Constitutionalism and Democracy

The common intention in a democracy can  only  be found if the individual intention of every  individual is taken into consideration. The common intention cannot be forced upon individuals and neither the individual can push forth his intention as the common intention. He can only claim his intention to the fullest extent. This can be illustrated by the orchestra example given in the article. In an orchestra every individual has a part to play, no one is lesser than the other and every sound has its role in the orchestra. The most important aspect is harmony which has been defined by the author as collective action which is communal and not statistical. No one can claim in an orchestra that the cello trumps the drums etc. But the communal action of every individual is the harmony in music that the orchestra produces. This process is constitutionalism and the outcome is democracy. The process therefore directly impacts the outcome and infact in a sense is the outcome itself. The concert master here does not hold a power and only holds a status of arranging the music in harmony like everyone else who is playing their part in the same manner in which the Constituent Assembly held a common intention for the country. The problem arises when there are many players with many instruments during such situations, no individual really knows what the common intention might be and even the concert master is in dark about such a situation which is akin to the problem faced by the Constituent Assembly. There really can be no soothing music in such a scenario. In such situations the next best alternative and common intention is only in accommodating all the players and giving each of them their individual rights of playing in the orchestra. The probability of the end result would only be chaos like India, but the harmony here would be accommodation of every individual. In the case of India, this is the voting right given to every individual and every vote is considered equal, similarly secularism is another such aspect. These aspects of inclusion in themselves create harmony even though the cultural, religious, language, monetary, gender, moral/ethical views and territorial diversity might create a chaotic result in the end due to the inclusion of such diverse intentions. The attempt of the judiciary should be towards this common intention as this is what the Constitution makers intended. Every individual is bound to the country through their own aspersions which differ but the price that they have to pay for these diverse aspersions and be an inclusive part of the country is patriotism.