The article discusses Mohandas K. Gandhi's notion of democracy and the civic actions that go with it. It examines the relationship between Gandhi's concept of civic responsibility and his concept of democracy, arguing that nobody should dispute Gandhi's status as among the most creative and transformational philosophers of democracy. According to the article, Gandhi is appropriately recognized for highlighting the ideals of civic responsibility, honesty in politics, true self-rule, and morally enlightened democracy among his many important accomplishments. Gandhi advocated for self-sustaining communities and communal cooperation, as well as a non-liberal democracy that reduced individuality, capitalist greed, or laissez-faire by emphasizing a duty-oriented and spiritually enabled participatory democracy. Gandhi remains one of the most prominent and relevant non-Western theorists of democracy over seven decades later his death.

The research aimed to fulfill the following objectives:

1. To explain the decentralization of Mahatma in democracy
2. The basic concept of democracy during the Gandhian era for democratic decentralization
3. Studying the Decentralization is a Gandhi an idea.
4. To study Gandhi's Contribution to Western Democratic Theory
5. This system works and how been managed by the organization
   

Democracy is the most popular and widely used form of governance, yet it is also the most divisive. It is a system of governance founded on the basic concept of all persons' equality and their equivalent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is governance of the citizens, by the people, and for the people." "In its entire, governance indicates that just about any representative democracy structure entrusted with the assignment of planning and implementation is predicted to not only be democratic means engendered according to with the concept of an election but also to reflect people's free will and feature according to the component of democratic both in their constitution and also in their day-to-day functioning, Mahatma Gandhi said. (Jahanbegloo, 2015)

As a result, the notion behind democratization is that it engages a vast amount of people in decision-making. Its political power is founded according to the will of people who, via a collaborative process, make choices that are obligatory on the entire community.

The fact that every democratic choice is made via debate and persuasion is vital. There is no human organization that does not have its risks, Gandhi said. The larger the institution, the higher the possibility of abuse. (Sabatini, 2003) Democracy is a magnificent institution, and as such, it is prone to be badly misused.

As a result, the solution is not to eliminate democracy, but to reduce the likelihood of misuse to a bare minimum. The whole spirit of democracy is easily shattered well by mob rule, in which 51% of the people have the authority to take away the freedom of the other 49%. Likewise, the so-called majority viewpoint may be that of a select few who can obtain the majority's cooperation. (Potter & Rothermund, 1985)

Decentralization of Political authority' ensures the operation of democracy related to individual liberty and initiative, as well as the right of the person to participate in the administration of the nation. It would also automatically regulate both production and distribution of commodities essential to human life; that both the consumption and production of these commodities would take place in much the same geographical area but instead of having yield concentrated in a specific area only, necessitating restrictions for such distribution of its products and wealth. Decentralization would also result in the restriction of machinery usage. The current unrestrained use of technology for selfish objectives has resulted in a life of monotonous and agony for a substantial part of the population.

Gandhiji In Democracy

Democracy is the most popular and widely used form of governance, yet it is also the most divisive. It is a system of governance founded on the basic concept of all persons' equality and their equivalent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is governance of the citizens, by the people, and for the people." "In its entire, governance indicates that just about any representative democracy structure entrusted with the assignment of planning and implementation is predicted to not only be democratic means engendered according to with the concept of an election but also to reflect people's free will and feature according to the component of democratic both in their constitution and also in their day-to-day functioning, Mahatma Gandhi said. (Jahanbegloo, 2015)

As a result, the notion behind democratization is that it engages a vast amount of people in decision-making. Its political power is founded according to the will of people who, via a collaborative process, make choices that are obligatory on the entire community.

The fact that every democratic choice is made via debate and persuasion is vital. There is no human organization that does not have its risks, Gandhi said. The larger the institution, the higher the possibility of abuse. (Sabatini, 2003) Democracy is a magnificent institution, and as such, it is prone to be badly misused.

As a result, the solution is not to eliminate democracy, but to reduce the likelihood of misuse to a bare minimum. The whole spirit of democracy is easily shattered well by mob rule, in which 51% of the people have the authority to take away the freedom of the other 49%. Likewise, the so-called majority viewpoint may be that of a select few who can obtain the majority's cooperation. (Potter & Rothermund, 1985)

Democracy, governed by majority rule, tolerates little resistance. The close relationship between free expression and democracy is rejected. Anger, aggression, and harsh criticism result from the majority's mindset. No administration can belong safe without a vigorous opposition, British politician and writer Benjamin Disraeli reportedly stated. It is thus because the opposition offers us options, good and bad, and as a consequence gives us the ability to measure the success or failure of administrations.

