Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948), the architect of Indian independence and a towering figure of political ethics, held complex and often critical views regarding parliamentary democracy, particularly as it was practised in the West. While Gandhi acknowledged certain democratic ideals such as liberty, equality, participation, and accountability, his critique of Western-style parliamentary democracy stemmed from its materialism, moral degeneration, and distance from the people. He aspired for a more ethical, decentralized, and participatory form of governance that resonated with Indian traditions and socio-economic realities.
1. Criticism of Western Parliamentary Democracy
Gandhi was highly critical of the British parliamentary system, which he viewed as morally and spiritually bankrupt. In his seminal work Hind Swaraj (1909), Gandhi famously described the British Parliament as a “sterile woman” and a “prostitute” because of its susceptibility to manipulation and lack of moral grounding. He wrote:
“Parliament is a costly toy of the nation. It is like a sterile woman and a prostitute.”
This scathing remark stemmed from his observation that members of Parliament acted not out of conviction, but under pressure from party politics, vested interests, and economic elites. According to Gandhi, such a system failed to reflect the genuine will of the people and was primarily driven by power struggles and material concerns.
2. Democracy Rooted in Morality
Gandhi believed that true democracy must be rooted in moral values and self-discipline. For him, the legitimacy of a political system was not based on numbers or majority rule alone but on the moral calibre of the leaders and the citizens. He often emphasized that democracy without ethical foundations degenerates into mob rule or becomes a mechanical system that can be easily manipulated.
Gandhi’s notion of Swaraj (self-rule) extended beyond political independence to include self-control, moral responsibility, and ethical governance. He advocated for leaders who served out of a sense of duty rather than ambition, and for citizens who were conscious of their responsibilities.
3. Decentralization and Village Swaraj
Gandhi’s alternative to parliamentary democracy was a decentralized political system, often referred to as “Village Swaraj.” He envisioned each village as a self-sufficient republic, managing its own affairs through gram sabhas (village assemblies). According to Gandhi, real democracy meant direct participation of the people, especially at the grassroots level.
In his own words:
“My idea of village swaraj is that it is a complete republic, independent of its neighbours for its own vital wants.”
He believed that centralized systems, such as the parliamentary model inherited from the British, alienated the people from decision-making processes and created a hierarchy of power. Decentralization, on the other hand, would empower ordinary people to take control of their lives and communities, fostering active citizenship and moral accountability.
4. Role of Representatives and Accountability
Gandhi’s skepticism of the representative model of parliamentary democracy was based on the idea that true representation requires close identification with the people’s needs. He opposed the idea of periodic voting as the sole expression of democratic will. Instead, he believed that leaders should be in constant touch with the people and live by example.
He wrote in Young India:
“The true function of a representative is to interpret the will of the people and to act accordingly.”
He also insisted that representatives should be selfless servers of society, free from party politics, corruption, or personal gain. Thus, Gandhi’s model of leadership rejected the career politician in favour of servant-leadership, which prioritized moral authority over political power.
5. Critique of Majoritarianism and Party Politics
Gandhi was deeply troubled by the adversarial nature of party politics. He believed that party competition often led to division, hostility, and short-term populism, rather than genuine deliberation or service. For Gandhi, truth and consensus were more important than majority opinion.
This leads to one of his key criticisms: majoritarianism, which he saw as a flawed measure of justice or morality. A democratic system, in his view, should be based on consensus and ethical deliberation, not just numerical strength. He once noted:
“What may be morally wrong cannot be made politically right by majority vote.”
6. Democracy as a Way of Life
Gandhi saw democracy not just as a political arrangement but as a way of life—a form of self-discipline and ethical conduct. It required individuals to cultivate truth (Satya), non-violence (Ahimsa), tolerance, and compassion. Therefore, democratic citizenship demanded moral training and active participation in public life.
He envisioned Swaraj as a dynamic process of self-transformation, in which each citizen would take personal responsibility for justice, cleanliness, education, and moral upliftment.
7. Gandhi and Post-Colonial Democracy in India
Though critical of Western parliamentary democracy, Gandhi did not outright reject it. He acknowledged that a representative parliamentary system could function well if it were grounded in ethical principles and aligned with local traditions. He hoped that post-independent India would move toward a more decentralized and participatory democracy, rather than replicating British-style structures.
Unfortunately, after independence, India adopted a centralized parliamentary model, and many of Gandhi’s ideas on village autonomy, non-violence, and ethical leadership were not implemented in practice.
Conclusion
In summary, Gandhi’s views on parliamentary democracy were marked by a deep concern for moral degeneration, over-centralization, and disconnection from the masses. While he appreciated the ideals of freedom, equality, and representation, he was critical of the way they were practiced in Western democracies. His emphasis was on ethical governance, self-rule, and active citizenship, rooted in spiritual and moral values.
Gandhi’s critique remains relevant today, especially in light of growing concerns over electoral corruption, populism, and political apathy in modern democracies. His vision invites us to reimagine democracy not merely as a mechanism of governance but as a moral and participatory way of life.
Leave a Reply