I am going to approach this topic from first principles without getting lost in legal definitions and various interpretations that people use.
In my view in its most pristine form, democracy refers to 'the will of the people' This is of course at a very high level and various questions immediately arise such as:
For better or for worse, India has chosen Parliamentary democracy for implementing the will of the people. In general, we have followed the British pattern while modelling the way that Parliament is structured and the way that it should function. Indian politicians before independence and immediately afterwards (exemplified by Nehru and also Jinnah) were educated in England and modeled themselves on British norms of behavior and speech. There value systems were largely liberal and democratic and ideas such as secularism and equality were central to their creed. They were also personally incorruptible and the fell hand of venality was yet to descend on our political apparatus. As time elapsed the British educated elite has given way to a more mass based political class. Verbal sophistry and elegant turns of phrase are no longer the stock in trade of the Indian politician. Their behaviour in their own constituencies is more akin to ruling potentates than elected representatives of the people. They are used to lording it over other elements of the system riding rough shod over any one who dares to oppose them. Such people can hardly be expected to observe the decencies of debate or to adopt a conscience based stand on any issue.
The other critical point in the past was that a strong opposition party was yet to emerge. Political differences had been subsumed in the overarching quest for independence and while the Hindu parties opposed the formation of Pakistan there did not appear to be an unbridgeable chasm on other issues. As we all know, these differences have widened as time has gone on. A bitterness has crept into our political discourse that precludes any accommodation of any sort. There is also a tinge of corruption and venality that colours motivations and actions. Virtually no political personality or entity is free from this miasma. The net result is that personal and financial motivations tend to override what is best for society and the country.
The last point I wish to make is a more general one related to the nature of Indian society. Since birth an average Indian is part of a family whose structure can hardly be termed democratic. There is usually a father figure whose word is law and it is not really possible for anyone to oppose him. School is hardly different with teachers and perhaps a principal replacing the autocratic father figure. When he starts work, either in the private sector, government or armed forces the situation is no different. Democracy is hardly the norm in any of these institutions. Indians are generally conditioned to believe in authority and not to question the decisions of people in power. I may be stretching a point here but I do believe that when faced with a truly democratic environment most Indians are uncomfortable as they appear to be in Parliament. It would be fair to say that we react better to an autocracy or strong presidential forms of government. We tend to put our trust in individuals rather than institutions or systems that have failed us in the past.
What does all this add upto? The ruckus we see in Parliament has been going on for a long time now. The UPA blamed its inability to deliver on the disruption caused by the NDA and now the boot is on the other foot. Maybe it is time to reconsider whether Parliamentary democracy in it's present form is indeed the best political system for India. Our people deserve better than the unedifying spectacle that we are subjected to on a daily basis.
In my view in its most pristine form, democracy refers to 'the will of the people' This is of course at a very high level and various questions immediately arise such as:
- Who are 'the people?' - India has defined it's electorate as all adults over 18. However at various points in time this was not the definition. In Athens, for example, where democracy is supposed to have originated the electorate included male adults only. It excluded women and slaves. In other societies there have been restrictions based on level of education and so on. Is the current definition of the Indian electorate appropriate for our needs?
- What is the will of the people and how is is determined? Again various methods can be and have been used in the past. Referendum has usually been employed when there is a binary decision to be made. For more complex, subjective and longer lasting issues democracy has relied on voting that elects representatives who would implement the will of the people. Underlying assumptions are a) that elected representatives will adequately understand and implement the will of the people b) the representatives will not harbour personal ambitions and motives that will detract from their role.
- Finally, democracy needs a structure in which it will function. Democratic institutions such as a Constitution, Parliament, Judiciary, Law Enforcement and so on are required in order to implement the will of the people. Too often, democracy is confused with democratic institutions. The former is sacrosanct, the latter are not. For example, the Indian constitution has been amended 90 times since independence.
For better or for worse, India has chosen Parliamentary democracy for implementing the will of the people. In general, we have followed the British pattern while modelling the way that Parliament is structured and the way that it should function. Indian politicians before independence and immediately afterwards (exemplified by Nehru and also Jinnah) were educated in England and modeled themselves on British norms of behavior and speech. There value systems were largely liberal and democratic and ideas such as secularism and equality were central to their creed. They were also personally incorruptible and the fell hand of venality was yet to descend on our political apparatus. As time elapsed the British educated elite has given way to a more mass based political class. Verbal sophistry and elegant turns of phrase are no longer the stock in trade of the Indian politician. Their behaviour in their own constituencies is more akin to ruling potentates than elected representatives of the people. They are used to lording it over other elements of the system riding rough shod over any one who dares to oppose them. Such people can hardly be expected to observe the decencies of debate or to adopt a conscience based stand on any issue.
The other critical point in the past was that a strong opposition party was yet to emerge. Political differences had been subsumed in the overarching quest for independence and while the Hindu parties opposed the formation of Pakistan there did not appear to be an unbridgeable chasm on other issues. As we all know, these differences have widened as time has gone on. A bitterness has crept into our political discourse that precludes any accommodation of any sort. There is also a tinge of corruption and venality that colours motivations and actions. Virtually no political personality or entity is free from this miasma. The net result is that personal and financial motivations tend to override what is best for society and the country.
The last point I wish to make is a more general one related to the nature of Indian society. Since birth an average Indian is part of a family whose structure can hardly be termed democratic. There is usually a father figure whose word is law and it is not really possible for anyone to oppose him. School is hardly different with teachers and perhaps a principal replacing the autocratic father figure. When he starts work, either in the private sector, government or armed forces the situation is no different. Democracy is hardly the norm in any of these institutions. Indians are generally conditioned to believe in authority and not to question the decisions of people in power. I may be stretching a point here but I do believe that when faced with a truly democratic environment most Indians are uncomfortable as they appear to be in Parliament. It would be fair to say that we react better to an autocracy or strong presidential forms of government. We tend to put our trust in individuals rather than institutions or systems that have failed us in the past.
What does all this add upto? The ruckus we see in Parliament has been going on for a long time now. The UPA blamed its inability to deliver on the disruption caused by the NDA and now the boot is on the other foot. Maybe it is time to reconsider whether Parliamentary democracy in it's present form is indeed the best political system for India. Our people deserve better than the unedifying spectacle that we are subjected to on a daily basis.