The administration is kept on its toes by the ongoing tug-of-war here between majorities and the opposition. When it comes to policy matters, Gandhi believes that if we patiently Endeavour to convert our opponents, then, and only then, an agreement could be established. Gandhi advocated gentle persuasion above violent exhibition of views.

Figure 1: Obstacles That Stand in The Way of a Country's Growth.

Anger demonstrates our intolerance, Gandhi says, adding that the ability to tolerate one another's critiques is a very fundamental trait of public life. Bertrand Russell, in agreement with Gandhi, said, if a viewpoint opposed to your own gets you upset, that is an indication that you are unconsciously able to recognize no solid cause for believing as you do. (Singh, 2015) The most convincing justification for violence is that we cannot win an argument with logic.

Individual values may and do change throughout the decision-making process, according to the concept of democracy as government by dialogue. Democracy is inextricably linked to public debate and participatory thinking. Public debate traditions occur all around the globe, not only in the West. From the perspective of major reasoning in India, substantial credit should always be given to early Indian Buddhists, who already had enormous dedication to debate as a method of societal improvement.

Nelson Mandela said in his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, that as a young kid, he learned about the value of democracy from the tradition of local African meetings: Everyone who wished to speak did so. It was democracy at its most basic. The speakers may have had a hierarchy of significance, and everyone else was acknowledged, chief and subject, warrior and medicines man, merchant and farmer, landowner and worker. The cornerstone of self-government would be that all men remained free to express themselves and valued equally as citizens. (Mishra, 2012)

The Basic Concept of Democracy During Gandhian Era for Democratic Decentralization

The concept of democracy has developed significantly throughout time, and the two contemporary varieties of democracy are direct and representation. Direct democracy is one in which the people actively consider and decide on legislation. People in a representative democracy, such as Parliamentary or Presidential Democracy, elect representatives to discuss and decide on legislation. India is a democratic republic with a parliamentary system. For Mahatma, an institution such as the state of a system such as the current democratic republic cannot be the ultimate goal. Political power underpins these institutions.

Gandhi said of political power, to me, political influence is not an aim in itself, but one of the tools by which people might improve their lot in all aspects of life. Political power is defined as the ability to govern national life via national representatives. If political institutions become so flawless that they can self-regulate, no representation is required. Then there is a situation of enlightened anarchy. Everyone in a rather state is his or her own master. (Phillips, 1982) He governs herself in such a way that he will be never an impediment to his neighbor. As a result, there seems to be no political authority in the perfect state because there's no State. However, in actual life, the dream is never entirely achieved. As a result, Thoreau's iconic assertion that "the greatest government is the one that rules the least holds.

Gandhi also devotes particular attention to the British Parliament, which he considers to be the mother of all legislatures. "The Mother of Legislature would be like a sterile woman as well as a prostitute, he remarked in Hind Sara. As a result, both the Government and the Legislature are unfavorable to democracy.

During his time in South Africa, Gandhi's anarchist ideas evolved. In 1893, he was profoundly impacted by a reading of Tolstoy's The Kingdom of Heaven Is Still within You. Ruskin's Unto This Last, published in 1904, had a tremendous impact on him. In Hind Sara (1909), he argues that full freedom would be achievable only when the current civilization is destroyed and a new society is established. (Takao, 1998) However after he arrived in India in 1915, Gandhi repeatedly proclaimed his disdain for all systems of administration.

Defining some basic terms related to the democratic decentralization and Gandhian democracy in table 1: -

Gandhi argued against the State in 1934, using standard anarchistic arguments: "The State symbolizes aggression in a focused and organized form." The individuals have a soul, but since the State is indeed a soulless machine, it could never be weaned from the violence that it relies on for survival.  I dread an expansion in the authority of the State because, although it seems to do good by reducing capitalism, it does the most damage to humanity by abolishing exploitation, (Prasad, 2017) which is at the core of all development. what I oppose is an organization built on coercion, which a State is. There must be a voluntary organization." But, unlike other anarchists, Gandhi was not apathetic to the mechanism of the State as long as it was necessary. His pragmatic character prompted him to want complete democratic control of the nation; he was unable to accept totalitarianism, i.e., the suppression of dissent via brutality, even if this was for the immediate benefit of the people. (Vatter & Freitag, 2002)

Gandhi and the notion of democratic decentralization are extremely essential and relevant today. In terms of government, the notion of democratization is the finest. Democracy is an unreasonable task unless power is distributed by everyone, Gandhi said, "but democracy must not deteriorate into monocracy.

