CHAPTER 9

THEORIES OF DEMOCRACY: LIBERAL AND MARXIST

Liberal Theory of Democracy
Liberals claim that the state is to promote the interests of the individual; the individual is the end,
and the state is the means. According to them, the freedom of the individual should not be unduly
restrained by the state. The essence of democracy for them lies in maximising the freedom of the
individual. The better off an individual is, the more free he is. So to say, the interests of individuals
are identical with their freedoms. Locke who said that the state had to ensure the safety of the
life, liberty and property of the individual is generally regarded as the most influential and
respected liberal philosopher.
The liberal theory of democracy has passed through three phases and in each phase it has got a
different name. As a result, we have got the classical liberal theory of democracy, the elitist theory
of democracy, and the pluralist theory of democracy.
Classical Liberalism
The main proponents of the classical liberal theory of democracy are John Locke, Montesquieu,
Rousseau, Bentham and J. S. Mill. Locke said that the individual had the right to resist the state
and revolt against it if the latter failed to discharge its basic duty of safeguarding the life, liberty
and property of1he former. He emphasized that the government, based on the consent of the
individual, was limited in its authority. Montesquieu who propounded the theory of separation of
powers provided sufficient safeguards against the growth of dictatorship.
The utilitarians, in general, laid emphasis on the importance of people's participation in the
political process. They held that the government whose main objective was to provide "greatest
good of the greatest number" should encourage increased political participation on the part of
individuals. Jeremy Bentham, the proponent of the "pleasure and pain" theory, advocated
universal adult franchise while J .S. Mill, the son of his illustrious friend, James Mill, emphasized
the need of enhancing the quality of democracy by increasing the quality of political participation.
Mill, the "reluctant democrat", focussed on the moral aspect of democracy. He believed that
political participation would help the individual in fashioning his all-round development. Hence Mill
has been described by Macpherson as the propounder of the "developmental theory of
democracy".
Salient Features
1) Man is at the centre of democracy. Democracy aims at defending and promoting the interests
of man. The government is the instrument for this. the state is not a sanctified entity. It is neither
endowed with any supernatural quality nor invested with any supreme power unrelated to the
realisation of its basic aim of serving the individuals belonging to it.
2) The government is constitutional, limited and responsible. It is based upon the consent of the
people expressed through periodic elections which are based upon the principle of universal adult
suffrage. The man is assumed to be rational; he makes rational choices while casting his vote.
The government is not run whimsically according to the sweet desires of some persons in power.
It functions in conformity with the provisions of the constitution. Because of separation of powers
and check and balance implicit in the constitution itself, the government is expected not to act
illegally and arbitrarily.
The executive is accountable to the legislature and the members of the latter, sooner or later, are
responsible to the people who regularly elect them at regular intervals. In other words, the
government, because of its responsibility to the people, would seldom neglect and ignore them.
Public opinion is thus highly respected in democracies.

3) Democracy is the art of reaching compromise and consensus. It encourages debates,

discussions, arguments and negotiations which help in narrowing down the difference between
adversaries and enable them to reach some compromise. Discussions and debates are
potentially conflict reducers. These contribute towards lessening tensions, taking away a lot of
heat and anger, and prepare the ground for effecting compromises.
4) Democracy respects fundamental rights; in particular, the freedom of expression is very highly
valued. Any state which tries to dwarf its men would soon realise that it cannot accomplish any
big things with such dwarfed men, said J.S. Mill,
5) Democracy is not only a form of government; it is also a way of life. It aims at the building of
the totality of the life of the individual. Liberals assume that a democratic man is indispensable for
a democratic state; democratic society and democratic government go hand in hand. They are
complementary to each other. Democracy which seeks to promote the; all-round development of
the individual helps in fostering his moral personality.
Davis, to sum up, observes that the liberal theory of democracy assumes "the existence of
rational and active citizens who seek to realise a generally recognized common good through
collective initiation, discussion and decision of policy questions concerning public affairs, and who
delegate authority to agents (elected government officials) to carry through the broad decisions
reached by the people through majority vote. "He further says, "participation in the management
of public affairs would serve as a vital means of intellectual, emotional, and moral education
leading towards the full development of the capacities of individual human beings." According to
Peter H. Merkel, the four principles of liberal democracy are: government by discussion, majority
rule, recognition of minority rights, and constitutional government. The majority should form the
government, but it should not ride roughshod over the minority. J. S. Mill evinced keen interest in
the minority. He strongly argued that the views of the minority should be respected.
Criticisms
1) The classical theory of democracy assumes that the man is rational. He is
determining his vital interests and the best strategy for promoting them. But the
suggests that individuals are often swayed by other considerations which hardly
interests best. They tend to be guided in their political behaviour by parochial
casteism, ethnicism, communalism and localism.

