84 SOCIAL SCIENTIST Democmti^ation Democratization is an important component in Kothari's scheme. so much so that he expects it to usher in a revolution in social relations. He maintains that the health of the economy is dependent on the orderliness and dcmocratization of the political system. The evidence for this is found in the uniform growth rate of the economy in the period between 1952-1965 which, in his view, had witnessed the development of democratic institutions, norms, and practices. This implies that the poor economic growth in later years is in some way related to the functioning of the political system. In another place, however, he says that the political system was found wanting in the face of the deteriorating economic situation. This does not uphold his earlier hypothesis that achievements on the political and economic fronts arc attained simultaneously. On the contrary it underscores the fact that in the event of an economic crisis, the capacity of the political systfcm to initiate policies for the majority or even concessions for economic relief is severely limited. The above approach also prevents him from appreciating that democratization in a capitalist society is accepted only so long as the economic system runs well and serves the interests of the exploiting classes. But when the economic crisis deepens, the bourgeoisie and its allies prevaricate and have no hesitation in jettisoning democracy. Then they resort to authoritarian methods to make the system play their tune (this shift was clearly witnessed during the Emergency). Given these trends democratization cannot be depended on as the main stimulus for economic growth. It appears that Kothari wants to underscore to the ruling classes (or elite as he calls it) the necessity of fulfilling some minimum promises in ©rder to neutralise the Communist alternative of class struggle. Kothari rejects the revolutionary alternative. He says it is neither desirable nor possible. It is undesirable according to Kothari, because the end result will be undemocratic. There is not much point in joining issue with Kothari on the undcsirability of revolution as that has to be taken for granted in his framework. Moreover he considers revolution to be impossible in India. This because India is neither highly political nor well integrated nor have the non-revolutionary forms of conflict been exhausted. Does this imply that Communist parties are unaware of the complexity of Indian society which he has brought to light? Otherwise there is no justification for his reminder that Indian society is so complex and full of inner reserves that to think of changing everything at one stroke is sheer ^day-dreaming' (p 39). The above conclusion is based on a misconception of revolutionary strategy. Revolutionary parties organize and act on the understanding of the principal contradictions in a particular epoch. Revolutionary