The Principle of Deliberation

The Constituent Assembly's authority did not rest solely on how representative its composition was — it was, after all, only broadly and imperfectly representative, not directly elected by every citizen. Its authority came just as much from the procedures it followed to actually frame the Constitution, and from the values its members brought to their deliberations. While it is certainly desirable for an assembly that claims to be representative to include members from diverse sections of society, it is equally important that those members deliberate not simply as representatives of their own community or interest, but with the interests of the whole nation in mind. Each member of the Assembly approached the task of framing the Constitution this way, and while there were often genuine disagreements among members, very few of those disagreements could actually be traced back to members simply protecting their own narrow interests.

The differences that did arise were, in this sense, legitimate differences of principle: should India adopt a centralised or a decentralised system of government? What should the relationship between the States and the Centre look like? What powers should the judiciary have? Should the Constitution protect the right to property? Almost every foundational issue a modern state has to resolve was discussed by the Assembly with genuine sophistication. Remarkably, there was really only one major provision of the Constitution that passed without any significant debate at all — the introduction of universal adult suffrage, meaning that every citizen who reached a certain age would be entitled to vote irrespective of their religion, caste, education, gender or income. That members felt no need even to seriously debate who should have the right to vote, while debating almost everything else at length, is itself powerful testimony to just how deep the Assembly's democratic commitment actually ran. …