January 4, 2018
Each MP has to be asked to submit investment plan of his constituency showing public investment and public policies that are required to support the investment. MPs have to conduct formal meetings with all agricultural, manufacturing and service business associations of their constituency and ascertain their plans and requirements every year during the budget preparation period.
4.1.2026
THE NEGLECTED ASPECT IN DEMOCRACIES
The communication between elected representatives and citizens is a neglected aspect in democracies. The elected representatives must be persons interested in collecting and analyzing public opinion in their constituency formally as well as informally and present it in the legislative body. They must ask written communications from their citizens on all bills on which they will present their opinion and vote. Even within party channels they must be made free to present the opinion of their constituency people through written documents which must be public.
SOVEREIGN IN DEMOCRACY – THEORY AND PRACTICE by Dr. K.V.S.S. Narayana Rao
Sovereign in Democracy – Theory and Practice
Dr. K.V.S.S. Narayana rao
Retd. Professor, IIM Mumbai
Article published in EKATMA VIKAS PATRIKA
Volume II, Issue 3 September-Dec. 2025,
The concept of sovereignty is one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international law. It is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and government and of independence and democracy. Derived from the Latin superanus through the French souveraineté, the term was originally understood to mean the equivalent of supreme power.
The thinker who did the most to provide the term with its modern meaning was the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), who argued that in every true state some person or body of persons must have the ultimate and absolute authority to declare the law. The theories of the English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) and the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78)—that the state is based upon a formal or informal compact of its citizens, a social contract through which they entrust such powers to a government as may be necessary for common protection—led to the development of the doctrine of popular sovereignty that found expression in the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 (Britannica).
The democratic ideal is closely related to the principle of popular sovereignty according to which ‘the people’s unified will is the supreme authority in the state’ (Espejo, 2015). For the people to be the supreme authority, they have to participate in the making of collective decisions directly or through elected representatives. The sovereign people must also be the body that authorizes the institutions and procedures through which collective decisions are made. The people is the ‘constituent power’, the body that authorizes and creates the ‘institutional arrangements through which they are governed’ (Kalyvas, 2005). In other words, the powers of the people are superior to those established by the legal and political system and that are exercised by the officials that populate it. The affirmation of the sovereign people entails the ‘subordination of the state to the popular will’ (Post, 1998, p. 437). The people are the ‘the master’ of the state.
Rule by the people is premised on the popular authorization of laws and rules that apply to them. More precisely, the standard understanding of the democratic ideal posits that the people subject to the state should enjoy equal and adequate opportunities for participation in the process whereby laws are created, revised or abolished (Dahl, 1989). Law is the product of decisions made by the people or their representatives. Yet, law also conditions the powers exercised by the people. Collective decisions are made by procedures that are defined in the constitution. The procedures incorporated in the constitution play a constitutive role in democratic decision-making. Following Andreas Kalyvas, the sovereignty of the people demands that the people ‘determine the constitutional form, the juridical and political identity, and the governmental structure of a community in its entirety’ (Kalyvas, 2005, p. 226). Thus, the people should be able to determine not just the rules that impose legal rights and duties but also the rules that confer legal powers and immunities and that define the procedures for collective decision-making. Rule by the people, following the idea of the sovereign people, should permeate the legal system as a whole.
In the 19th century the English jurist John Austin (1790–1859) further delved into the concept of sovereignty by investigating who exercises sovereignty in the name of the people or of the state; he concluded that sovereignty is vested in a nation’s parliament. A parliament, he argued, is a supreme organ that enacts laws binding upon everybody else but could change these laws at will. Austin recognized that the sovereign is the same as the ‘the electors’ in a representative political system (Hart, 1962). Austin offers the theoretical basis for the claim that sovereign peoples are ‘master of states’ in democracies. In conjunction with the claim that any decision made by judges and public officials is just implementing the will of the people, it appears that the supreme authority of the people is able to prevail even in legal system in democracies (Beckman, 2021).
