“Explain democracy as an order of society. What are the factors preventing people’s participation in politics?” (2020)
Democracy is usually seen as a form of government: free elections, majority rule and accountable rulers. Sociologists see it more broadly as an order of society, a pattern of social relations built on equality, liberty and fraternity that the political form both needs and reproduces. B. R. Ambedkar, following John Dewey, wrote in Annihilation of Caste (1936) that democracy “is primarily a mode of associated living”.
Democracy as an order of society
- Equality of conditions. Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America, 1835/1840) saw democracy in America first as a social state: the collapse of aristocratic ranks, social mobility and dense voluntary associations. Elections came afterwards.
- Social prerequisites. Seymour Martin Lipset (Political Man, 1960) tied stable democracy to industrialisation, education and a large middle class. Barrington Moore Jr. (Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, 1966) traced it to class structure: “No bourgeois, no democracy”.
- An evolutionary universal. Talcott Parsons (1964) treated the democratic association as an evolutionary universal. It gives large, differentiated societies a legitimate way to integrate conflicting interests.
- Civic culture. Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba (The Civic Culture, 1963) located democracy in attitudes of trust, competence and participation, not just in institutions.
- Social democracy first. On 25 November 1949 Ambedkar warned that political democracy cannot last “unless there lies at the base of it social democracy”. Caste hierarchy, which he called “graded inequality”, contradicts a democratic order.
Democracy therefore means citizenship over ascription, dialogue over command, and participation over subjection.
Factors preventing participation
1. Structural inequality
- Caste and class. Dominant castes can intimidate Dalit voters and panchayat leaders. Poverty leaves little time for politics beyond voting.
- Patriarchy. Women’s turnout (65.78%) beat men’s in the 2024 Lok Sabha election, but women won only 14% of seats. Proxy “sarpanch-patis” still act for elected women.
2. Elite and oligarchic control
- Robert Michels’ iron law of oligarchy and C. Wright Mills’ power elite explain why ordinary members are shut out of decisions.
- Of the MPs elected in 2024, 93% are crorepatis and 46% face criminal cases (ADR). Money and muscle raise the cost of entering politics.
3. Institutional and procedural barriers
- Internal migrants often cannot vote where they work. Bihar (56.19%) and Uttar Pradesh (56.92%) had the lowest turnout in 2024, and both states send out many migrants.
- Revisions of voter rolls can exclude people. The 2025–26 Special Intensive Revision removed about 5.18 crore names in 12 states and UTs, many of them dead or shifted voters. Critics worry about poor and undocumented citizens.
4. Cultural and psychological factors
- Apathy and alienation grow when votes seem to change little, and urban middle-class turnout is often low.
- Low political efficacy, lack of information and online disinformation all discourage informed participation.
5. Identity conflict and repression
- Communal polarisation, violence in conflict zones and restrictions on protest and NGOs shrink civic space.
Conclusion
Formal democracy in India has succeeded: record turnouts and a rising share of women and subaltern groups show that. Democracy as an order of society is still incomplete while hierarchy, money power and exclusion limit who participates meaningfully. Deepening democracy means extending Ambedkar’s social democracy through equality, local self-government and a free civic space.