There is a whole industry in India which manufactures myths about Indian democracy. Its output has increased in the last few years and it’s very productive now. But it’s been there since 1951.

A not insignificant reason for this is that some partially educated Indians who think a new democracy will, should and must function exactly like the ones that have been evolving for a few hundred years in the West. They want “monkey see, monkey do”.

But they forget many things, including the fact that political and constitutional evolution is a process. It is not something that you buy off the shelf as our Constitution makers thought they could. Indeed, they borrowed ideas from five western constitutions which made things harder.

Likewise, there are those sad-faced lawyers who, because they are forbidden to advertise themselves, take up constitutional issues on television. It’s good for their business but it impresses no one.

Even political ‘scientists’ and commentators, who admit that democratic evolution is a process, forget that political and constitutional processes can’t be replicated exactly and that as they take time.

The important thing, therefore, is to understand the nature of the evolutionary process, and not keep grumbling that it’s happening very differently here than it did in the West. After all, as the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

The eventual outcome must, of course, be the same in India as it is in the highly evolved democracies — non-negotiable. The state must guarantee individual freedoms and their abridgement can’t be arbitrary.

But the process by which we get there can’t be the same. This is what the people with good intentions and/or biases don’t get. Democratic evolution is not a T20 cricket match. It’s not something that gets over in three hours.

Walrasian Tatonnement

To see what really happens, we can learn from economics. Thus, a French economist called Leon Walras pointed out at the end of the 19th century that competitive markets reach a stable equilibrium by a process of ‘tatonnement’, the French word for groping your way to a solution or, in plain English, trial-and-error.

Equilibrium, by the way, is reached when there is no longer any reason to change. It is very elusive. Later other economists pointed out that equilibrium and stability are two different things. You can get there but can you stay there?

After that it became a long drawn out wrangle between theorists. Eventually everyone got bored and moved on.

But the basic insight about groping your way to success remains and it is fully applicable to constitutionalism and democracy. Both are processes that are unique to each country. Until this is recognised, the laments of the half-educated will continue.

This is the main reason why India must develop the study of political and constitutional processes as a fully developed area of research and teaching. The course can be called ‘Walrasian equilibrium and stability in politics and constitutions’.

The Indian experience

Happily, India offers a perfect example of Walrasian tatonnement. Various amendments to the Constitution are exactly that. But our constitutionalists don’t see it. There have been 106 amendments to the Constitution so far. And there have been scores of Supreme Court judgments that have the same effect as an amendment.

All this tantamounts to Walrasian tatonnement. It’s trial-and-error at its best and it has yielded unique equilibria that is also stable. Like for example the unique doctrine of basic structure or several of the constitutional provisions like 74A that makes it binding on the President to accept the Cabinet’s advice.

Constitutional experience

Here are a few more examples of constitutional and political tatonnement. Was the First amendment (1951) necessary? Is it wrong to impose a restriction of reason on free speech?

Was the fourth amendment (1955) necessary? It curtailed judicial prerogatives to interpret the Constitution but only in the specific context of compensation to farmers when their land was taken over by the government in the public interest, that eminent domain thing.

Or didn’t the Supreme Court’s unique basic structure doctrine of 1973 further the cause of democracy? It’s a wonderfully vague concept but it defines our democracy.

Likewise, the 73rd and 74th amendment resulted in the devolution of administrative power to the lowest levels of governance like panchayats and municipalities respectively. Again tatonnement.

I can go on but I urge you to find your own examples. You will be surprised at how well our system works as long as there is no misuse of police powers.

Thus, there is genuine tatonnement in Indian democracy. It’s important to remember this.

comment COMMENT NOW