capable of
experience
serve their
factors like

2) Democracy is said to be reflecting the will of the people. A democratic government, in theory, is
based upon the consent of the people. It claims legitimacy because it is formed by the people
through their free choice. "Free choice" of the people involves some difficulties. Are people really
free in a society which is poor, backward and is characterised by inequality and domination? The
political freedom of the people is often seriously undermined and crippled by ignorance, poverty
and fear. Elections are often won by money, muscle-power and parochialism. Even in developed
countries the democratic process is not free of these shortcomings and flaws. Thus it is criticised
that the democratic legitimacy derived from "consent" and "free choice" is more of a myth than of
a reality.
3) Democracy is meant to serve the interests of all. But it is not so easy a game as can be played
by all of them. Both the process and organisation of democracy are quite complex and
complicated. Democracy involves many laws and principles, and operates at several levels. An
ordinary man would find it difficult to grasp all these things properly and successfully.
4) "Common good" which is a key concept in the liberal theory of democracy is not easy either to
define or to determine. Is it the summation of the good of all individual members of a society? Is it
identical with the interest of the majority? Common good appears to be as nebulous and vague
as common will, another important concept of the liberal theory of democracy.

5) A democratic government, it is claimed, is legitimate because it is governed by public opinion.

But what is "public opinion"? Whose opinion is it? Is it the voice of the elected members of
legislatures national as well as provincial? Does it mean the voice of the mass media? What
about the vast majority of people who have little chance of expressing their views articulately and
effectively? Do the mass media - both governmental and others which are supposed to be free
-mirror the views of these poor, illiterate and unorganised masses? There is a lot of evidence to
the effect that even in the developed countries of the West, it is the governments which often
make and mould public opinions, and not vice versa. For a long time on the question of the
Vietnam War, the American government, through subtle and powerful propaganda, misled its
people and made them support the government's Vietnam policy. In India, the vast expansion of
television to different parts of the country in last few years seems to have provided to the
government an effective instrument for creating a public opinion in its favour. "
1
6) The classical liberal theory of democracy overlooks its economic dimension. Democracy offers
"equal opportunity" to all people to participate in the political process. But the offer of equal
opportunity to rich and poor will give differential advantages to them. In other words, the rich
would pocket most of these advantages while the poor would be helplessly watching the rich
men's game. The so-called free election is really meant for those who have the monopoly over
resources like money, education, leisure. The poor who mostly lack in these resources are no
wonder, at the receiving end. They are used as pawns in the chess board of democratic politics.
The excessive emphasis laid upon the unrestrained freedom of the individual by the classical
liberals was apparently meant to prevent state intervention in the economic pursuits of the rich.
Macpherson has observed: "Liberal democracy has typically been designed to fit a scheme of
democratic government into a class-divided society; that this fit was not attempted, either in
theory or in practice, until the nineteenth century; and that, therefore, earlier models and visions
of democracy should not be counted as models of liberal democracy.
Elite Theory
The elite theory states that the society is always ruled by a minority who are "superior" to others.
The earlier elite theorists like Mosca and Pareto said that the elites were superior to others in
quality. On the other hand, the later elite theorists like C. W. Mills and Floyd Hunter stated that the
so-called superiority of elites was derived from their family and social backgrounds and the
hierarchical organization of the society.
The classical liberal theory truly reflected the needs of the new middle class of the 18th and 19th
centuries during which it emerged. The new middle class was then fighting against the decaying
monarchical and feudal orders. The bourgeoisie, through democratisation, sought to curb the
feudal control over power structures. Hence the emphasis in classical liberal theory on the
unrestrained freedom of the individual and political equality. By the 20th century the problems and
priorities of the bourgeoisie had greatly changed. Having strongly entrenched itself in power by
banishing the feudal lords from it, it wanted to monopolise it by preventing other elements of the
society from competing with it for power. The elite theory, like its predecessor - the classical
liberal theory - was developed to serve the interests of the dominant class, the bourgeoisie. It was
designed to rationalise the existing political order prevailing in the early part of the 20 th century -the domination of power-structures by elites.
"Lions" and "Foxes" Circulate
Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), and Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), two Italian sociologists were the
first to systematically develop the elite theory. Pareto provided a broad as well as a narrow
definition of elite. His broad definition of elite is: "By elite is meant a small number of individuals,
who in each sphere of activity, have succeeded and arrived at a higher echelon in the
professional hierarchy." According to this definition there are several elites in each sphere of
activity. For example, there are military elites, political elites, business elites and academic elites.

