UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper – IV
Introduction
Modern democracy is built on a divide between humans and animals. Animals are treated as non-political beings, without voice or status. This creates structural injustice, not just individual cruelty. The core issue is how to redesign institutions so that animal interests are seen and protected within democratic decision-making.
Rethinking the human–animal divide in democracy
- Anthropocentric divide: Modern political thought places humans at the centre, as the only rational and political beings. Animals are classified as “mere life”, outside politics. The single category “the animal” hides many non-human forms of life and is used as a negative mirror to define human superiority in language, reason and agency.
- Structural erasure of animal interests: Law and institutions usually treat animals as property. Their interests are not systematically recorded, weighed or defended in public decisions. Because there are no dedicated channels to bring their standpoint into policy, large-scale harm can occur as an unnoticed background to economic and administrative activity.
- Artificial categories: The human–animal divide rests on an artificial picture of animals as a single, inferior block. In reality, animals are a heterogeneous group, and different kinds of beings create different types of moral and political duties for humans. This mismatch between reality and inherited categories distorts how responsibilities are understood.
- From compassion to political responsibility: The core issue is not inadequate compassion but the structure of democracy. Animals are excluded from decision-making even though they are affected by collective choices. Humans therefore become morally and politically accountable for how institutions treat dependent, vulnerable beings whose interests they cannot express on their own.
Meaning of animal representation in democracy
- From charity to accountability: Animals should not depend on occasional kindness. Human choices on land, food, environment and security shape their lives. Representation means giving this vulnerability a place in public decisions, with sentience and bodily experience as the basis for including animal interests.
- Structured trusteeship: Because animals cannot speak or vote, humans must act as authorised guardians with a mandate to study animal needs and present them in law-making and administration. Representation here is structured trusteeship inside institutions, not loose goodwill-based activism.
- Rejecting human-centric standards: Representation does not require animals to resemble humans or hold rights such as voting. It rests on the fact that they can suffer, flourish and be harmed, so political standing should follow from these morally relevant capacities, not from human-style intelligence or behaviour.
Working of fiduciary institutions for animals
- Need for non-majoritarian guardians
- Animals lack votes and lobbying power, so majority politics bypasses them. Welfare frameworks are reactive, acting only after harm occurs.
- Democratic legitimacy therefore needs non-majoritarian pathways of representation, through fiduciary institutions whose sole mandate is to articulate animal interests in legislative, administrative, and regulatory processes.
- This mirrors institutions that protect children, the environment, data, and future generations, extending the same logic consistently to animals.
- Trusteeship, independence and expertise
• These institutions rest on the idea that humans serve as trustees for animals. Trustees must protect animal interests with care, loyalty and prudence, not human convenience or profit. For this, institutions require fixed terms, transparent appointments and secure, independent budgets•
- Independence is crucial because governments gain from animal exploitation and because animal interests require expert knowledge in behaviour and welfare.
- Risks of weak or captured institutions: Without independence or urgency, such bodies turn symbolic and fail the very animals they are meant to protect.
Way forward
- Multi-level representation and rule-based procedures
- Animal-representation bodies should work at several levels of government. At the executive level, advisory councils can review proposed rules for their animal welfare impacts.
- In Parliament, dedicated committees or subcommittees can examine relevant legislation, propose amendments, and demand impact assessments.
- Non-voting expert delegates can ensure that animal interests enter core law-making spaces through stable procedures.
- Accountability and transparency:
- Clear procedures, timelines and checklists should guide reviews so that animal interests are regularly assessed.
- Independent evaluations, published for the public, courts and civil society, should show recommendations and how authorities responded.
- Phased implementation: Reform should start with pilot projects in sectors such as urban planning. Experience from these pilots should refine tools and data systems before extending the model more widely.
- Sustainable funding: Stable financing is essential for independent work. Funds can come from reallocating harmful subsidies and creating dedicated budget lines.
- Public education and citizen engagement: Public campaigns should explain why animal representation supports justice and democratic responsibility. Schools, media and civic forums can promote everyday care towards animals, helping representatives gain backing for stronger protections.
Conclusion
Institutionalising animal representation deepens democracy by making vulnerable beings part of political judgement. Fiduciary bodies with clear powers, independence and expertise can speak for animal interests that cannot appear on their own. Gradual rollout, secure funding and public support are necessary so that animal welfare becomes a routine part of law, policy and everyday administration.
Question for practice:
Examine why modern democracies need to rethink the human–animal divide and institutionalise fiduciary mechanisms for animal representation.
Source: The Hindu