Decentralisation is a Gandhian idea

Gandhi's most significant contribution to twentieth-century social thinking is his emphasis on the decentralization of the means of production. Many people are willing to give his proposal careful study since that is the only solution to solve the country's unemployment crisis. (Mishra, 2013) They say that decentralization is preferable since massive capital accumulation is required to industrialize the nation via large-scale enterprises. They further argue that since large-scale industrialization requires the availability of international markets, which this country lacks, decentralization is the only attainable aim. In other words, large-scale industrialization will be desirable if capital creation and international market issues are resolved.

This line of reasoning, however, poses a threat to Gandhi's whole philosophy of decentralization. It would be incorrect to assume that Gandhi developed his ideology just to address Indian concerns. (HAMBLETON, 1988) Gandhi's philosophy of decentralization, on the other hand, was the consequence of his sharp and almost predictive insight into the various political, social, and cultural issues that the era of large-scale industrialization has brought with it.

Bertrand Russell had this to say about Gandhi's notion of decentralization: "In sections of the globe where industrialism is still in its infancy, the potential of averting the atrocities we have seen remains. India, for example, has historically been a nation of village communities. (Kosec & Mogues, 2020) That would have been a tragedy if this ancient way of life, with all of its flaws, were abruptly and forcibly replaced by the larger horrors of industrialism, which would apply to individuals whose quality of living has become pitifully low"

As a result, understanding the severity of the "horrors" of which Russell talks is all that is required to properly grasp Gandhi's concept of decentralization.

Large-scale industrialism is the foundation of the concentration of political power in a few hands. The nature of large-scale enterprises is to concentrate economic power in the hands of a few people. This authority is put into the hands of individual capitalists under capitalism, and it is relinquished by managers, technocrats, and bureaucrats under socialism.

Thus, the concentration of power in the hands of the state contradicts the entire premise of democracy.

And that is why Gandhi was opposed to the so-called Western democracy. Western democracy, in his opinion, was merely nominal. In actuality, it was dictatorial in the sense that only a few of us can wield political power under this regime.

Aside from the political ramifications, industrialization harms man's psyche. Industrialism begins by severing man's navel chord, which links him to earth and the corrosive and all-encompassing shadow of massive machinery. As a consequence, he is relegated to the status of gear in the wheel.

Because industrialization is founded on the labor division, it restricts man's ability to express himself. The classic Adam Smith depiction of a pin passing between ninety fingertips before it is produced simply supports the preceding allegation. As a result, the work loses its diversity, initiative, and color. Without a doubt, such a separation boosts production. However, it obscures the full development of man's innate ability.

Furthermore, industrialization does not meet man's biological necessities. Man needs "a precise temperature, a specific quality of climate, air, light, humidity, and nourishment" as a biological entity. (Palma Carvajal, 1995) Working in such settings allows man to keep his physical balance. Industrialization usurps man's organic necessities. Furthermore, industrialization tends to group people. This unavoidably promotes the development of man's dictatorial tendency. Man loses sight of his sovereignty. He integrates his ego into the collective, and as a consequence, he becomes used to tolerating all forms of tyranny and brutality in the name of something like the collective well-being of society.

Some of the most eloquent afflictions that come from an unrestrained pursuit of industrialism are listed here. Indeed, many philosophers and social reformers, like Went, Simon, Fourier, and mainly Marx, were exhausted by delving into the sources of these maladies. (Pal & Roy, 2014) Thus according to them, the source of the disease was the ownership system; all social, political, and cultural issues were caused based on the private ownership of production. They believed that once the capitalist system of production was gone and the means of production were socialized, the disease would vanish, as if out of thin air.

Decentralisation without democracy in some regions is shown below in table2: -

However, reality disproved Marx's bright view of these improvements. Even after socialization, the diseases tended to manifest in a variety of various ways. Liberty vanished. And the frenzied desire for power tends to degrade man to the lowest common denominator of living beasts, as George Orwell would still like to refer to it in Animal Farm.