In the narrow sense, by elite, he means only the "governing elite which is that small number of
individuals who have succeeded and who exercise ruling functions politically and socially."
Pareto believes that elites possess superior psychological attributes than others in the society.
Following Machiavelli, another Italian theorist of eminence, he says that the elites possess "lion"
and/or "fox" qualities. "Lion" qualities include strength and courage while "fox" qualities comprise
intelligence, shrewdness and cunning.
Pareto observes that elites tend to decay. When one group of ruling elites, due to indulgence in
power and luxury, neglect its primary duty or fails to cope with the changing times and situations,
it is likely to be replaced by another group of elites. "Lion elites" may be replaced by "fox elites"
and vice versa. Lion elites possess strength and bravery, but they lack in intelligence and
manipulative skill. Fox elites are cunning and shrewd, but they lack in strength and courage. If
both "lions" and "foxes" are not properly represented in the elite structure, there is danger to it
and it is vulnerable to decadence and replacement. Pareto has succinctly observed that history is,
and always will be, "a graveyard of aristocracies". He describes this process of power-shifting
from one group to another as "circulation of elites."
Mosca says that in all societies it is the organised minority which rules over the unorganised
majority. To quote him, "In all societies two classes of people appear - a class that rules and a
class that is ruled. The first class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions,
monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more
numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first The domination of an organized minority
over the unorganized majority is inevitable". According to Mosca, elites are distinguished from the
masses by qualities which give them material, intellectual or even moral superiority. Pareto
argues that the qualities of elites are the same in all societies. On the other hand, Mosca claims
that these qualities would differ from society to society.
Mosca does not have faith in the capacity of masses for self-government. He asserts that elite
rule in any society is inevitable. To Mosca, democracy was government of the people; it might
even be government for the people, but it could never be government by the people. He was
opposed to the extension of franchise to all sections of people. He wanted it to be confined to the
middle class only. He thus remained "elitist" to the last.
Another early elite theorist is Robert Michels (1876-1936)who has formulated the principle of "iron
law of oligarchy". Michels says that democracy is inconceivable without organization. He argues
that individuals, for effectively expressing their views and promoting their interests, need to join
together and form organizations. But for coordination and dealing with things of complex nature,
organizations need persons of specialised knowledge: In other words, as organizations grow in
size and complexity, there arises the increased need of bureaucracy. As a result, the bigger the
organization, the more dependent the rank and file members became upon their leaders. On the
basis of this analysis Michels concludes that each organization tends to be "oligarchic" and the
society is subjected to the oligarchical control of a few leaders.
C. Wright Mills, an eminent sociologist, has pointed out that the United States of America is ruled
by a monolithic elite structure called "Power elite". Power elite consist of military elites, business
elites and political elites. The interests of these elites are: complementary to one another and
they have similar values, beliefs and orientations due to similar socio-economic backgrounds, and
exposure to similar learning process. They occupy all "Command posts" of the society. Another
study of this nature was conducted by Floyd Hunter in the American city of Atlanta. He points out
that it is the economic elites who have the monopoly of power.
As contrasted with C.W. Mills and Hunter, some other American scholars have stated that elites
are not a monolithic structure; they have serious clash of interests and through completion and
conflict for power among themselves, they contain and balance one another. The most famous of
these scholars is Robert Dahl who, in his well-known study of New Haven, provided a pluralistic

