The strength of a democracy lies in its society. Economists, biologists, authors, business leaders, professionals, journalists and other influential sections of society must invest their knowledge, time and energies in strengthening it. An informed, capable and self-confident society will shape its political direction and hold those in power accountable.

Society Must Influence Politics 

This idea has close parallels in political philosophy, particularly in the concept of civil society. However, the emphasis here is on where influential sections of society should invest their energies. The argument goes beyond advocating a strong civil society. It calls upon intellectuals, professionals, business leaders, scientists, authors and journalists to contribute to strengthening society so that society itself shapes the direction of politics.

The underlying proposition is that society should shape politics rather than allow political interests to dominate its thinking and development. While this is not an entirely new theory, it is a perspective on the relationship between civil society and democratic politics that deserves to be explored in its own right.

In researching this subject, I found the ideas of three thinkers particularly relevant to democracy. Although they belonged to different periods and approached the subject from different perspectives, their ideas offer valuable insights into the relationship between society and politics.

1.  Alexis de Tocqueville : Society's capacity to organise itself

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville examined the institutions, habits and social conditions that sustain democracy. Published in two parts, in 1835 and 1840, the book used the young United States to explore democracy and the broader transformation of society towards greater equality.

Tocqueville travelled through the United States with Gustave de Beaumont in 1831, officially to study prisons. Their nine-month journey developed into a much wider investigation of American political and social life. His subsequent work was concerned not merely with America, but with the emergence of modern democratic society itself.

For Tocqueville, democracy meant much more than elections or a constitution. Its defining tendency was the growing equality of social conditions. He admired American local self-government, voluntary associations, an independent judiciary, a free press and citizen participation as forces that sustained liberty.

At the same time, he warned of the dangers of majority tyranny, conformity, individualism and excessive centralisation. He recognised that citizens, while seeking equality and security, could become increasingly dependent on a central authority.

The two parts of Democracy in America approached these questions from different angles. The first examined American political institutions, including federalism, state and local government, courts, political parties, the press, voluntary associations and majority rule. The second explored how equality reshaped intellectual life, social relationships, economic ambitions, family life and attitudes towards freedom and authority.

Looking Beyond Political Institutions

Tocqueville's enduring contribution lies in his recognition that democracy has both strengths and vulnerabilities. Equality can free people from inherited hierarchies, but it can also encourage conformity and dependence on centralised power. Institutions and civic habits are therefore essential to reconciling equality with liberty.

His work invites us to look beyond political institutions and ask what makes a democratic society capable of preserving its freedom.

Why do voluntary associations strengthen democracy? Why might isolated individuals become more dependent on the central government? When does majority opinion threaten independent thought? These questions remain relevant to our central argument.

A society that can organise itself, develop its institutions and participate meaningfully in public life is better placed to shape its political direction. It does not have to depend entirely on political parties or governments to determine its priorities.

Reference: The Cambridge Companion to Tocqueville

2. Jürgen Habermas: Public opinion shaping political decisions

Jürgen Habermas was a German philosopher, sociologist and public intellectual whose work significantly influenced modern thinking about democracy, communication and critical social theory. A leading figure of the second generation of the Frankfurt School, he contributed to philosophy, political science, sociology, law and communication studies.

His influential works include The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962) and The Theory of Communicative Action (1981). In later works, including Between Facts and Norms, he developed his ideas on the relationship between democracy, constitutional law and public deliberation.

Importance of Communication 

At the heart of Habermas's philosophy is the importance of communication directed towards mutual understanding. He argued that disagreements can be addressed through open, reasoned dialogue in which people justify their claims through argument rather than coercion.

His concept of the public sphere is particularly relevant. A healthy democracy requires spaces where citizens can discuss matters of common concern independently of the state and the market. Political decisions should not be determined exclusively by those who hold power or possess economic influence. They should also be informed by public discussion and reasoned debate.

His theory of deliberative democracy emphasises the importance of inclusive public discussion in establishing the legitimacy of political decisions.

Habermas was not merely an academic observer. He participated actively in Germany's post-war intellectual life, intervening in debates on the legacy of Nazism, European integration, constitutional democracy, religion, biotechnology and international politics.

Creating Informed Public Opinion

His work demonstrated the importance of intellectual engagement in public affairs. A vibrant public sphere enables citizens to examine political claims, challenge established positions and develop informed opinions.

This is directly relevant to our argument. Economists, scientists, journalists, authors, professionals and other knowledgeable individuals can contribute to society by explaining complex issues, questioning assumptions and encouraging evidence-based discussion.

