The elephant needs shock therapy

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. India adopted representative democracy because of its size; people elect their representatives to power on a periodic basis. India is referred to as an elephant (in contrast to Asian tigers) because it is very big in size (population wise) and it moves very slowly (decisions, reforms and growth wise).

During the early years after independence our leaders nurtured democracy, made people centric decisions, and were honest and not motivated by personal gains. Lal Bahadur Shastri resigned accepting moral and constitutional responsibility for a railway accident at Ariyalur in Tamil Nadu that resulted in 144 deaths. While speaking in Parliament on the incident, Nehru stated that he was accepting the resignation because it would set an example in constitutional propriety and not because Shastri was in any way responsible for the accident. There were other examples too. The standards today have stooped so low that the corrupt are rewarded leave alone ethics.

If India could not achieve rapid growth and development until mid 1960s it was because of the excessive socialistic and idealistic orientation of our policies rather than the intent. After Nehru, there was widespread realization that our policies have failed. A crisis situation emerged when USA stopped food aid temporarily. Lal Bahadur Shastri as the PM undertook bold measures and green revolution was the result of such an effort; however more reforms could not be initiated because of his untimely death.

The unsaintly politics and power struggle that followed cripples Indian democracy till today. Criminalization of politics, corruption, dynastic politics, nepotism, cronyism, misuse and abuse of power and bureaucracy, sectionalism, caste politics, politics of divide and rule, politics of fear, politics of religion and a false sense of nationalism etc have become synonymous with Indian democracy. There are numerous examples of the above and hence I will leave it to that.

Reforms to treat these ills have been few and far between: toothless anti-corruption agencies like CBI, CVC and Lokayuktas (in some states) were created. Rajiv Gandhi undertook certain measures to reform and modernize the government but it was not until the 1991 balance of payment crisis (another crisis) that we were to have serious reforms (and these were not enough). There was no intent this time from our politicians, they had to reform because they did not have any choice.

Early 1990s also saw the fall of communism; reforms in many other developing countries; liberalization; globalization and proliferation of information technology. Information began to flow at an unprecedented rate, a vigilant media and civil society emerged. Civil Society pressure has led to some major reforms like Right to Information (NCPRI and others); Code of conduct during elections; Right to know candidate’s criminal background before elections (ADR); Police reforms etc. It has been clear however that there has been no serious initiative from the ruling class towards reforms. Criminalization of politics, corruption, dynastic politics, nepotism, cronyism, misuse and abuse of power and bureaucracy, sectionalism, caste politics, politics of divide and rule, politics of fear and politics of religion and a false sense of nationalism etc have become like multi-drug resistant diseases. At the same time, following the Darwin’s law of evolution corruption has stepped up from license raj to resource raj (read 2G and Coal gate).

The vigilant civil society of India is growing increasingly restive partially due to its successes too. However the political class has adopted an increasingly arrogant stance. Activists and common people are mocked, called guttersnipes, threatened openly and killed. Criticism from our PM of RTI (yes, he speaks sometimes) shows that they created a Frankenstein. There has also been criticism of well functioning constitutional bodies like CAG and Supreme Court. Multiple cross cutting nexuses have emerged: Politics-Criminals, Politics-Bureaucracy, Politics-Businesses, Politics-Media (paid news), Politics-Civil Society and even between rival political parties. Again there are numerous examples of the above.

Why isn’t our democracy able to evolve and reform itself on a continual basis? Why is a crisis like situation always needed? Why does the elephant always need shock therapy? There have been calls for right to recall, right to reject, Lokpal etc but will these reforms be enough? Even if we assume that these are enough, why will the ruling class dig their own grave? Can the citizens of India vote out the corrupt political class for a non-corrupt one? Who is non-corrupt by the way? How can we usher in a mental revolution of oneness in a diverse India and recognize the politics of divide and rule and sectionalism? If education was the answer to all these questions, why has the increasing literacy rate failed to achieve greater democratic reforms?

The answers to these difficult questions require inputs and analyses from multiple fields and themes. Intellectuals, editorials etc continue to suggest and debate various measures to specific and cross cutting issues. I would try to dwell on the solutions in different posts however there is one data that is worth mentioning here. The voter turnout in elections in India is so less that even an insignificant group (number wise) becomes significant in deciding the outcome. Majority of those elected receive less than even 20% of the votes (casted and non-casted). If people start voting in numbers, the dynamics of politics can start changing in India and for good.

Freedom of choice without options

India is the largest democracy in the world. We elect our representatives through voting as democracy gives us freedom to choose. But freedom of choice is meaningful only when we have options to choose from. In theory Indian democracy seems perfect but its actual functioning has left much to be desired for.

Various candidates mostly belonging to different political parties contest elections and get elected. As representatives of their area they are voices of people. But the truth is they tow their party line. In India political parties are undemocratic and opaque where dynastic politics and despotism is rampant. There is even a constitutional law popularly known as anti-defection law (inserted through 52^nd amendment in 1985) that kills the democratic spirit.

The provision of this law states: “A member would incur a disqualification under paragraph 2 (1) (a) when he “voluntarily gives up his membership of a party” and under 2 (1) (b) when he/she votes (or abstains from voting) contrary to the directive issued by the party.”

As the name suggests the law is supposed to deter defections by elected representatives (MPs and MLAs) who had earlier given their support to form the government. This is to maintain stability in the government. But the law has put the power in hands of party hierarchy. Provision 2(1)(b) stated above is applicable not only to confidence vote but also to any other decision/law/debate matter.

Do we vote for individuals as our representatives or a political party? Even if we do vote for a political party, is the political party system in India democratic? NO! The political party system in completely opaque, power is concentrated in the hands of few elites who run the show. This breeds dynastic politics and despotism leaving Indian democracy without substance.

Major electoral reforms have long been pending now. There has been talk of bringing right to recall. Right to recall gives the power in the hands of people whereby they can remove their elected representative before the term has ended. This would be an extreme measure and cost of re-elections would be huge. And even if we bring this reform, whom would we re-elect? Does, undemocratic anti-defection law leave us any choice? Yes we do have freedom of choice. Alas, no options to choose from.