perspective to power analysis. According to Dahl, C. W. Mills\ by his study of power elite, has
shown that elites have the, "potential for control", but the potential for control is not equivalent to
actual control. Dahl claims to have found out that New Haven contained several elites whose
interests often collided and who seldom worked unitedly. These elites, by balancing one another,
prevented the concentration of powers in the hands of any elite group. Dahl described this elite
structure, based upon bargaining and compromise, as "Polyarchy" which, he claims, is supportive
of democracy.
Some of the recent elite theorists have sought to explain the elite rule by arguing that though
democracy is a government for the people, it is seldom a government by the people. The
common man, being very much vulnerable to manipulation, is not expected to be rational in his
thinking and action. As a result of his exposure to strong media campaigning and propaganda
offensives by different agencies, he tends to develop a will which, in reality, is not his own; it is
rather the reflection of the influencing agency. In other words, the so-called public will is the
"manufactured will". In view of this development, it would not be a great loss, it is argued, if the
common man does not have a voice in the day-to-day functioning of a democratic government. It
is enough if he has some control over the ruling elites by holding them ultimately accountable
through periodic elections. In a democracy, the voter is required only to elect the leaders, not to
decide policies. It is the leaders who will decide issues and policies. Democracy is there so long
as the leaders have fears that they can be removed from power in the next election if they do not
serve the people. Thus, it is argued, the control by elite is not the negation of democracy. The
elite domination of a democratic system has been characterised as ''democratic elitism." It has
been succinctly observed that the elite theorists regard democracy as "simply a market
mechanism; the voters are the consumers; the politicians are the entrepreneurs.
Elements of Elite Theory
1. All need not be equally active in democracy. It is enough that some are more active and
involved in the political process than others. In other words, democracy, for its success, requires
the gradation of the political involvement of citizens.
2. Elites should be drawn from all sections of the people as much as possible.
3. Elites should not neglect the common people to whom they are accountable at regular
intervals.
4. The elite structure should be open, and the deserving people from below should be
encouraged and enabled to enter it. Otherwise, it will gradually lose its vitality, and decay.
5. In democracy, there should not be too much stress on "ideology". It is better that the ideological
polarisation among political elites/parties is reduced to the minimum. The "end of ideology is a
recent feature of democracies. The one ideology to which all of them should be committed is the
maintenance and stability of the system. None of them should see radical change in it.
6. The government is a mechanism of mediating between the competing elites and establishing
compromise and consensus among them. It should aim at minimising conflict among them.
Ruling Class Vs Political Elite
Both Marxists and elitists agree that the society is dominated by a minority. But they differ from
each other in regard to the identity of this minority. Bottomore says that the elite theory was
originally conceived by bourgeois intellectuals to oppose the Marxist idea of social classes. The
following are the main differences between them.
1. According to Marxists, the ruling minority derives its dominance from its ownership of the

means of production. On the other hand, many elite theorists hold that elites rule over others
because of their superior psychological qualities. Some other elitists maintain that ruling elites
derive their dominance from their social background and the hierarchical nature of the society.
Bottomore has said, "The elitists also oppose socialist doctrines in a more general way, by
substituting for notion of class which rules by virtue of economic and military power, the notion of
an elite which rules because of the superior qualities of its members.
2. Marx said that communism would be characterised by the absence of class. Elitists do not
agree with the thesis of classless society. They assert that there will always be a ruling class
dominating others in the society.
3. According to Marxists, each society is divided into two classes, namely, the class of rich, and
the class of poor, and they are always locked in hostility. There is no question of compromise and
harmony between these two classes, they assert. Elitists, on the contrary, believe that the conflict
between elites and masses is not inevitable, and they can live in peace and cooperation.
4. The Marxist thinkers point out that there is little mobility between the ruling class, and others:
no poor man can join the class of rich. The elite theorists, on the other hand, believe that it is
possible for the members of masses to be elevated to the group of ruling elites. Any elite structure
which does not admit of social mobility from below is destined to die sooner or later.
5. For Marxists, revolution would bring about radical changes in the society; it is likely to
overthrow from power one ruling class and replace it by another class. The elite theorists do not
accept this view of revolution. For them, revolution is a normal thing, replacing one elite group by
another elite group, or adding a few new elites to the existing group of ruling elites. They maintain
that by revolution no fundamental change is effected in the elite structure - the domination of the
society by elites.
Classical Liberalism Vs Elite Theory
Some significant differences between classical liberal theory if democracy and the elite theory are
stated below:
1. Classical liberalism is people-oriented. It has great faith in the capacity of the people to
properly play their role in the social and political processes. It views the man as a rational actor
capable enough of making right political choice. Elitists, on the other hand, are leader-oriented.
They have a great deal of confidence in the ability of elites to deliver goods to help maintain the
system.
2. The classical liberal theory of democracy treats common good" and "public opinion" as vital
elements of democracy. But the elite theorists do not accord much importance to these
objectives. According to them it is difficult to define common good, and worse still, public opinion
can be invented and manipulated.
3. The elite theorists value democracy as an agency of making compromise and consensus by
mediating among conflicting elites, and as an agency of system-maintaining. However, classical
liberalists regarded democracy as an agency of building moral men. They believed that
democracy helped in effecting the all-round development of the man. McPherson has rightly
observed: "The traditional theory of Mill - gave democracy a moral dimension: it saw democracy
as development, as a matter of the improvement of mankind. The Schumpeter-Dahl axis, on the
contrary, treats democracy as a mechanism, the essential function of which is to maintain an
equilibrium.

