. Thus, while participatory democracy empowers citizens as architects of their governance, representative democracy delegates lawmaking authority to elected officials. Participatory democracy encourages greater civic involvement, empowering individuals to have a more significant impact on policy formation beyond just casting ballots, unlike representative democracy.

To cultivate participatory democracy in a nation like India, entrenched in a representative model, it’s imperative to thoroughly assess the merits of participatory democracy and devise adept strategies for its seamless integration into the Indian socio-political landscape.

Implementation measures and Impact of Participatory Democracy in India

The Representative democracy system in India encounters various obstacles, including limited citizen engagement. While citizens are primarily active during elections, their involvement diminishes afterward, resulting in passive governance. Thus, active citizen participation beyond voting is vital for the efficient operation of the nation’s administration and the formulation of influential policies. This underscores the significance of Participatory democracy.

To further explore the nuances of participatory democracy, lets delve into a report titled “Participatory Democracy in Action: Survey Evidence from South India”[15] that offers a comprehensive understanding of how participatory democracy is practiced and its implications for governance. This study delves into the dynamics of participatory democracy in South India, specifically examining the impact of Gram Sabha meetings on resource allocation. It uncovers a significant trend: disadvantaged groups, including the illiterate, landless, and Scheduled Castes/Tribes, actively participate in these meetings, indicating a channel for their voices in governance. Interestingly, while literacy correlates with participation, the meetings themselves enhance resource targeting towards the needy, showcasing the potential of grassroots democracy in addressing social inequalities. However, the underrepresentation of women in these forums poses a challenge, hinting at the need for gender-inclusive strategies in participatory governance. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that decentralized governance structures like Gram Sabha meetings have the potential to empower marginalized communities and improve public resource allocation. This research highlights the importance of institutional design in fostering political participation and calls for further exploration of the intricacies of participatory democracy in shaping equitable governance practices.

In furtherance, for the implementation of Participatory Democracy in India, the “National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC)”[16], chaired by Justice M.N. Venkatachalam was aimed to explore how the Constitution could adapt to the changing needs of effective governance and socio-economic progress within a parliamentary democracy framework. The Commission proposed that draft bills undergo thorough examination by subject experts and the general public, with ample time provided for this process.[17] It suggested that major social and economic bills be circulated for public discussion among various stakeholders, including academics, professional bodies, business-houses, trade unions, and others.[18] Additionally, it recommended that all bills undergo scrutiny and discussion in the Department Related Standing Committees, with opportunities for public opinion, comments, and suggestions, including the possibility of public hearings if necessary. The Commission believed that these measures would significantly enhance both the quality of drafting and the substance of the bills.[19]

In an effort to create a true participatory democracy, the “Right to Information Act of 2005” is regarded as a groundbreaking and progressive piece of legislation where the government would be “constantly, and not just once in five years, answerable to the people, and not merely for its achievements and failures, but for each specific action and process.”[20]

In case of “S.P. Gupta v. Union of India” the Supreme Court suggested that soared transparency and information availability would enable people to “exercise sound judgment on the conduct of the government and the merits of public policies, so that democracy becomes a continuous process of government.”[21]

The government website “http://MyGov.in,” which allows citizens to share their thoughts and suggestions and influence policy, is another relevant illustration of e-democracy and a participatory model. Engagement on http://MyGov.in, which includes group membership, group discussions, and government consultations on a range of policies and services, has expanded beyond demographic concerns.[22] Though it is a government initiative, it is praised as an excellent example of e-democracy, e-participation, and e-voting. It also provides a forum on which local governments are urged to assist in enabling a varied population to participate.[23]

The implementation of Participatory Democracy in India, exemplified by the DISHA initiative, has significantly empowered citizens in decision-making processes. DISHA[24], operating from the district level, allows citizens to voice opinions and concerns, fostering direct engagement with governance structures. This approach extends to national and state levels through initiatives like Citizen Charters. DISHA acts as a feedback loop[25], providing valuable insights for government action plans and policy amendments. Leveraging technology, it enables two-way communication, disseminates crucial information, fact-checks, promotes transparency, and fosters collaborations between citizens and governments.

Insights from Legal Precedents on Participatory Democracy

In a recent legal case, “Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority and others,”[26] the petitioners highlighted the importance of public involvement in all stages of a project, aligning with the principles of participatory democracy. On the other side, Mr. Harish Salve, representing the respondents, acknowledged the value of participatory democracy but argued that judicial review should focus on legality and procedural fairness rather than enforcing public engagement. Additionally, the ruling referenced a statement by T.J.M. Wilson during a constitutional assembly debate, advocating for increased public participation beyond just voting, and emphasizing the importance of decentralization in enhancing democracy by empowering local governance.[27]

This ruling further underscores the idea of participatory democracy, discussing elements such as the incorporation of Article 40[28] in Part-IV into Directive Principles, stressing the significance of organizing and empowering village panchayats (village councils) and Municipalities for self-governance. [29] The 1992 constitutional amendments[30] implemented this vision, integrating local self-governance into rural and urban areas, promoting increased participation. In “Bhanumati v. State of Uttar Pradesh,”[31] the court acknowledged the transition towards participatory democracy through democratic decentralization. Similarly, “K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India”[32] and “Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner,”[33] highlighted the goals of democratic decentralization and the importance of regular free and fair elections in upholding participative democracy. Additionally, this judgment examines the scope and importance of public involvement within the Indian legal framework, and explores the potential role that internet and communication technology could play in facilitating easier participation.

