It never made even a nodding acquaintance with equality. It failed to realize the Il significance of equality, and did not even endeavour to strike a balance between Limberly and Equality, with the result that liberty swallowed equality and has left a progeny of inequities.
I have referred to the wrong ideologies which in my judgment have been responsible for the failure of Parliamentary Democracy. But I am equally certain that more than bad ideology it was bad organization which has been responsible for the failure of Democracy. All political societies get divided into two classes — the Rulers and the Ruled. This is an evil. If the evil stopped here, it would not matter much. But the unfortunate part of it is that the division becomes stereotyped and stratified so much so that the Rulers are always drawn from the Ruling Class and the class of the Rulers are always drawn from the Ruling Class and the class of the Ruled never becomes the Ruling Class. People do not govern themselves; they establish a government and leave it to govern them, forgetting that is not their government. That being the situation. Parliamentary Democracy has never been a government of the people or by the people, and that is why it has never been a government for the people, and that is why it has never been a government for the people. Parliamentary Democracy, notwithstanding the paraphernalia of a popular government, is in reality a government of a hereditary subject class by a hereditary ruling class. It is this vicious organization of political life which has made Parliamentary Democracy such a dismal failure. It is because of this that Parliamentary Democracy has not fulfilled the hope it held out the common man of ensuring to him liberty, property and pursuit of happiness.
The question is who is responsible for this? There is no doubt that if Parliamentary Democracy has failed to benefit the poor, the labouring and the down trodden classes, it is these classes who are primarily responsible for it.
There is another and a bigger crime which they have committed against themselves. They have developed no ambition to capture government, and are not even convinced of the necessity of controlling government as a necessary means of safeguarding their interests. Indeed, they are not even interested in government. Of all the tragedies which have beset mankind, this is the biggest and the most lamentable one. Whatever organization there is, it has taken the form of Trade Unionism. I am not against Trade Unions. They serve a very useful purpose. But it would be a great mistake to suppose that Trade Unions are a panacea for all the ills of labour. Trade Unions, even if they are powerful, are not strong enough to compel capitalists to Tun capitalism better. Trade Unions would be much more effective if they had behind them a Labour Government to rely on. Control of Government must be the target for Labour to aim at. Unless Trade Unionism aims at controlling government, trade unions will do very 1ittle good to the workers and will be a source of perpetual squabbles among Trade Union Leaders. (p. 109 & 110)
(Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings & Speeches, Volume X, 1991, Rs.95 govt of Mil Maharashtra, Bombay). The book may be had from Director, government printing. Stationery and Publications, Netaji Subhash Road, Bombay – 400 004. –