Criticisms

1. The elite theory is anti-democratic in nature. It has little faith in the people. It pins its hopes on
elites. The common man is devalued, while elites are overvalued.
2. Elitists are primarily concerned with the maintenance of the stability of the system. They have
not much sympathy for any effort to reform or modify the system. They are thus highly
conservative and even reactionary.
3. Moral man misses in the writings of elite theorists. For them the utility of the common man lies
in its function as the voter, required to elect ruling elites at regular intervals. The all-round
development of individual is of little concern to elitists.
The Pluralist Theory of Democracy
Both Marxists and elitists hold that powers rest in the hands of a minority; the majority of the
members of the society are excluded from the power structure. The pluralists, on the other hand,
maintain that powers are not concentrated; these are dispersed. These are shared among all
sections of people primarily through different organizations formed to articulate their interests.
These groups and associations make regular and intense efforts to influence government policies
and decisions. Some of them are overtly political while many others are potentially so. The latter,
though apparently meant to serve some socio-cultural/economic purposes, are, when need
arises, politically mobilised and activised.
While political parties seek to promote broader interests, different service and occupational
associations have, as their main objective, defence and promotion of sectional interests. These
associations are mostly affiliated to different political parties. Because of clash of interests these
political and semi political organisations often act against one another. Because of this, no single
group can be able to emerge dominant for a long period. The group which manages to gain
dominance at a particular point of time, or on a particular issue, would have to meet with strong
challenge from others for continuing to stay at that position. Further, despite their internal
competitions and tensions, these groups would contain the tendency of the government to grow
very powerful threatening the democratic life of the state. The government, no doubt, wields a lot
of powers, But in a democracy it is seldom allowed to grow dictatorial, completely eclipsing other
groups and associations existing in the state. Sovereignty does not lie exclusively either with the
state or with the various organizations and groups functioning within it; it is shared among them.
From the pluralist perspective, politics is a process of competition and bargaining among these
organizations and groups, and government is a process of mediation and compromise among
them. Robert Dahl, in his study of New Haven, claims to have found out that power is dispersed
among various interest groups, and the plurality of elites of the city does not form a unified group
with common interests. He says that 10cal politics is a business of bargaining and compromise
with no one group dominating the process of taking decisions. He rejects that economic interests
have the dominance over decision-making. According to him, "Economic notables, far from being
a ruling group, are simply one of many groups out of which individuals sporadically emerge to
influence the policies and acts of city officials. Almost anything one might say about the influence
of economic notables could be said with equal justice about half a dozen other groups in New
Haven."
Another American scholar who agrees with Dahl and supports the pluralist view of democracy is
Arnold M. Rose. In The Power Structure, he rejects the C. W. Mills' hypothesis of unified Power
elite, and advocates instead a "multi-influence hypothesis." He argues that the society consists of
many elites representing different interests and they, through bargaining often reach
compromises. Rose claims to have discovered that the economic and political elites do not work
as allies and they do not form a single ruling elite.
The government itself consists of several branches which share its powers among them and

