- Democracy in this largest of all democratic nations seems to be working fine "at first glance"
- there's a lot that happens in the way we conduct our political life in between elections that is deeply disturbing
- Anna Hazare's fast-unto-death is a clear instance of misunderstood democracy...it's blackmail
Our democracy "working fine"??!!! Sure, we vote regularly, throw out parties in power, etc etc - but are these the only indicators of a fine working democracy? Criminals as lawmakers, dynasties in politics, corruption in legislatures - surely these could also be indicators of the "fineness" of our democracy.
Aren't these disturbing enough? Do we need to look at only those things that happen between elections to be disturbed?
Anna Hazare's fasting as blackmail - absolutely. And thank God for it. And it worked. For more than four decades, there has been a shortage of political will to combat corruption. On the contrary, first there was a tendency to turn a blind eye to it - witness that famous and witless request to 'Thoda kuch de do (Give him a little something)" in the case of Dharma Teja. During the Licence Raj, corruption was institutionalized. Now, of course, we have cabinet ministers in jail - not a proof of the fineness of our democracy, but more of the independence form political interference of our investigating agencies and the judiciary.
During the latest round of skirmishes between Anna and team and the Government, the reluctance of Government to do anything serious about tackling corruption had been totally apparent. If an attempt to show the will of crores of Indians, sick and disgusted and dismayed by corruption to an unresponsive Government is blackmail, so be it. Let's do it a lot more!!
4 comments:
I agree. If the parliament thinks it is above the people ,then the only way is to force it -blackmail or whatever.Infact the best proof of democracy was that anna achieved it without violence or lawlessness.
Thanks, Jayanta, for carefully reading my column. You'll notice that I said our democracy is working fine "at first glance", which automatically implies that the reality is different. And I spelled some of the malfunctioning out. I agree with Anna that we have to fight corruption -- who can actually claim to be for corruption -- but there are systems within democracy to fight it. All cases that have come to light could do so because we used those instruments.
My basic points are two: One, protest is not only OK, it's a necessity in any democracy; but protest must have constitutional limits and an acceptable format. Just as it's criminal to burn trains or loot private property, it's dangerous and wrong to hold a gun to the government's head saying it must accept your demand or else. It can let loose an alarming trend.
Second, the demand itself is seriously flawed. Anna's Jan Lokpal will be an all-powerful body towering over parliament and the judiciary as well as the executive. If it becomes a huge bureaucracy, as it inevitably will, it will be as prone to corruption and/or intimidating behavior as any such untrammeled authority is. We need fewer check posts in our system, not more. As you said correctly, liberalization has freed us somewhat from the licence raj. It's time to reform further instead of creating one more unaccountable authority. Best regards.
@ Gautam - thanks for your response.
I agree with you that Anna's Jan Lokpal will be another leviathan without accountability, and God forbid! become a corruptible monster. That is a messy solution; and who's to say that it in itself remain incorruptible. We need to wrap our heads around it to find a smarter and more robust solution.
I have three questions: first, have the systems within our democracy been demonstrated to be robust and beyond reproach; second, how does one determine whether a form of protest is within "constitutional limits and [is] an acceptable format" to borrow your words; and third, who is going to determine that.
I have no clue about the last two, but I have an opinion about the first. In the decades after Independence, we have seen our systems and institutions being eroded and 'corrupted' by those in power. My faith in the people who populate and run the instruments within our system has been severely eroded, and it would take a lot of convincing for me to buy back into them. After all, a knife is a knife: the skill with which someone uses it determines whether he is a butcher or a surgeon.
Constitutional limits are fairly simple to discern. It's specified in the Constitution. As I said, burning public property or threatening an unconstitutional act, such as a fast unto death, is beyond those limits. Cases of corruption that have come to light over the years, have done so through parliament, the media, the judiciary or arms of the executive. The working of our democratic system is far from perfect and may in fact be deteriorating, as I have said in the article, but that's what we have. To change it we must work through legitimate protest and use existing mechanisms to reform. The right to protest is part of our existing legal structure. But it's wrong to threaten a dire outcome unless one's demand is accepted.
Best regards. Gautam
Post a Comment