Democracy is defined as “rule of the people” – and the Indian democracy showed that it is just that. Last evening was a red-letter day in Indian democracy - as Parliament passed a resolution to take on board the three demands that Anna Hazare had raised before it.
Anti-protest commentators which included a pro-government channel, and members of the NAC (an extra-constitutional body that "advises" the government on law-making - a clear case of constitutional impropriety) kept up the charade that these protests in some way detracted from India's democracy. My take on three key issues that were raised :
1. Supremacy of Parliament – huh? What’s that?
A key claim was that Parliament is supreme in law making and that the agitation somehow diminished the “prestige” of parliament. Absolute Balderdash! Nowhere in the constitution is there either a direct or implied “supremacy” given to the Parliament. Quite the opposite - The constitution is clear that the PEOPLE are supreme, when it states “We the People of India..... do Hereby Adopt, Enact and give to Ourselves this constitution”. MP’s are but representatives of the wishes of the people. The "confused" are mistaking procedural matters for “fundamental” issues.
2. This is “mobocracy” and somehow sets a bad precedent. First, we have to agree that self regulating bodies rarely work. Allegations of corruption and nepotism in higher judiciary, a medical council that refuses to book errant doctors, and failed self-regulation in the case of life insurance companies are cases in point. If we agree, then when it comes to making laws that effect the law-makers and the bureaucracy, self-regulation will not work, and we HAVE to take into account the wishes of the people directly.
Can this be repeated? We have only to look at the case of Swami Nigamananda, who died earlier this year fasting against the government's inability (or worse) to implement a supreme court decision against illegal mining in the Ganga river bed, or that of Irom Sharmila from Manipur who is protesting against Armed Forces Special powers Act for the past decade. In both cases, the public imagination could not be captured, and while both causes are legitimate, they have failed to attract anywhere near the kind of public participation to force the government to act. To see Anna's protest as something that can be easily replicated displays a misunderstanding on what led to the massive public support that the movement generated. If our politicians do not get this, they are really not in touch with their constituents and should anyways be voted out.
3. The Lokpal bill will not stop corruption. This must rank as among the silliest complaints. Courts and police do not stop crime, they just create enough of a disincentive to stop most people from committing them. Likewise, Lokpal may not stop corruption – where ever there are people, there will be greed and some will succumb. However, it will hopefully create some disincentive. Additionally, as I have argued in the past – what prevents us from modifying and improving the law once it is enacted. Should we start with an imperfect law or wait another 50 years in the hope we will get a “perfect” one.
The debate in parliament showed up the real leaders. Sushma Swaraj sparkled, Sharad Yadav argued like a has-been, and Anand Sharma rambled. Our PM was ofcourse silent - but could you expect anything else?
No comments:
Post a Comment