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.
Debu
ReplyDeletePartyless democracy is one way. Loyality with party often conflicts with loyalty with country or constituency. JP talked about it in L7 in 1975?
The Greeks tried some version of that in ancient times. They defined a true leader as one who has no ties and thus no distractions. Actually Modi comes fairly close to that definition. The problem seems to be the system.
DeleteThe Greeks tried some version of that in ancient times. They defined a true leader as one who has no ties and thus no distractions. Actually Modi comes fairly close to that definition. The problem seems to be the system.
DeleteGridlock is not just a feature of British-style parliamentary systems. The US Congress seems to be in a similar funk for the last several years.
ReplyDeleteAutocracy is fine if you're lucky enough to get a competent and benign autocrat;
if you don't, it's an even bigger disaster than dysfunctional parliaments.
Examples of the former are rare (Lee Kuan Yew?); examples of the latter are legion.
I think what one needs is something in between. A more empowered leadership though with some checks. The current system is just too clogged up.
DeleteThe problem is exacerbated by the apathy of the masses. I used to think that this was a problem of the developing world, because a guy who is trying just to feed his family and survive did not care whether it was an outsider (the British) or one of his own (a Nawab, a Maharajah, the village elder) who was lording over him. However, I find this to be true in developed countries like the US as well. The problem is worse, not better, with mass communication since the ruling forces find it easier to manipulate the masses. However, I do find that Eastern cultures with their infinite patience tolerate this more than some Western cultures where there is a history of “throw the bastards out”; there are differences here as well – the English have more of this than the Germans, for example. The US, with its mix of English and German heritage, goes back and forth between the two.
DeleteMost ‘democracies’ have some had some sort of weighted system, with weight for age, sex, wealth, or social status. We have ask, “What is the alternative?” Direct voting without representation will not work either, due to the aforesaid apathy and due to practical issues of implementation. In the US, I have observed a swing towards a weighted system with the corporate and moneyed interests getting bigger weights – one can argue that this has always been the case, perhaps more explicitly so now?
My sense is that most people don’t care about the system of government, except for the educated few. They just want simple lives – less corruption, for example. There is corruption in India and the US. The difference is that in our everyday life, we in the US don’t see much corruption – I can apply for a driver’s license, take the test, get the license; I can open a bank or brokerage account without much hassle; I can even start a business in a few days.
-- Sridhar ("Shreeder") Adibhatla, aka 'adiabatic'
Adiabatic,
DeleteThere are two 'types' of corruption in India. One what I would call 'Institutional' - stuff like Bofors Guns, 2G Scam etc. This kind of thing actually does not impact the common man in a direct fashion. The other kind is 'Transactional' where you need to pay a bribe to the local cop or for getting your driving license. The common man is hit much more with this latter type of corruption and in fact that was the whole plank on which Arvind Kejriwal and the Aam Aadmi party came to power. However what I was discussing in this article was more related to Governance and getting things done. That's where our system of Government (Parliamentary Democracy) seems to have failed us. I'm not quite sure of what sort of system would work well but the fact is that we sort of adopted Parliamentary Democracy from the British without evaluating other alternatives. I also feel that Indians are more used to operating in authoritarian structures (I'm not suggesting a Hitler type of regime). Perhaps something a little less democratic (and chaotic) than what we have at present.
Debu
Debu,
ReplyDeleteGood article, and very timely. My two cents:
The current logjam in the two houses that is preventing important bills from being passed, is not something unique to India. In the US, "filibustering" is a common stalling strategy, and there have been instances in the recent past in the US Congress where the government was on the verge of closing down because the budget was not passed. The only difference is the manner in which it is done. They do not resort to fist fights and throwing shoes and microphones.So I am not sure that it is the manner in which democracy is implemented (parliamentary Vs presidential) that makes a difference.
As for our democracy, I believe there are two major flaws in its implementation:
a) The "first-past-the-post" system, combined with the number of candidates in the fray for every seat, can (at least theoretically) result in a candidate with a 25% vote share winning, and a party with a 25% vote share getting an absolute majority. Hence whether the representatives actually represent the will of the people is highly questionable.
b) Opaque funding of political parties, which I think is at the root of almost all corruption in the country. Even if donations to political parties had to be officially declared, with the huge parallel cash economy, candidates could still distribute cash and freebies to win votes.
Regards, Nandu
The only solution is to curb cash in the economy, and technology is the only solution for that.. better tracking of financial transactions could over time, reduce hawala transactions, the main route for large scale corruption..