which are empowered to balance one another: In democratic set-ups no branch of the
government can gain total dominance over other branches. This provision of separation of
powers is a safety valve against the rise of dictatorship.
Apart from political parties and interest groups, many influential individuals also share power with
the state. The latter exercise influence either in their individual capacities or as leaders of different
political organisations. However, it may be relevant to point out that the individual status and the
associational status of these leaders tend to reinforce each other, though not in equal degree.
The individual status of a man is likely to be more strengthened by his associational linkage than
the other way round. According to Presthus, "pluralism is a system in which political power is
fragmented among the branches of government; it is, moreover, shared between the state and a
multitude of private groups and individuals.
A closer look at the dynamics of political and semi-political associations would reveal that these
are dominated by a small group of leaders who tend to monopolise powers. As Lipset has
observed in relation to trade unions, leadership tends to be oligarchic. This means that to a great
extent the competition among different organizations for power-sharing is the competition among
the leaders of these organizations. It is thus apparent that there is a great deal of overlapping
between the Dahl-Schumpeter version of the elite theory, and the pluralist theory of democracy. In
the ultimate analysis it is the elites who dominate political parties and interest groups, and who
seem to be having close links with the ruling elites controlling the governmental structure.
Elements of Pluralism
1. Powers are fragmented and dispersed. The state is required to share powers with several
political parties, interest groups, private groups and individuals.
2. Because of the provision of separation of powers, and check and balance at several points,
there is not much possibility of the rise of dictatorship. Neither any branch of the government nor
any other organization is likely to emerge over-dominant for a long time. These actors through
containing one another, would prevent anyone of them having monopoly of power.
3. Sovereignty is not the exclusive possession of either the state or any other group or
association. It is, in fact, distributed among them. The sovereignty of the state is limited by the
powers of other actors to contain it.
4. Political organizations and other groups, seeking to articulate the demands of their members,
help in establishing contact between them and he state. Through their mediation, they help in
bridging the distance between the government and the people. Further, they contribute to
improving the quality of governmental decisions by supplying their skill and interest.
Criticisms
1. Dahl claims to have discovered a plurality of elites competing with one another for power by
examining the making of decisions on some issues. It is, however, argued by some critics that
Dahl has examined only safe decisions". In any power structure some crucial issues do not come
for decision-making; these are settled outside the policy-making structure. The powerful elites
bring only those issues to the decision-making structure on which they are sure of getting
favourable decisions or if they are not to lose much even if the decisions are not up to their
satisfaction. Thus the examination of safe decisions would fail to prove the existence of pluralist
power structures.
2. Pluralists argue that the government is not decisively controlled by economic elites and it
enjoys "autonomy". The critics do not reject the contention that the government enjoys some
amount of autonomy. But they argue that it is in the interests of ruling elites including economic
elites that the government should have some amount of autonomy. Autonomy would help it in

dealing effectively and flexibly, with the members of the subject lass. By making some token
concessions it can dissuade them from making serious challenges to the dominance of ruling
elites.
3. Pluralism is criticised on the ground that it encourages "pressure politics". The interest groups
are hardly expected to rise above their narrow interests and perspectives. Further, in pursuance
of their interests, they in indulge in illegal and unfair practices. They tend to pressurise the
government to favour them even at the expense of the vital interests of the community/nation.
Pressure politics has the potential to weaken and immobilise the government, and seriously
damage the important interests of the nation.
4. No doubt each society consists of many organizations - political, semi-political and private. But
all of them are not equally important; nor 'e they equally active in the political process. Some of
these represent the interests of the rich people while many others represent the interests of poor.
It is wrong to assume, as the pluralists do, that these organizations with opposite objectives
would enter into mutual consultation and reach the consensus. It is the organizations of the rich
which would be able to influence governmental policies and decisions while those of the poor
would be kept at a distance from the power-centre(s). This suggests that in class-divided
societies pluralism is confined only to a few organizations representing the rich.
5. Another result of pluralist politics is decline in individualism. Organizations, by nature, give rise
to elite dominance. The leaders of these organizations -political parties, interest groups and
private groups tend to monopolise powers and benefits, and neglect the interests of rank and file
members. They use these organizations, not to serve their original purposes, but to promote their
own interests. In the process, the common man is forgotten and lost.
Conclusion
The preceding discussion of different varieties of the liberal theory of democracy suggests that in
the ultimate analysis it is primarily the interests of elites which this theory seeks to promote. While
its classical version wanted to further the cause of the new middle class by containing the
intervention of the state on behalf of fading feudalism, its pluralist version also sought to contain
the state intervention and prevent statism so that the elites, in the name of respective
'organisations and groups, could prosper, and gain more powers and privileges. The elite theory
is also an attempt to legitimise the rule of elites on the ground of their superior psychological
attributes. Thus a close scrutiny of the liberal theory of democracy reveals that the common man
whose interests it professes to serve is a great loser in democratic systems. He is used to help
elites gain legitimacy and more powers.
MARXIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY
Marxists, in principle, do not oppose democracy. On the other hand, they claim that their
"democracy" is genuine whereas the bourgeois democracy is fake and a sham.
The Western model of democracy insists on the maintenance of some institutions. A democratic
state must have a duly elected legislature periodically accountable to the people, an executive
responsible to the legislature, and an impartial judiciary, Western scholars an statesmen argue. In
their opinion, democracy is characterised by decentralisation, dispersion and separation of power.
Marxists do not accept this institutional view of democracy. For them, the most important feature
of democracy is the majority rule. They argue that in Communist states the government really
serves the interests of the majority whereas the bourgeois governments defend and promote the
interests of only a few -the ruling elites.
Marxists do not regard democracy as a political system. They view it as a system of values and a