The verdict of the “Central Vista Case” by the Supreme Court deeply examined India’s democratic essence. Despite differing views, both the majority and minority recognized India as a representative democracy with substantial participatory aspects. Justice Khanna stressed that public engagement must go beyond symbolism, considering the significant impact administrative decisions have on people’s lives. Hence, fostering genuine public participation is imperative.[34]

In conclusion, notwithstanding contentions regarding the effectiveness of participatory governance in India due to its magnitude and intricate societal framework, the introduction of the system if Panchayats at the most grass root level is the best example of public participation in the governance. Decentralization[35] is crucial to promoting democratic participation and attaining stable political, economic, and environmental growth for the best interests of the country.  In India, grass-roots involvement is extremely unusual because, at the moment, all decisions are taken at the central level, where local bodies have little or no power.

Furthermore, the emergence of technology, notably the internet, has facilitated daily interaction between the government and the populace, enhancing grievance redressal and fostering citizen-friendly procedures. This transition underscores a departure from purely representative democracy towards one centered on discourse and involvement. Prime Minister’s endorsement of participatory democracy underscores its necessity for a country like India. Therefore, harnessing a robust information technology framework with broader outreach holds potential for further fortifying India’s participatory democracy, as evidenced by recent developments such as the “Central Vista judgment”.

[1] LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT, CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY DEBATES, Nov. 25, 1949 speech by DR. BR AMBEDKAR 977, https://eparlib.nic.in/handle/123456789/763285?view_type=browse (last visited on April 28, 2024).

[2] Id., speech by DR. BR AMBEDKAR 978, https://eparlib.nic.in/handle/123456789/763285?view_type=browse.

[3] Id., speech by DR. BR AMBEDKAR 979, https://eparlib.nic.in/handle/123456789/763285?view_type=browse.

[4] S. Sajeev, Why India Is the mother of Democracy, ORGANISER  (April 11, 2023), https://organiser.org/2023/03/01/163371/opinion/why-india-is-the-mother-of-democracy/ (last visited on April 28, 2024).

[5] Sneha Mahawar, Types of Democracy, IPLEADERS (August 2, 2022) https://blog.ipleaders.in/types-democracy/ (last visited on April 29, 2024).

[6] (2014) 9 SCC 1.

[7] 1975 Supp SCC 1.

[8] T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner of India v. Union of India and ors., (1995) 4 SCC 611.

[9] Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1.

[10] Mouneshwara Sirnivasrao, Parliamentary Democracy and Coalition Governments in India, 72 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 961–70, 961 (2011) http://www.jstor.org/stable/41856532.

[11] Christiana Ochoa, The Relationship of Participatory Democracy to Participatory Law Formation, 15.1 INDIANA JOURNAL OF GLOBAL LEGAL STUDIES 5, 7 (2008).

Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol15/iss1/2.

[12] Stephen Elstub & Lyn Carson, Comparing Participatory and Deliberative Democracy,  NEW DEMOCRACY FOUNDATION (February 14, 2022), https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/RD-Note-Comparing-Participatory-and-Deliberative-Democracy.pdf (last visited on April 28, 2024).

[13] Julia Keugten, Participatory democracy: The importance of having a say when times are hard, INSTITUT MONTAIGNE (June 8, 2021), https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/participatory-democracy-importance-having-say-when-times-are-hard (last visited Apr 29, 2024).

[14] CHRISTIANA, supra note 11.

[15] Timothy Besley et al., Participatory democracy in action: Survey evidence from South India, 3 JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION, 648-657 (2005).

Available at: https://doi.org/10.1162/jeea.2005.3.2-3.648.

[16] Implementation of Constitution Review Commission Report, PRESS INFORMATION BUREAU (Sep. 12, 2002), https://archive.pib.gov.in/archive/releases98/lyr2002/rsep2002/12092002/r120920024.html (last visited Apr 29, 2024).

[17] Summary of Recommendations, Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (Vol. 1), Recommendation No. 76 (a) (2002).

[18] Id. Recommendation No. 76 (b).

[19] Id. Recommendation No. 76 (f).

[20] EPW Engage, Right to Information: The Promise of Participatory Democracy and Accountability, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY (ENGAGE) (August 27, 2019), https://www.epw.in/engage/article/right-information-promise-participatory-democracy (last visited on April 28, 2024).

[21] S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87.

[22] Abhiraj Das & Sarvotham Naik, India as a Participatory Democracy and the Central Vista Judgment: A Discussion, 8.1 GNLU L. Rev. 1, (2021).

Available at: http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/x65GRRJl.

[23] Sara Sinha, The Dawn of Participatory E-Democracy in India?, CITIZENOS (June 14, 2023), https://citizenos.com/news/the-dawn-of-participatory-e-democracy-in-india/ (last visited on April 29, 2024).

[24] District Development Coordination and Monitoring Committees (DISHA), constituted by Ministry of Rural Development, GoI.

[25] Roy S, Participatory Governance Is the Backbone of Democracy, TIMES OF INDIA BLOG (August 14, 2022), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/unheard-echoes-of-young-mind-2/participatory-governance-is-the-backbone-of-democracy/ (last visited on April 30, 2024).

[26] (2022) 11 SCC 1.

[27] LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT, CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY DEBATES, Nov. 14, 1949 https://eparlib.nic.in/handle/123456789/763211?view_type=browse (last visited on April 30, 2024).

[28] INDIA CONST. art. 40.

[29] K. P. Mishra, Participatory Democracy Through Gram Sabha In Madhya Pradesh, 70 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 801–12 (2009).

Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42742762.

[30] The Constitution (Seventy-Third & Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992.

[31] (2010) 12 SCC 1.

[32] (2010) 7 SCC 202.

[33] (1978) 1 SCC 405.

[34] ABHIRAJ, supra note 22.

[35] The Constitution (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act, 1992.