• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Democratic matrix

B. S. Raghavan

IT IS strange that so far no reliable yardstick has been evolved to measure the maturity and health of a democracy. On the contrary, even those with the best democratic credentials have been flummoxed by its nebulous nature. Winston Churchi ll, for instance, only half-jokingly said that democracy was the worst form of government, save for all the others! Much confusion is caused by the fact that every country, however regimented its polity may be, calls itself a democracy. China is a people's democracy. Pakistan under Ayub Khan was a guided democracy. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, many brutal dictatorships in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere are all democracies according to their Constitutions.

Just as the Transparency International figured out a way of measuring corruption, and the World Bank fashioned the development index, is it not time a democratic matrix became the universally accepted normative scale to test the genuineness, soundness an d stability of a democracy? What are the quantitative parameters that can make such a meter reliable and objective?

The proposition is quite a tough one, but it has to be met head-on. Here is a list of admittedly raw indicators offered in the hope someone with an innovative bent of mind will build upon them and hone them into a real matrix.

The first indicator of a democracy is that citizens should be able and of their own free will to elect, in an atmosphere of peace and mutual tolerance, without bitterness or animosity, and any fear of reprisal, persons of their choice to be their represe ntatives. The number of violent incidents during elections, and the number of those killed in disturbances, the number of polling stations where repolls have had to be ordered by the Election Commission as a proportion of the total electorate and the tot al number of polling stations in the affected constituencies could form one set of figures to be built into the matrix.

The orderly functioning of representative bodies is the second most important attribute of democracy. This can be indexed by tabulating the number of days for which the Central and State legislatures had to be adjourned due to violence and disorder withi n the House without transacting any business, the number of days they met in the course of a year, the number in each category of legislative business (motions, resolutions, questions answered on the floor of the House, bills and the like) transacted, an d the number of members who had to be expelled or otherwise proceeded against for unruly conduct in the House.

The third vital characteristic of democracy is rule of law, including equality before law, independence of the judiciary, timely justice, absence of any kind of discrimination, incorruptibility and efficiency of public functionaries in order that citizen s have unhindered access to their entitlements and a disciplined and orderly citizenry which respects the rights of others. For arriving at this part of the matrix, one can take into account the ratio of the number of judges to the total pendency, and wi th reference to the total sanctioned posts, the number vacant, the number of judges who join politics and accept political office, the number of citizens' grievances received and redressed, the number of public functionaries who had to face charges and c onviction in corruption cases and the number of human rights violations.

A few more such as transparency can also be factored in to the exercise. It would be timely and would separate the wheat from the chaff.