form of society. In the latter sense democracy does not have a final point of achievement. It is' a
continuously growing process. Thus democracy goes on struggling to go beyond itself, in the
process retaining its essence and improvising it further.
As a political system, democracy is a class organism. It is meant to serve the interests of a
particular class. Lenin distinguishes working class democracy from bourgeois democracy. The
latter serves the interests of the bourgeoisie -a small minority -whereas the former promotes the
interests of the proletariat the vast majority of the society. When socialism - the transitional phase
- matures into communism, democracy as a political system will cease to exist, but democracy as
a system of values will flourish. A communist society is a democratic society because it nourishes
democratic values like socio-economic equality and the absence of exploitation of one class by
another. According to Lefebvre, Marx regards democracy "not as a system but as a process
which comes down essentially to a struggle for democracy. The latter is never completed because
democracy can always be carried forward or forced back. The purpose of struggle is to go
beyond democracy and beyond the democratic state, to build a society without state power".16
According to Marxists, in bourgeois democracy, the state is controlled by the economic elites-the
finance capital. The members of this class, by occupying key posts in different branches of the
power structure, use the government to promote the interests of their class. Some other Marxists
take a slightly different view. They do not think that the organs of the government are manned by
the members of rich class. They believe that the latter, by preferring to stay outside the
government, dominate policy-making process from behind the scene. They allow the state some
autonomy so that the state can utilise that autonomy to better serve their interests. It is thus clear
that both Marxist view-points - capitalists controlling the government machinery (a) from within,
(b) from without-point to the same proposition that the government in capitalist countries is
controlled by economic elites who use it to further their own interests.
Marxists reject the legitimacy of elections in bourgeois democracies. They argue that political
parties in bourgeois states hardly differ from one another in respect of ideology. The ideologies of
all of them are designed to buttress the interests of rich people. As a result, the poor people of
capitalist countries have little choice. Whichever party they vote for would help the rich against
them.
Marxists further argue that in bourgeois democracies justice is very expensive. It is only the rich
who can get judgements in their favour. They gave the money to buy justice. By money power
and political influence they can close the eyes of the court to their crimes and other misdeeds.
The poor, even if innocent, would be punished by courts. They have little leverage vis--vis the
judiciary. The judiciary, it is contended, is not impartial. It has got a class character. It is manned
by the representatives of the rich class and, no wonder, derives its interests.
In spite of these flaws, bourgeois dem04racy is not totally bad. It has some limited benefits for the
exploited people. The working class parties, making use of the conditions under bourgeois
democracy, strengthen themselves, organise and mobilise the workers ad increase their political
consciousness. Thus, bourgeois democracy can be used to weaken it and ultimately replace it by
working class democracy by staging a socialist revolution. This shows that bourgeois democracy
is partly progressive in the sense that it prepares the ground for its own overthrow. While
providing political democracy only to a few-the rich -it denies socio-economic democracy to the
people. According to Marxists, democracy practised in capitalist countries is not real and genuine
despite its limited progressive character.
The Marxists claim that the dictatorship of proletariat is a much better democracy than bourgeois
democracy. The dictatorship of proletariat, a transitional phase, is established to help the poor
majority against the rich minority. Though it is a better democracy, it is not free of class character.
Nor is it free of repressive tendency. It is a democracy for the exploited who form the majority of
the population and a dictatorship for the rich who are in minority. The main function of the
dictatorship of proletariat is to contain and exterminate the counter-revolutionary forces that will
be fighting back with all strength at their disposal to regain their previous dominant position. The