Austin’s notion of legislative sovereignty did not entirely fit the American situation. The Constitution of the United States, the fundamental law of the federal union, did not endow the national legislature with supreme power but imposed important restrictions upon it. The Supreme Court of the United States asserted successfully in Marbury v. Madison (1803) its right to declare laws unconstitutional through a procedure called judicial review. This judgment vests the sovereign power in the fundamental document itself, the Constitution. This system of sovereignty in USA is more complex due to the fact that the authority to propose changes in the Constitution and to approve them was vested not only in Congress but also in states and in special conventions called for that purpose. Thus, it could be argued that sovereignty continued to reside in the states or in the people, who retained all powers not delegated by the Constitution to the United States or expressly prohibited by the Constitution to the states or the people (Tenth Amendment). The theory of popular sovereignty—the theory that vested sovereignty in the people of the United States may be accepted, but this sovereignty need not be exercised on behalf of the people solely by the national government. It was divided on a functional basis between the federal and state authorities.
The doctrine of state sovereignty on behalf of the people was attacked in the 20th century by those political scientists (e.g., Léon Duguit, 1911, and Harold J. Laski, 1919) who developed the theory of pluralistic sovereignty (pluralism) exercised by various political, economic, social, and religious groups that dominate the government of each state. According to this doctrine, sovereignty in a society does not reside in any particular one institution but shifts constantly from one group (or alliance of groups) to another. The pluralistic theory further contended that the state is but one of many examples of social solidarity and possesses no special authority in comparison to other components of society.
Indian Democracy
Indian democracy has been emphasised in the constitution preamble. It used the term “Sovereign Democratic Republic”. The preamble tells the unity of nation while promoting fraternity among all the citizens of India. It suggests the idea of constructing a nation with “one voice and one will”. It also expresses that the constituent assembly was formed by the Indian citizens on 26 November 1949. The preamble clarified that “Sovereignty” is associated with each people of India, and there does not exist any rooms for princess, crown or similar rank. All the people of India have been marked as one body in the preamble of the Indian constitution.
Sovereign in Democracy – Analysis and Synthesis by Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya.
Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya presented his thesis on Integral Humanism, in a series of speeches given in Bombay to intellectuals and political party members during 22rd to 25th April, 1965. In the third lecture, he discussed the controversies regarding the democratic system that is in use in many countries of the world. Indian constitution also is based on democracy. Pandit emphasized that democracy, giving respect to public opinion was in practice in India since days of ancient scriptures (Pandit, 1965).
In India, We have always vested sovereignty in Dharma. In the controversy, whether the Parliament is sovereign or the Supreme Court, the answer is that both are the limbs of the State with distinct functions to perform. In their individual sphere, each is supreme. Dharma is higher than both. People also will have to act according to Dharma in democratic activities. Even the general or collective will cannot go against Dharma. If a decision is taken not conforming to Dharma by majority opinion in the country and majority in the parliament it will lead to undesirable consequences and loss to the society. It has to be corrected at a later date. Majority Is Not Always Right and there are many examples in history where earlier laws and decisions have to be reversed. Elections and majority decide the party or group who will form the government. The truth cannot be decided by the majority. Truth is truth even if only one person is behind it.
What is Dharma?
Dharma is made up of principles of ethics. Dharma is not necessarily with the majority of people. Dharma is eternal. It is not enough to say, while defining democracy, that it is the government of the people. It has to be a government for the good of the people. What constitutes the good of the people? It is Dharma alone which can decide. Therefore, a democratic government, Jana Rajya, must also be rooted in Dharma. In the definition of democracy, viz. “Government of the people, by the people and for the people”; ‘of’ stands for independence; ‘by’ stands for democracy; and ‘for’ indicates Dharma. The constitution which sustains the Nation is in tune with Dharma. In other words, the constitution of a Nation cannot be contrary to the natural laws. Dharma sustains the Nation. Hence we have always given prime importance to Dharma, which is considered sovereign. All other entities, institutions or authorities derive their power from Dharma, and are subordinate to it.