ReplyDeleteComments that came on e mail shown below
ReplyDeleteWhat you say may be true that “we react better to an autocracy” but autocrats tend to become like Hitler. Good, benevolent autocrats have been a minuscule minority in world history. Parliamentary democracy is essential for a country as diverse as ours, but perhaps voices like yours can help to improve the system.
Rajiv Srivastava
Mr. Bhatnagar, Sir,
For this specific issue, the way forward is to amend “rules of business”, not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I agree, easier said than done, but a lot simpler than imposing dictatorship.
Further, academic as it may sound, dictatorship has not sustained in most countries in the world, particularly in South Asia. In my humble opinion if it were ever to come back, it would lead to continuous high-intensity insurgency aided by inimical countries, followed by either a return to democracy or the country splitting.
Consider the possibility of the Indian family structure metamorphosing to a degree of democracy. Few of us were imposed on by our family, we did pretty much what we wanted. Slow as it might be, isn’t such change inevitable among a large population?
With regards,
R. Sujan
Debu,
ReplyDeleteAll your observations and comments are very true descriptions of how 'parliamentary democracy' came to India and metamorphosed into a toothless tiger. In the process, the 'will of the people' seems to have gone for a six!
One of the moot points you raise can be captured as: did we make a mistake in adopting an imported product without judging its suitability to the Indian conditions? Your marketing and business acumen will, no doubt, enable you to grasp what I mean.
As you know, I have been a concerned citizen of such miscarriages, as it impacts the well being of all of us. Among my readings, the two sources I can quote to you for some enlightenments are: Amartya Sen's The Argumentative Indian, which will reassure you that discussions and debating - among other forms of talking - are as much a part of Indian culture as any other civilization. Then also "The Righteous Republic' by Annanya Vajpayee. This explores the thinking and learning processes of 5 prominent Indians (Gandhi, Nehru, Tagore, Ambedkar and Abanindranath Tagore) immersed in the progress of the nascent Indian Freedom movement and later in the thoughts about the new Indian nation and the drafting of the Constitution. This will show you how we got the parliamentary democracy as enshrined in our Constitution and why.
No doubt, like all ideas, time and experience changes perceptions and, as I have maintained for some time now, perhaps the duration of the First Indian Republic is coming to a close and we are witnessing the pangs of the birth of the Second Republic. It is still not clear what shape it will take, but, the next decade is going to resolve many of the fault lines (including are we destined to be ruled by the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty!).
Cheers!
Sanjay Kumar
Hey debu,
ReplyDeleteThe underlying thesis in your post (perhaps too politically incorrect to verbalise as such, hence only underlying) seems to be that we can’t leave democracy in the hands of the unwashed millions. That liberal, educated people capable of a more 'elegant turn of phrase’ should in fact be in charge.
Well, I’m not sure…
Rahul Kansal
Rahul,
There is a slight twist in your interpretation. I had said in the blog that Parliamentary Democracy is not suited for India for all the reasons that you have mentioned amongst others.
I did not say that Democracy is not suited for us.
Let me take an example. If you extend the thought about elected representatives it is possible for an electorate to choose one person to lead them. He/She would then be invested with the powers to make things happen. This is also Democracy as the will of the people finds expression through that one person. How to ensure that he does not perpetuate himself and negate the whole point of his election is another matter. An entire structure needs to be thought through. My contention is that such a structure is more akin to other structures (familial/corporate/school etc) that Indians are familiar with. Hence it is more likely to be effective.
Debu
PS - the point about the unwashed millions applies to Parliamentary Democracy as the underlying assumption is that they and the representatives that they elect are not comfortable with civilized debate which is a prerequisite for this form of government. I agree that this is a highly contentious statement but unless we squarely face upto the fact that the current system has become dysfunctional we will never change.
True that the current system has become dysfunctional.
ReplyDeleteBut blaming the unwashed millions?
Really?
Watch the english tv "debates". Maybe it's that audience which has lost civilized debate?
Has the voting population become poorer less washed from the 40s? If not then why the decline?
Do check what kind of leaders have led this decline in the last 15 years.
You may also want to check the US congress. Why is that dysfunctional?
Surajit Basu
In think we are trying to hold the current dispensations to an ideal from the past
Nihar Rao
Sounds like the beginnings of how the Alawi elite minority led by the Assad family took over running the country (Syria) and now we know what is happening.
Seshan Raj
I feel debu sir makes eminent sense. He is not deriding democracy in my view, just parliamentary democrac
ReplyDeleteSandeep Koul
The fact is that most representatives of the people, at many levels beginning with cooperative housing societies, are unfit to govern.
