Opinion National Interest PoV 50-Word Edit

ThePrint On Camera Videos In Pictures

Society & Culture Around Town Book Excerpts Vigyapanti The Dating Story

More Judiciary Education YourTurn Work With Us Campus Voice

Opinion National Interest PoV 50-Word Edit

ThePrint On Camera Videos In Pictures

Society & Culture Around Town Book Excerpts Vigyapanti The Dating Story

More Judiciary Education YourTurn Work With Us Campus Voice

Abusing industrialists has become the be-all and end-all of Indian labour leaders’ role: Ambedkar

In September 1943, Dr B R Ambedkar delivered a speech at a trade union workers’ study camp in Delhi, reflecting on parliamentary democracy, trade unionism, and the labouring classes.

I appreciate very much the kind invitation of your Secretary to come and address you this evening. I was hesitating to accept this invitation and for two reasons. In the first place, I can say very little which can bind the government. Secondly, I can say very little about trade unionism in which you are primarily interested. I accepted the invitation because your Secretary would not take a ‘No’ from me. I also felt that this was probably the best opportunity I can have to speak out my thoughts on labour organisation in India, which have been uppermost in my mind and which I thought may even interest those who are primarily interested in trade unionism.

The government of human society has undergone some very significant changes. There was a time when the government of human society had taken the form of autocracy by despotic sovereigns. This was replaced after a long and bloody struggle by a system of government known as parliamentary democracy. It was felt that this was the last word in the framework of government. It was believed to bring about the millennium in which every human being will have the right to liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. And there were good grounds for such high hopes.

In parliamentary democracy, there is the legislature to express the voice of the people; there is the executive, which is subordinate to the legislature and bound to obey the legislature. Over and above the legislature and the executive, there is the judiciary to control both and keep them both within prescribed bounds.

Parliamentary democracy has all the marks of a popular government — a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is, therefore, a matter of some surprise that there has been a revolt against parliamentary democracy, although not even a century has elapsed since its universal acceptance and inauguration. There is revolt against it in Italy, in Germany, in Russia, and in Spain, and there are very few countries in which there has not been discontent against parliamentary democracy.

Why should there be this discontent and dissatisfaction against parliamentary democracy? It is a question worth considering. There is no country in which the urgency of considering this question is greater than it is in India. India is negotiating to have parliamentary democracy. There is a great need of someone with sufficient courage to tell Indians “Beware of Parliamentary Democracy, it is not the best product, as it appeared to be.”

Why has parliamentary democracy failed? In the country of the dictators, it has failed because it is a machine whose movements are very slow. It delays swift action. In a parliamentary democracy, the executive may be held up by the legislature, which may refuse to pass the laws which the executive wants, and if it is not held up by the legislature, it may be held up by the judiciary, which may declare the laws as illegal. Parliamentary democracy gives no free hand to dictatorship, and that is why it is a discredited institution in countries like Italy, Spain and Germany, which are ruled by dictators.

If dictators alone were against parliamentary democracy, it would not have mattered at all. Their testimony against parliamentary democracy would be no testimony at all. Indeed, parliamentary democracy would be welcomed for the reason that it can be an effective check upon dictatorship. But unfortunately, there is a great deal of discontent against parliamentary democracy even in countries where people are opposed to dictatorship. That is the most regrettable fact about parliamentary democracy.

This is all more regrettable because parliamentary democracy has not been at a standstill. It has progressed in three directions. It has progressed by expanding the notion of equality of political rights.........

© ThePrint