Democracy, a notion that has evolved over time is at the
helm of change again. For the Greeks, Democracy was a rule of a council
dominated by the aristocrats with little power given to the proletariats.
But that was a development over the Spartan way of monarchy. Solon did
acknowledge the inherent drawbacks of managing all the factions and of giving
Plebs an appropriate representation. Cleisthenes came with an improved
structure after the Pisistratus hiccup. Pisistratus was required for giving the
system a shock to realise the inherent deficiencies of the authoritarian
system. The people's leader, a populist one would never be called a Tyrant in
modern era but that was the irony of life that the Greeks who gave the world
Democracy, Called a people's leader, a Tyrant.
Coming to the present World, Let us look at India, acclaimed
to be a successful governance structure as well as the biggest democracy in the
world. With a population of 1.2 Billion, Direct Democracy is impossible to
accomplish and Representative Democracy has always been under question as it
neglects the common man's concerns and ideas to some extent, hence we need to
adopt a system that takes into consideration, the most important of all things,
common man's opinion and civil society's point of view.
The Lokpal Bill and the issue of Black money have brought
Indians under one umbrella, alas after a long time. It is heartening as we have
been divided on caste, race, and region for a long while. The British used the
mantra of 'Divide and Rule', which was supposed to be buried under the ink of
the preamble of our Constitution that promised Socialism, Sovereignty,
Secularism but flourished under the mat of modern day politics and is still
being wielded as a weapon in the hands of contemporary politicians.
Now, let us look at the issues that are under debate. How
can civilians be involved in decision making in a representative democracy and
if indeed they are involved, who are the ones whose opinions need to be heard
and catered to?
The present situation does boil down to a classic chicken
and egg problem. Representative democracy lets people elect the ones whom they
feel are capable enough to express the opinions that are for the greater good
of the society. To nominate a few select personnel who will talk on behalf of
the civil society is as good as electing your representative in the house or
the senate. The incorporation of civil society in the way it is being expressed
to be done is a reinforcement of the system that the civil society is opposed
to, a Representative Democracy as that has integrated corrupt means of
operation in its nature of governance.
Anna Hazare & Baba Ramdev might seem ideal representatives
of the Civil Society and they do enjoy a huge following. So were people like
Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Joseph Stalin; all were populist
leaders and their ideologies well appreciated. But all those administrations
did go haywire and the civilians of those countries were in need of help. Might
be it is a pretty weird comparison, but my point is to say that power can
transform the mindset of anybody.
This does point out the most important aspect of human
nature, which has been highlighted in many movies of late like Lord of the
Rings, Dark Knight Etc as well as in books like Devil & Miss Prym by Paulo
Coelho. Human mind is susceptible to greed, power and can easily be corrupted.
I would like to highlight Freud, He said "we all are born with animal
instincts and the fear of law and society lets us curb them and live in peace;
but given a chance we all will unleash the animal inside us". Greed, as in
being corrupt is one of the seven sins which no one can escape from. A famous
movie line says, "Everyone has a price". All will fall to greed at
some point, few for thousands, and few for millions. People from the government
especially congress are already questioning the integrity of Baba Ramdev. Maybe
Digvijay Singh's statements need not be paid any heed given his comments on
Karkare and Malegaon blasts. We can neglect this verbose as a ploy of congress
to decoy from their own vulnerability given the circumstances of
anti-corruption drive and a high inflation smothered economy.
Another point, why would the existing representatives allow
others to intervene in decision making and formulate rules that will allow
independent bodies to prosecute them? Nobody would want to give away the power
that they wield. But, things can change if people think on social grounds. Game
theorists and social sciences folks say that "People enjoy more power by
having less of it and sharing more of it". That is the power of Unison,
when the whole society is in harmony and all share a part in decision making.
We, Citizens, have our own fault lines. We are so happy
living our own life and always criticize the system and the dysfunctional
nature of the government. We are so involved in flocking the net and supporting
all programs by just mere clicks. Given 50% of the country is under 35, virtual
world plays an important role in daily life but still we ought to live in
reality and come out in open and support causes. Collective action, a thing
long forgotten, rotting under communalism, and casteism need to revive like a
Phoenix for our beloved nation to survive a long awaiting catastrophe.
Proper checks and balances need to be incorporated like
James Madison said in his federalist papers. Judiciary & bureaucrats are
under the scrutiny of the Legislature in India, which was never the intention
of the law makers. People like Mayawati transfer bureaucrats like piece of
garbage. This is the core issue that needs to be addressed.
Alienate bureaucrats and judiciary from legislature and give
them adequate power to negate the pressure from power thirst and corrupt
political babus. Corruption in bureaucracy can be eradicated if the pay scales
can be revised by setting up an independent commission, rather than under one
carpet called the Pay Commission.
The other issue is, can PM or the CJI, the ones who are the
representatives of this great nation to the world can be under the purview of a
civil body and be prosecuted under the civil code of law.
At this point I remember a very famous saying, "Who
will monitor the ones who monitor us". Also, the UN convention on
Corruption sought to include everyone who holds a post in public office under
purview. So, how are we different from the rest of the world? Is our PM really
different from the President of US, who is considered to be the most powerful
man on the planet?
When the most powerful man in under the radar, why can't our
PM and CJI be under the radar? Hence, it is up to the people to decide; do they
indeed want to make a bill that does monitor the ones who do monitor us - the
people.
