Gandhi left India in time: he had no chance in dictatorship of the democratically elected people's representatives. Gandhi was a popular man with large following among the Indians as a National Leader. He could be designated Father of the Nation. But he could not have become the President of India or the Prime Minister or the Speaker unless he was so elected by the people's elected representative in Independent Democratic India. The country could not have progressed if Gandhi had, as an apolitical Prime Minister or President of India, had forced forced his Government with a threat of going on indefinite hunger strike, to ban all modern textile industry and allowed only charkhas spinning wheels and hand looms to clothe the India nation. Gandhi might have been a good father of the nation but he cannot be allowed to dictate over the hundreds of legislators elected by the people of India.
What would have happened if Gandhi lived a few years more and went on hunger strike till the Nehru Government adopted a Lokpal Bill that would have created an Independent Lokpal organisation with power to try and punish, if found guilty, any government employee, elected representative, any minister including the Prime Minister, and any judge of any court in India for even the smallest charge of corruption ? Gandhi would have been whisked away to Hospital for failing heath due to hunger strike? If Gandhi had nominated Anna Hazare and Yogaguru Ramdev to negotiate with the Government on the drafting of the Lokpal Bill, what would have happened? I do not know about the past.
But one can reasonably assume that today Gandhi, Anna Hazare and Ramdev would have been described by the political parties as uncivil unelected members of the so-called civil society. A legislator elected by elected representatives of the people would have commented based on his leanings at the Nehru University that he was a civilized members of the society and being an elected legislature could not allow unelected civilians to interfere in the process of legislation against corruption. All the political parties met together not to discuss what should be contained on the Lokpal Bill or the merits of the suggestions of Anna and Ramdev but declare the sovereignty of the democratically elected parliamentarians over the so-called undemocratic civil society representatives.
Did Anna Hazae or Randev tried to interfere with the Parliament's right to legislate Lokpal Bill? The politicians are trying to establish the theorem that anyone demanding a particular draft for the Lokpal Bill is adopting unconstitutional, undemocratic methods which cannot be tolerated and must be stopped from doing so. If Maoist are extremists and terrorists rising against Parliamentary democracy and the National democratic governments, aren't Anna and Ram extremist, terrorist civil society movements against Parliamentary Democracy and the Constitutionally constituted Government?
This is the way politicians and political parties frustrate popular movements. Everyone knows that Anna and Ramdev enjoys popularity among the people. They got more popular by going on strike against corruption among government employees, ministers and others in high positions. They were trying to become people's representatives through undemocratic process and demand anti-corruption lokpal legislation that the legislators had failed to enact thrice during the past and was not showing any urgency to enact promptly. The 60-year old institution of the Parliament still does not have competence among its members to promptly evolve consensus on the Lokpal Bill contents and pass it in the last three sessions, while corruption scandals get unearthed in regular intervals over the last two years! The debates are about yhings like whether the Prime Minister should be covered and the Court Judges be covered or whether CVC and CBI should be under Lokpal or whether only govt. officers of the ran below joint secretary should be outside Lokpal/s purview. Instead of debting we could have passed a bill that provides for inclusion of the Prime Minister and the Judges as also of government employees below the rank of joint secreataries only on the recommendation of the Lokpal after five years with due approval of an amedment of the Lokpal Act by the Parliament. Similarlly the setting up independent ivestgation agency for the Lokpal could provide for merging of CVC and the CBI after five years based on the recommendation of the Lokpal with due approval of appropriate amendment by the Parliament. Parliament is all soverign: it can enact new Laws, repeal any existing law or modify an existing law any time: there is no need to drag on debates indefinitely to stll enacting the existing consnsus with enabling provisions for review on controversial points based on recommendations of an already established Lokpal Authority..
Let Parliamentarians take their time to evolve consensus, refer to Select Committee for evaluation and so on. But if the common people are already frustrated with the extensive corruption at the lowest levels in the Government and political parties and some Anna and Ramdev - not interested in politics as such, pained by the degradation of social values reflected in widespread corruption, leads a popular movement against corruption by demanding the Government to take immediate legislative action against corruption, why should the political parties feel threatend and raise a great hue and cry?
The political parties have been threatened not because Anna and Ramdev has waged a War against the Constitution or Parliamentary democracy. The threat comes from the underlying loss of credibility of elected representatives' inability to curb corruption affecting the lives of the common people who are getting frustrated. So, first the politicians drew Anna and Ramdev into discussions and then tried to prove that these to civil / yoga society leaders as unreasonable and impractical and then organised dramas that would show them up as cowards or proteges' of communal elements. This has been done. Now the political parties assert that they are the undisputed authority on what is to be done about corruption. And, then they will take their sweet will and time to debate about what legislation of Lokpal to be appropriate.
Indian democracy is based on various premises. one of which is that the elected representatives belonging to political parties have not only the right but also the wisdom about what is the best for the country, society and the Nation. If there happens to be some knowledgeable, experts outside the political parties, they must join a political party or beg for political patronage for them to be merely heard and not necessarily to be endorsed by the political parties. There is no role for social activists or civil society. If the Parliament has failed to enact Laws to curb corruption or if the Government has failed to enforce laws effectively to curb corruption, the people have the right to feel frustrated but they cannot give vent to their frustration through social activist / civil society agitations. The only recourse is to work through political parties or abstain from voting at the time of elections at the end of every five years.
Indian democracy does not recognise philosophers, historians, scientists, environmentalists, economists, technologists, educationists, educated and knowledgeable expertise that do not come through endorsement of political parties or governments: such people cannot claim independence from political parties and become leaders of people to contest for power to influence the society and nation - a power exclusively reserved for the politicians, especially the elected representatives. That is the reason why most States have abolished the upper house (not clear why MamataBannerjee determined to revive Bidhan Parishad in West Bengal) and the Rajya Sabha members are elected politicians or political affiliates by elected legislators of various State assemblies. f people think that what Anna and Ramdev are asking for is the correct thing for the Nation to accept, then people should wait for people like them to form political parties, get election Commission recognition, contest the next General and State elections, vote them to absolute majority and get their frustrations redressed through democratically valid methods.
People who are writing and talking about corruption in anger and frustration have two choices: follow what the elected representatives have said in the all party meet or continue to find new methods of agitation to force the elected representatives realize the writing on the wall: no political system that does not heed to official / unofficial people's referendum on national issues on a continuous basis irrespective of the tenure of elected legislatures.
No comments:
Post a Comment