It beats me that we have this blind assumption that if people like your political stance, they also find you fit to govern. Very few elections are based on performance. I can't think of any. But just incidentally, some observers feel that Bobby Jindal's chances of becoming a front runner for President are marred by his abysmal performance as governor of Louisiana. And others think it is because he is unable to build up a significant 'war chest', because that's what really counts in the US Presidential elections.
And that has nothing to do with Parliamentary democracy. It would not help with electing a king either, for that matter.
Back to the drawing board, Debu.
Vickram Crishna
Let us start with the mail appended below.
ReplyDeleteThis suggestion is forwarded as received from elsewhere.
Arun
Dear Citizens
Forward this msg to a minimum of twenty people on your contact list; and in turn ask each of them to do likewise.
In three days, most people in India will have this message.
This is one idea that really should be passed around.
*Reform Act of 2014*
1. No Tenure / No Pension: Parliamentarians collect a salary while in office but should not receive any pay when they're out of office.
2. Parliamentarians should purchase their own retirement plans, just as all Indians do.
3. Parliamentarians should no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Their pay should be linked to the CPI or 3%, whichever is lower.
4. Parliamentarians should lose their current health care system and participate in the same health care system as the Indian people.
5. Parliamentarians with tainted records, criminal charges & convictions, past or present should be summarily banned from the parliament and fighting election on any pretext or the other.
6. Parliamentarians should equally abide by all laws they impose on the Indian people.
7. All contracts with past and present Parliamentarians should be void effective 1/1/15
The Indian people did not make this contract with them. Parliamentarians made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Parliament is an hono
u
r, not a lucrative career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people in India to receive the message. Don't you think it's time?
If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete.
You are one of my 20+ - Please keep it going and thanks.
Arun Srivastava
Arun: Sending the sensible stuff to 20 people is a good first (nano/ pico) leap in a country of 1.25 billion, still proliferating like rabbits; washed, unwashed and all in between.
.
What this forum needs to discuss is what ALL needs to be done till we reach micro & then milli steps (a kind of civic "revolution") to clean up, as much as possible, the muck accumulated over/ inside India's body politic during last ~100+ years, like (as an example) muck having been removed from Varanasi Ghats, with all good things gleamingly visible now
Without that, all such discussions are childish tantrums/ entertainment, still useful though, but without any significant value to any one.
And beware: AAPtards are not capable of understanding and doing this. And of course it has to be 100% Mukt of CONgress.
Devendra Gautam
Further, has to be 100% Mukt of all shades of Communists too, so utterly intellectually and morally bankrupt, never grew out of their infantile fantasies about Proletariat Dictatorship, cultivated during first 25 years of 1900s, and the species still surviving & flourishing in India, with well entrenched cohorts like CONgress, all kinds of "Samajwadis" (what a joke), moronic psuedo seculras and some most dangerously communal self- serving thekedars (like AIMPLB, Deobandi etc & hundreds more) of second majority called Muslims.
ReplyDeleteDevendra Gautam
Good point Vickram. Look how differently a company views it's leadership. Here most of the selection criteria is based on performance over time either in the company or outside. There is no 'election'
Is this a better system for identifying leaders?
Debu Bhatnagar
Arun - an excellent initiative in my view but does it go far enough? Don't we need to question the system itself? I agree that Parliamentarians need to be checked but why have them in the first place? Is no other system feasible at all?
Debu Bhatnagar
Shareholders can vote out the board.
Citizens are shareholders.
One person one vote
Ensures that each person has a say in direction.
Our problems are less with parliament and more with local governance.
I think what we need is delegation of powers to all levels. Transparency of govt decisions and financials at lowest levels. Citizen power in micro decision.
Reading
The emergency
Interesting how Sanjay cohorts wanted Presidential government. Indira had better sense.
Surajit Basu
shed all prejudice. pl.
I do not know who will change, or who can deliver in future.
without change nothing is possible.
arun srivastava
Change had always been happening, is happening very fast every moment NOW, leading to much faster change at all "future" moments.
Issue is to "drive"/ steer change with the right Premises to reach the desirable, sustainable outcomes for India nation state and its humongous numbers, while treating the internal malignancies and protecting (as far as possible) from all types of external tsunamis or malignancies
If it sounds prejudice to some, so be it.
"..who will change, or who can deliver in future" is the next point of discussion after agreement on the Prejudice.