Their role need not be confined to supporting or opposing political parties. They can help create an informed public that evaluates political decisions on their merits.

The quality of politics depends, in part, on the quality of the society that engages with it. Public opinion should emerge from informed discussion and independent thought, rather than being shaped primarily by political messaging or the interests of those in power.

Habermas's work thus reinforces the importance of investing in society's capacity to think, discuss and judge for itself.

Reference: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety/issue/28/1

3. Antonio Gramsci : The role of intellectuals in society

Antonio Gramsci was an Italian political philosopher, journalist and Marxist theorist whose writings influenced political thought, sociology, cultural studies and education. He is best known for his concept of cultural hegemony, which examines how power is sustained not only through force but also through ideas, institutions and social norms.

Gramsci was born in 1891 in Sardinia and became active in socialist politics. He helped found the Italian Communist Party and was arrested in 1926 following the rise of Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime. Despite imprisonment and declining health, he produced the writings that would later become known as the Prison Notebooks. He died in 1937, shortly after his release on medical grounds.

Importance of Intellectual Influence

Gramsci argued that dominant groups maintain authority partly by shaping what society accepts as common sense. Schools, media, religion and other cultural institutions influence how people understand the world and their place in it.

He distinguished between a direct political confrontation, which he described as a war of manoeuvre, and a longer struggle to influence culture and civil society, which he called a war of position. The latter involves the gradual shaping of ideas, values and social consciousness.

Another important concept was that of the organic intellectual: an intellectual who emerges from a social group and articulates its experiences, concerns and aspirations, rather than remaining detached from society.

These ideas highlight the importance of intellectual and cultural influence in shaping the environment in which politics operates. Political power is not exercised only through laws, elections and government decisions. It is also influenced by the ideas that people accept, the values they uphold and the assumptions they rarely question.

Why Ideas and Institutions Matter

Gramsci's work directs our attention to the role of those who shape society's thinking. Authors, scientists, teachers, journalists, professionals and other intellectuals can influence public consciousness through their work and engagement with society.

Their contribution need not be measured by their proximity to political power. It can also be measured by their ability to improve public understanding, challenge prevailing assumptions and encourage independent thought.

The importance of this contribution extends beyond any particular political ideology. It reminds us that society's intellectual and cultural development is an important arena in which its future direction is shaped.

For our purposes, the central question is this: should influential people concentrate their energies on participating in political contests, or should they also devote themselves to strengthening the society whose thinking ultimately shapes those contests?

Gramsci's analysis helps explain why ideas and institutions matter. Our proposition places the emphasis on the responsibility to use that influence to strengthen society itself.

Reference: Antonio Gramsci, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Quality of Society Matters

Tocqueville, Habermas and Gramsci approached the relationship between society and politics from different perspectives. Tocqueville highlighted the importance of civic institutions and collective participation. Habermas emphasised informed public discussion and the role of the public sphere. Gramsci examined how intellectuals, ideas and cultural institutions shape social consciousness.

Their works are not identical, nor do they offer a single, common prescription. Yet each provides a useful perspective on a fundamental question: how does society develop the capacity to influence its own political direction?

This brings us back to the central argument of this essay. Economists, biologists, scientists, authors, business leaders, professionals, journalists and other influential sections of society possess knowledge, skills, resources and platforms that can be put to wider social use. They can invest in education, research, innovation, public awareness, professional standards, social institutions and the development of independent thought. These contributions strengthen society's ability to understand its problems, debate its choices and determine its aspirations.

The point is not simply to encourage greater participation in public affairs. It is to reconsider where influential people direct their energies. Instead of allowing political contests to become the principal arena for their engagement, they should invest in developing a society that is informed, capable, confident and intellectually independent.

A society that develops these qualities is better placed to evaluate those who seek political power, hold them accountable and influence the direction in which the country moves. Its priorities need not be dictated by the political agenda of the day.

This is particularly important in a democracy, where political parties compete for power but society must endure beyond individual governments and electoral cycles. Governments change; the quality of society determines what the country can sustain and achieve over time.

The ultimate objective should be a society strong enough to shape its politics, rather than one whose intellectual and social energies are continually absorbed by political contests. The responsibility for building such a society rests not with politicians alone, but with every section of society—and especially with those who possess the knowledge, influence and resources to make a meaningful contribution.

Society must not merely react to politics. It must develop the capacity to determine what it expects from politics. Society must shape politics—not politics society.

(The author is an Indian Army veteran and a contemporary affairs commentator. The views expressed are personal. He can be reached at  kl.viswanathan@gmail.com )