10

state will continue to exist so long as class contradictions have been completely eliminated. When
the classes with antagonistic interests cease to exist, the state will wither away. This transitional
phase -the, socialist democracy -would be characterised by the eruption of violence. Only with the
use of force can the opposition by bourgeoisie be suppressed. Lenin said, "The dictatorship of the
proletariat is a most determined and most ruthless war waged by the new class against a more
powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow. The
dictatorship of the proletariat is a stubborn struggle -bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful,
military and economic, educational and administrative -against the forces and traditions of the old
society. To quote him again, "The suppression of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is
impossible without a violent revolution. It is wrong on the part of Marxists to claim as Russians did
in 1961, that they can establish a "state of the whole people," State is always a class organism; it
would always represent the interests of the ruling class, The Russian view of the state as
representing the "whole people" was criticised by China in June 1963 as violation of the
fundamentals of Marxism.
Before we make a critical examination of the Marxist theory of democracy, we may bring to an
end the preceding discussion by quoting Lenin from his State and Revolution. He said:
The dictatorship of the proletariat - the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the
ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors - for the first time becomes democracy
for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags. The dictatorship
of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters,
the capitalists.
Criticism
The Marxist theory of democracy bas been criticised on the following grounds.
1. Negation of Democracy: The Liberals criticise that the socialist democracy is not democracy at
all; it is the opposite of democracy. They argue that democracy is a government of the whole
people of the society. Democracy is not a government of one group to be used by it against
another. But the socialist democracy, which represents the interests of one class only - though it
is the majority group fails to satisfy the main criterion of democracy mentioned above. The liberals
charge that the dictatorship of proletariat, far from being the democracy for the proletariat, is a
dictatorship over them. In socialist democracy the party bureaucracy becomes growingly powerful
and the common man becomes increasingly alienated from the system. Sartori describes it as a
"dictatorship pure and simple, while Popper paints it as a "closed society" in which there is
neither freedom nor democracy.2 Benn and Peters have observed: Marxists can equate the
"dictatorship of the proletariat" with" democracy" because they exclude any but the workers from
the "people" But this is not what is meant by the "people" in the context we have in mind. We
should say that a system was just as undemocratic if it denied people votes because they were
rich, as if it denied them votes because they were poor.
2. Bloody and Heartless: Some minor differences among them notwithstanding, Marxists, in
general, agree that the socialist revolutions as well as the socialist democracy are predominantly
violent in nature. Lenin advocates the "bloody" overthrow of the bourgeois government.
Excessive emphasis upon violence makes the working men democracy unacceptable to many.
Many cultures in the world either hate violence or give very low place to it. No wonder, because of
its open support to violence, the Marxist democracy is not welcome in these cultures.
3. Parliamentary Socialism: Many people believe that socialism, a good goal, can be achieved
through parliamentary peace. One need not resort to violence and revolution for this. Important
reforms with the objective of helping the mass can be pushed through legislations. The people
can make use of elections, pressure groups and other democratic instruments at their disposal to
influence -if necessary, force the government to adopt "welfare" measures. This is particularly the
strong feeling of the Communist parties of Western Europe who have evolved "Euro-

11

Communism" to represent their point of view. Some democratic countries of the third world are
also of this opinion. It is important to note that this view has won support in Moscow at a few
points of time. In 1956 Khrushchev, the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party,
declared that there are two roads to socialism: one is 'revolution, and the other is parliamentary
road. However, China bitterly attacked Khrushchev for this.
4. Not a Pure Democracy: Some revisionists like Bernstein and Kautsky have criticised socialist
democracy on the ground that is not a "pure democracy." Kautsky charged that the dictatorship
of proletariat, established in Russia after the 1917 revolution, did not grant liberties to citizens.
While Bernstein criticised the socialist democracy of Russia for unnecessarily indulging in
violence, Rosa Luxemburg, a German Marxist, attacked it for its failure to grant freedoms to the
press and people. In her opinion, the dictatorship of proletariat of Russia has become the
dictatorship of some politicians.
Conclusion
The Marxist democracies practised in Russia, China and other Communist countries, are showing
little respect for political freedoms of individuals. The political choices, movements and
expressions of the latter are severely constrained and limited. Political power is monopolised by a
small minority ruling from above. The system is characterised by intense centralisation and
bureaucratisation. Political democracy is conspicuous by its absence. However, it seems that in
proletarian democracy there is much more of social and economic equality than in liberal
democracies. In the former, the gap between rich and poor is not quite wide. It is apparent that in
Marxist democracies, the individual initiative, a valuable factor of economic development, is
largely absent. Of late, the leaders of these systems seem to have realised this deficiency and
are trying to slowly rectify it. The "capitalist reforms" slowly introduced in China and Russia in
recent times are a pointer in this direction. The atmosphere of freedom and relaxation created in
the Soviet Union as a result of the "Gorbachev experiment" amply illustrates this. The
encouragement given to the private sector and the high incidence of student activism in China in
the post-Mao period are important developments effected in China's "People's democracy".
These developments in Russia and China suggest that the model of Marxist democracy is likely
to adopt and encourage some innovations which are not in conformity with orthodox Marxism.
The countries concerned are aware of this. But they are perhaps thinking that the acceptance of
small doses of "capitalist" innovations would, in the long run, make proletarian democracies more
stable and secure.

12