Jamia Millia Islamia

New Delhi-110025

Faculty of Law

Name: Abdul Hannan Qazi

Course and Batch: BA.LLB (hons) Regular/Batch 2021-26
Semester: Semester 2
Email ID: [email protected]
Title of the Project Essay: Independence of Judiciary: An essential feature of a
thriving democracy

Submitted to:
Prof. Momin Noorjahan
 Role of Politics in Bringing Consensus in the Society

As human beings we live in a society. Society includes many institutions like family, school, religion, polity,
etc. Every institution serves some specific purpose. It involves some organisation and use of authority.
Authority implies a relationship of command and obedience where the command is generally regarded to
be reasonable. When an organisation is designed to regulate the whole society, it takes the character of
polity. Polity therefore, denotes an organisation where rules are made and decisions are taken for the
whole society.1 This regulation of the society and formulation of rules might not be accepted by all the
institutions of the society. For example, religious rules might conflict with the secular rules which may lead
to a conflict. Moreover, a political situation arises from a clash of interests of several large groups of the
society. That is why the end product of the political process is supposed to be the resolution of the conflict
from which the process had started.2
In this situation of conflict, consensus plays a major role in politics. Consensus is the state of society which
exists when a large chunk of the population especially adult population of the society particularly those
who are concerned with decisions related to the distribution of authority, status, rights, income and
wealth. It also includes other subjects about which conflict might occur. These should be in approximate
agreement in their beliefs about what decisions should be made and have some sense of unity with each
other and with the society as a whole. Consensus may exist between individuals in terms of personal
relationships like family, friendship etc. It may exist within social organisation and between the individuals
and the society.3 In this regard, the tradition of political theory encourages a dignified debate between
upholders of different points of view. Most political philosophers from ancient times till the present day
have been dwelling on some common problems and giving us new insights. As Andrew Hacker has
significantly observed: “Political theory is a never-ending conversation among theorists and while the
greatest of the debates are never resolved, the criticisms which the writers make of each other are always
most vivid and illuminating… politics is after all, the most democratic of sciences. The final judgements
concerning political reality and the good life are the responsibility of all who undertake the study of
theory.” When we follow the tradition of political philosophers, it inspires us to understand each other’s
viewpoint. It gives us an opportunity to identify the strengths and weaknesses of our thought, to convince
others and be convinced by others when truth is discovered. In short, political theory generates mutual
respect and toleration among us and prompts us to resolve our differences peacefully. 4
There are different perspectives which deal with this issue in different ways. According to the liberal
perspective, politics is essentially an instrument of conflict resolution. Whenever there is a clash of
interests between several groups, some way can be found to ensure the reconciliation of their conflicting
interests. The liberal perspective is of the view that politics enables the organised power of the society to
evolve a legitimate and just solution of their problems and controversies. Thus, according to the liberal
perspective, politics is an instrument of securing order and justice in the society. 5 Furthermore, liberalism
bases this perspective on the assumption that there will be lesser social disparities but liberalism has never
been able to achieve a truly egalitarian society. Moreover, the notion of liberty does is limitless, open to
unlimited subjectivity. This further increases the need for conflict resolution. It can be concluded that