Practice
In practice, sovereignty of the people is exercised through various institutional mechanisms and civic actions:
Elections: The primary way citizens exercise their sovereign power is through regular, free, and fair elections. By voting for representatives, the people delegate their law-making authority to legislative bodies like Parliament, Congress, Assembly or Council.
Representative Bodies: Elected representatives make decisions and create laws on behalf of the citizens, but remain accountable to the electorate. If they disregard the will of the people, they can be removed from office in the next election.
Constitutionalism: The constitution acts as the supreme law, providing the legal framework for governance and ensuring that all governmental actions are in accordance with the law. In some countries and states, the people, through constitutional conventions or referendums, are often involved in creating and amending their constitution.
Civic Engagement: Citizens exercise sovereignty through ongoing civic engagement, such as peaceful protests, public discourse, contacting elected officials, joining interest groups, and participating in local governance and jury duty.
In essence, while the theoretical sovereign is "the people," and the guidance of natural justice or dharma has to be utilized, the practical exercise of that sovereignty is mediated through the rule of law and representative democratic institutions.
The Neglected Aspect
The communication between elected representatives and citizens is a neglected aspect in democracies. The elected representatives must be persons interested in collecting and analyzing public opinion in their constituency formally as well as informally and present it in the legislative body. They must ask written communications from their citizens on all bills on which they will present their opinion and vote. Even within party channels they must be made free to present the opinion of their constituency people through written documents which must be public. In the legislature meeting of a party consensus opinions may be formed and approved through voting. This consensus resolution must be the basis for voting by a party member in legislative bodies. Pandit Deendayal explained a good candidate and elected representative with statement, “An ideal candidate is the one who, along with representing his political parties in the assemblies, also recognizes the pulse of the people he represents. As an individual he should be loyal to his people. He should also follow the discipline of the party that he represents.” The good candidate is to be equally dedicated to his party and his people (BJP, 2015). Even in the legislative body meeting, the elected representative must be free to present the opinion of his constituency through written document. The document submitted to the party and legislative body can be same. The discussions within the legislative body provide more nuanced analysis by the legislators in forming a consensus and approving a bill. The written documents provide the foundation for further detailed analysis of the issue for future actions. This intensive communication will increase participation of people in political decision making.
Conclusion
People are the sovereign in democracies. Their participation is through elected representatives in legislating bodies. But they also express their opinions through civic groups and protest movements. There is scope to increase communication between citizens and elected representatives. Similarly, the communications between elected representatives and party authorities has to be made free and public through written documents. This will increase inner party democracy. In a legislature meeting, elected representatives must freely communicate the opinion of their constituency and their analysis of it. Then only legislative party leaders have to step in and summarize the public opinion and present their analysis and consensus resolution for discussion. The Elected representatives must be persons who are interested in maintaining communication channels between themselves and public and also between themselves and party management and other legislators in legislative bodies. All entities related to democracy have to be familiar with the provisions of Dharma and adhere to them in their law making and decision making.
References
Beckman, Ludvig (2021). Popular sovereignty facing the deep state. The rule of recognition and the powers of the people, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 24, 954-976.
BJP (2015). Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya, New Delhi, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya Prasikhan Mahabhiyan
Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/sovereignty (Accessed on15/11/2025).
Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven; Yale University Press.
Duguit, Leon. (1911). Traité de Droit Constitutionnel, Paris; Fontemoing and Company.
Espejo, P. O. (2015). Popular sovereignty. In M. T. Gibbons (Ed.), The encyclopedia of political thought. Hoboken NJ; Wiley-Blackwell.
Hart, H. L. A. (1962). The concept of law. Oxford; Clarendon Press.
Kalyvas, A. (2005). Popular sovereignty, democracy, and the constituent power. Constellations, 12, 223–244.
Laski, Harold J. (1919). Authority in the modern state, London; Yale University Press.
Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya (1965). https://www.dri.org.in/ebook/Integral_Humanism.pdf (Accessed on 23.11.2025).
Post, R. (1998). Democracy, popular sovereignty, and judicial review. California Law Review, 86, 429–443.
