NATIONAL POLITICS

'Democracy is Not the Same as the Rule of the Majority'

Views of Eminent Jurist Ronald Dworkin

Sometimes the society as a whole can't have what it wants. The majority can't have what they want because there are individual rights. In the US it is often said the people have rights but the community itself has rights. And individual rights must yield to the community's rights. In my view it's the same thing as denying that an individual has rights. So when I say take rights seriously what I mean individual rights are trumps over the community's well being.

I am in favor of what is sometimes called an activist supreme court. Democracy is not the same thing as majority rule and the fact that the judge is unelected does not mean the system which gives them power is undemocratic.

 I believe in law and rule of law. But there are certain issues which the courts can't handle and shouldn't try. I make a distinction between what I call policy and principle. Policy matters like how you allocate funds the courts are not well equipped to handle. But we have to distinguish them from the questions of principles about the standards of individual rights and the society's commitment to its legal system and tradition.

And when such issues arise, I think, the courts are the proper forum. I don't mean the legislature shouldn't also consider them. There is nothing exclusive about this but these are the appropriate things the courts shall speak about because they are the guardians of principles for the nation.

Looking from the outside it seems to me you have a classical confrontation between two big ideas. One is that religion should not play any role in the politics of a pluralistic society and that's very deeply important principle.

 And second, equally important, is the freedom of speech. There can be no limit on the ideas that can be expressed as part of political campaigns. Now these two ideas confront one another and this is a classical case when a verdict, a philosophical kind of reasoning is necessary. You have to ask analytically what these principles are. You have to think more which principle should yield to which. To me it is a legal issue. understood philosophically. When issues like this are sent to the court it's good for democracy.

It's put on the agenda as an argument of principles. If you put it on the agenda through politics then it's a different argument altogether. Then what matters is who has the votes. No one has a right to claim benefit of affirmative action or reservation. It's not a matter of entitlement. It's not a matter of compensation. It's a matter of policy.

My argument is these policies amount to what is good for the nation as a whole, for the community as a whole and not individuals. What I am saying is anyone doesn't have a right to this.

You have to be careful in claiming rights when they don't exist. When the affirmative action programme began people said well. Whites also have rights; the majority has rights too. If you have two candidates for a position in a law school and if you score very high on a test that doesn't give you a right to claim that position. If you are very tall you may play in the university's basketball team but that doesn't give you a right to claim a position in the team. To my mind this really is at question of what they society needs as whole and my view is given the racial division of the American society, some programmes of this kind are necessary.

However, you have to be careful because you would not like to create a backlash or a resentment. In this case it's better not to talk about the rights on either side but talk about what is good for the society as whole given the historical background.

 (Source: The Times of India, 13 January, 1996)

Views of Subhash Chandra Bose 

India has had experience of several Empires in the past and this experience will furnish the background on which we shall have to build in future.

The state will guarantee complete religious and cultural freedom for individuals and groups and there will be no state-religion. In the matter of political and economic rights there will be perfect equality among the whole population. When every individual has employment, food and education and has freedom in religious and cultural matters, there will be no more any minorities problem in India.

(From the article "Free India and her Problems" first published in the German periodical, Wille and Macht (August 1942) and reprinted in Azad Hind, official publication of Berlin's Free India Centre).