1
O.P. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory, pg.1
2
Ibid pg.99
3
Encyclopedia.com (last visited on 27th January 2022)
4
O.P. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory, pg.10
5
O.P. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory, pg.102
politics, according to this view, takes a positive take on the need for consensus and propounds it as a
means of peace and well-being in the society.
If we have a look at the Marxian perspective, then political institutions and activities are shaped by the
prevailing economic system, especially the mode of production. All social relations, including political
relations, are determined by the economic relations and thus, economic interests are the motive force
behind politics. Unlike the liberal perspective, which takes into account innumerous clashes like economic,
cultural, linguistic, ethnic etc., the Marxist perspective believes that if the economic conflict is solved, all
other issues will disappear. It further lays emphasis on the class conflict and the division of the society into
haves and have nots. This class conflict is irreconcilable thus, according to Marxism, the end of class
conflict marks an end of politics itself.6 The basis of Marxism is itself class conflict, the solution to which is
revolution. it believes that politics is a tool of the dominant class to subliminally suppress the dependant
class. There is no room for discussions and middle ways, rather it aggressively aspires to bring a change in
the society by overthrowing the ruling class and building a class-less society where there will be no need of
consensus and conflict resolution and as a result of this change, politics will vanish and the state will
whither away.
According to the Communitarian perspective, the essence of human nature lies in the spirit of cooperation,
not of conflict. Hence mutual aid and cooperation is the foundation of political organisation.
Communitarians believe that the community represents a set of social relationships based on sharing
common characteristics, values and interests. They believe that politics is instrumental to the pursuit of
common good.7 This type of view is more suitable for a society motivated by common interests and
possessing a set of common values. This view cannot be applied in a society where there are extreme
differences. But it believes in the role of politics as a means of reaching a consensus and highlighting the
common good of the people.
We can conclude from the above analysis that no particular perspective is universally applicable. The
applicability and acceptability of a particular view is dependant more on the interests, motive, values and
worldviews of the people of a particular region. Moreover, it is not at all necessary that a society will
always fall in the aforementioned three categories. Many societies are based on religious values,
nationalistic values, caste values and other kinds of interests which make it impossible to classify them as
Libertarian, Marxian or Communitarian. But the role of politics in bringing consensus will remain in any
kind of society as it is impossible to imagine a society without any conflict of interest. Though the values
and the objectives might be same, the human nature is not of a conformant in nature. Somewhere or the
other, a dispute may arise and politics will play the key role in solving that.
We also need to understand that it is not possible to reach a consensus in every situation. If consensus was
inevitable, India and Pakistan would not have been partitioned, the world wars would not have taken
place, different states would not have been separated on different grounds. Though, it can be said that
partition of states on linguistic basis is also a form of consensus, but it loses its true essence. Sometimes,
one party gains and the other has to compromise in some or the other form. Consensus in every situation
might be against the parameters of justice and morality and that is the whole basis of the Marxian thought.
We should also not forget the conceptualisation of politics as power. It is very easy to theoretically present
utopic ideas but if we analyse the practical aspect of politics, then we can observe that how individuals,
parties, states and nations exploit this tool for the furtherance of their interests either just or unjust. When
entrusted with power, even a person who a possesses an impeccable moral character, might get deviated.
Another aspect of power is lack of accountability. Though democracies are revered for this characteristic of
accountability but we know how politicians find loopholes in order to get rid of it. Thus, it is very difficult to

6
Ibid pg.102-104
7
Ibid pg.104-105
say whether consensus might be possible in such cases as many political agendas are designed in a way
that leaves no room for conflict resolution. Such motives also use the public to bat in their favour and
some very good examples of this are polarisation and majoritarianism.
We have discussed different perspectives related to consensus, its need, advantages and fallbacks but
irrespective of the structure of the society, bringing consensus in the society is one of the most important
roles that politics has to play. It should always start by setting good conditions. This can be achieved by
setting attainable objectives and clarity of intentions. All the stakeholders should be consulted and should
be engaged while deciding an issue.8 It should also be carefully understood that who should be involved
and in what manner. This process should be inclusive and it should be ensured that each and every voive is
heard. There should be a representative process where all the interest groups can be represented and the
right people should be chosen for the same.9 All the people should be prepared to work together and
instead of a directive approach, an elicitive approach should be established which would efficiently help in
dealing with conflicts. To effect a positive change, all the interest groups must agree on the established
ground rules and the common good of the people should be identified.10 This is based more on the
communitarian view where the common good of the people should be pursuit of politics.
We can firmly conclude that a combination of all the perspectives, not just the Liberal, Marxian or
Communitarian but also the religious, ethical and sociological factors should be taken into account to reach
a common ground. This is the best way in which politics can avoid conflicts and ensure peace, harmony and
consensus. For example, if in India, politicians would have strived for complete annihilation of the caste
system or personal religious laws, consensus would have been impossible. That’s the reason our policy-
makers adopted an inclusive approach which was accepted by all the stakeholders of the country. Last but
not least, mediators and policy makers must remember that public mediation and facilitation demands an
optimistic approach, trust in citizens’ abilities, and a strong conviction that, as Mike Hughes says, people
“can get along, can solve the problems, can make things good ... always.” 11

8
Iolanda Romano, Citizen Engagement and Consensus Building in Public Policies: Lessons from the U.S. for Italy and Europe,
pg.2-4 (Jstor, 2010)
9
Ibid pg.4-5
10
Iolanda Romano, Citizen Engagement and Consensus Building in Public Policies: Lessons from the U.S. for Italy and Europe,
pg.5-6 (Jstor, 2010)
11
Ibid pg.7