So, where was the source of the problem, the flaw throughout the whole approach? Unquestionably, the ownership system is to blame for much of the harm. In this regard, Gandhi agreed with Marx. He, on the other hand, took a step farther and dug deeper. According to him, the true cause of the disease was both the ownership structure and the manufacturing process. (Takao, 1998) In his humanitarian enthusiasm, Marx opposed the ownership system. However, he kept the manufacturing process unaltered. Gandhi, too, concentrated on the method. He proposed that large-scale techniques be phased out in favor of small-scale techniques. As a result, this is at the heart of his decentralization idea.

Does this imply that Gandhi was opposed to the use of science in manufacturing tools, such as machinery? What I oppose is the passion for equipment, not the technology itself, he said. Indeed, he advocated the use of science to enhance the comparatively tiny technique: I certainly welcome any advance in the cottage machine, he said in Young India. In response to a question on if he was ever opposed to all machines, he said, "My answer is an unequivocal no. But I am opposed to its unrestrained proliferation. I refused to be seduced by machinery's seeming success. (Resnick, 2017) However, basic tools and utensils, as well as equipment that saves human labor and alleviates the strain on millions of cottages, should be welcomed.

As a result, we may conclude that Gandhi wasn't opposed to machines in general. His whole attitude to machines and the application of knowledge was fundamentally new, truly innovative, and humane. Gandhi rejects any technology that seeks to turn a man into a robot, deprives him of his perpetual desire for freedom, and infringes on his political, economic, and social rights.

"Science, since it consists of knowledge, must be viewed as valuable; nevertheless, insofar as it consists of technique, the issue of whether it is to be applauded or condemned relies on the method's application. It is neither good nor evil in and of itself, and whatever final judgment we may very well have about what lends worth to something or that must originate from somewhere other than science." This is what Russell says regarding and use of the scientific procedure.

According to Gandhi, the scientific method must be influenced by a profound knowledge of the ideals that it seeks to generate. In other words, technical growth and excellence must be consistent with the overall goals. The Large-Scale method gets to the heart of the overall goals. As a result, Gandhi does not give it any consideration.

Gandhi's Contribution to Western Democratic Theory

This is where Gandhi's vision of democracy becomes crucial to modern democratic philosophy. But many Western democratic thinkers still believe that reading Gandhi is unnecessary. Despite the growing interest in studying non-Western traditions of current democratic thought, Mahatma Gandhi's political philosophy remains mostly obscure in the Anglican world. Needless to add, Gandhi's view of politics is words that "resistance" or "protest" beyond a sense of dominance over others offers a viable remedy to the current democratic crisis.

With all that in mind, Gandhi might be said to be geared toward recreating politics as just a degree of self and societal self-transformation. In this perspective, the election system of society is seen as a journey of self in which community is the consequence of an ethical Endeavour to limit and exceed violence. The tension between both the liberal role of private liberties (as formulated by thinkers such as Benjamin Constant as that of the domain of private affairs) as well as the political square of civil society citizenship inside the concept of person has important implications for contemporaneous democratic practice, but it has been overlooked in democratic theory. (Li, 2011) The contrast between both the rule of the personal over the self and the power of the citizenry as a representative of the collective over itself has yet to be adequately explored by democratic theorists. This is where the Gandhi and matrix of civic nonviolence typified by the concept of saran enables us to go further into comprehension and practice of democracy as self-rule. The notion of self-rule as articulated in Mahatma Gandhi's writings allows for the expression of the basic goals of integrated democrat politics in a way that is distinct from neo-Marxist or liberal conceptions of democracy. Because Gandhi, democracy is indeed an unfinished enterprise by definition and it will stay such regardless of the extent to which it is realized. This is because, in his opinion, no implementation of democratic governance will be ideal. Furthermore, he regards democracy as primarily a journey: to be a democracy is to be involved in the spread of democracy.

Is it still possible to argue that even Gandhi and vision of democracy necessitates the establishment of a civic culture that acknowledges the need and value of inherent self-discipline and responsibility? Without a doubt. Is it necessary to prioritize self-discipline and responsibility? (Vlahos, 2020) Must it, in the end, take priority over the individual's private sphere? The answer is not so clear, but from Gandhi's perspective, such problems are exactly what an integrated and productive government must contend with. Gandhi expresses it this way: "Disciplined and educated democracy is the best thing in the universe. A democracy biased, stupid, superstitious would end itself in disorder which may be self-destroyed". 