Devendra Gautam
Debu,
ReplyDeleteGood article, and very timely. My two cents:
The current logjam in the two houses that is preventing important bills from being passed, is not something unique to India. In the US, "filibustering" is a common stalling strategy, and there have been instances in the recent past in the US Congress where the government was on the verge of closing down because the budget was not passed. The only difference is the manner in which it is done. They do not resort to fist fights and throwing shoes and microphones.So I am not sure that it is the manner in which democracy is implemented (parliamentary Vs presidential) that makes a difference.
In fact, I have seen video clips of violent behavior in US legislatures. May not happen very often, but definitely has happened even after the advent of videotaped sessions.
As for our democracy, I believe there are two major flaws in its implementation:
a) The "first-past-the-post" system, combined with the number of candidates in the fray for every seat, can (at least theoretically) result in a candidate with a 25% vote share winning, and a party with a 25% vote share getting an absolute majority. Hence whether the representatives actually represent the will of the people is highly questionable.
If the entire country had to chose one candidate from all the eligible persons at the hustings, the same issue would arise.
b) Opaque funding of political parties, which I think is at the root of almost all corruption in the country. Even if donations to political parties had to be officially declared, with the huge parallel cash economy, candidates could still distribute cash and freebies to win votes.
Education, information and engagement. We lack the first two, and the third suffers as a result. But this too is witnessed in the USA. Doubtless in other nations as well, whose media presence is not quite as high.
Overall, I think the post covers some important issues, but is nowhere complete enough for assessing alternatives.
Vickram Crishna
A very interesting article and responses. My two cents
ReplyDelete1. It may be perhaps interesting to contrast the first past the post electoral system with a proportional representation system rather than a Presidential form vs. what we have. UK, US and India have a first past the post system where a lot of voices may be drowned because they are small in numbers in each electoral constituency even though they are in high numbers across the country. In our system, sizable but distributed electorates have no chance of getting representation. A proportional system usually leads to better bargaining outcomes as can be seen in many systems (Holland and Germany for example).
2. It may be also relevant to separate the legislative and oversight functions of the parliament. It can be argued that India's bad governance is not due to bad laws but bad implementation and over the years the parliament has failed us by not discharging its oversight functions. To clarify with an example, the education outcomes in rural India are abysmal - ASER results show that 50% of class V students cannot read class II text. This issues should be reasonably bi-partisan for the parliament - even the ruling party MPs should be insisting that the government promises to improve outcomes but strangely enough even opposition MPs don't do this. Incidentally, almost all voter surveys show that education is one of the top five issues for all electorates..
3. The article and some of the responses have commented on the merits of an electorate only comprising of educated voters. I for one would oppose this idea in India vehemently. By and large, the educated elite in India is extremely ill informed. I have attended many meetings of the most expensive societies with politicians and have seen the citizens not aware of the basic structure of our government. Candidates for Lok Sabha are routinely 'grilled' on municipal issues. I know very few educated people who know what their MP is supposed to do let alone what he has done in the parliament. Another indicator is the interview of ministers / politicians by our journalists. It is remarkable how the journalists can talk to ministers and politicians for hours and skirt even the mention of any big issues. Arnab and Rajdeep interviewed Ms. Smriti Irani for an hour and half hour respectively recently and did never talk of either primary education (status mentioned briefly above) or higher education. (I was told recently that nearly 1,50,000 Lakh students go abroad for higher education and India spends more than 10 Billion USD on higher education abroad. This is the third biggest forex outflow after crude and gold and is higher than that for coal imports). In contrast lesser educated urban poor / middle class are more aware of relative powers of MP/MLA/ Corporator, perhaps because they rely heavily on many services provided by the government. It could be argued that the grip of cast on Indian society has loosened only because of the uneducated voter voting for cast based parties. Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav can be definitely be credited with change in cast equations in Bihar and before anyone raises the issue of corruption, I would remind that his well educated predecessors' were as accomplished in corruption as Mr. Yadav.
4. It may be useful to distinguish democracy from liberty (Which is surely the final aim and democracy only the means towards it). Farid Zakaria has a very good book on this subject where he has given many examples on how non democratic institutions may help foster liberty significantly.
5. Finally, if you are still reading this - my congratulations on wading through what even I recognize is fairly dense writing :-). Clearly the CAT reading comprehension was a well designed test!
Cheers!
Yogesh Upadhyay
Great to see the vigourous debate (most of it civilised) that this subject has generated amongst the 'intelligentsia' :)
ReplyDelete