In a conclusion, a society must serve as the fundamental component of democratic decentralization. Sarvodaya is a Sanskrit phrase that means universal uplift or "progress for everyone." Gandhi invented the word, and subsequent Gentians like Vinoba Bhave used it as a moniker for the post-independence Indian social movement that sought to guarantee that self-determination and equality reached all strata of Indian society. In such communities, everyone would have an equal chance to generate and earn enough money via honest labor to live a good and dignified life. The few who achieve more will devote the majority of their additional money to the benefit of society. In just such a community, all resources, including land, are regarded to be common ownership to be used for the benefit of all. Every adult appreciates the chance to participate in decision-making, and a choice is achieved through ‘sweat persuasion.' There will be no party system, and civilization will be free of the evil of majority rule.

1. Dr.L.P. Raju, D., & Gowda, D (2012), Gandhian Satyagraha, Decentralization and Decision-Making Consensus. International Journal of Scientific Research, 3(2), 205-207. p.17
2. Jahanbegloo, R.(2015), The Gandhian Vision of Democracy. Democratic Theory, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2015.020205. pp.14.
3. Sabatini, C(2003), Decentralization and Political Parties. Journal Of Democracy, 14(2), 138-150. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2003.0045, pp.27.
4. Potter, D., & Rothermund, I(1985), The Aundh Experiment. A Gandhian Grass-roots Democracy. Pacific Affairs, 58(3), 541. https://doi.org/10.2307/2759277, pp.31
5. Singh, S(2015), Role of Political Habitus in Shaping Dynamics of Democracy: Insights from Nehruvian and Gandhian Period of Democracy in India. Comparative Sociology, 14(5), 682-714. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691330-12341366, pp.20.
6. Mishra, M(2012), Decentralization and Participatory Democracy. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2144805,pp.12.
7. Phillips, K (1982), The Berkeley Project on Managing Decentralization. Economic And Industrial Democracy, 3(1), 79-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831x8231006, 1982
8. Takao, Y.  Participatory Democracy in Japan's Decentralization Drive. Asian Survey, 38(10), 950-967. https://doi.org/10.2307/2645645, pp.82
9. Prasad, S (2017), Relevance of Gandhian Democracy for Peace and Betterment of Human Being. Open Journal of Political Science, 07(04), 501-510. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2017.74039,pp.17
10. Vatter, A., & Freitag, M(2002), The Janus-Face of Negotiation Democracy. The Effects of Consensus Democracy, Direct Democracy, and Decentralization on State Intervention in Swiss Cantons. Swiss Political Science Review, 8(2), 53-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2002.tb00394.x,pp. 22
11. Mishra, M (2013).  Re-Thinking Governance: Decentralization and Participatory Democracy in India. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2229113, pp.13.
12. HAMBLETON, R(1988), CONSUMERISM, DECENTRALIZATION, AND LOCAL DEMOCRACY. Public Administration, 66(2), 125-147, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1988.tb00686, pp.18
13. Kosec, K., & Mogues, T (2020)  Decentralization Without Democracy. World Politics, 72(2), 165-213. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043887120000027, pp. 22
14. Palma Carvajal, E(1995), Decentralization and democracy: The new Latin American municipality. CEPAL Review, 1995(55), 39-53. https://doi.org/10.18356/6cee0521-en, pp.19
15. Pal, S., & Roy, J., Fiscal (2014) Decentralization, Grass-Root Democracy, and Local Development in Indonesia. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2433972, pp.20.
16. Takao, Y(1988),  Participatory Democracy in Japan's Decentralization Drive. Asian Survey, 38(10), 950-967. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.1998.38.10.01p0392, pp.19.
17. Resnick, D (2017).  Democracy, decentralization, and district proliferation: The case of Ghana. Political Geography, 59, 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.02.011, pp.21.
18. Li, H.(2011) , Less Corruption Without Democracy: Does China’s Decentralization Differ from Other Former Communist Countries. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1946058, pp.11
19. Vlahos, N (2020). The Politics of Subnational Decentralization in France, Brazil, and Italy. Regular Issue, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.171, pp.22.