A different perspective

The article ‘Messianism versus Democracy’ in today’s The Hindu was really a food for thought. It has made me to ponder a lot on the current state of affairs going on in our country and on reaching the edge I am even forced to compare it to the ongoing Jasmine revolution in Western Asia and African nations.

The term used and defined by the author is indeed a picturesque presentation of Anna’s agitation and his demands. There is no doubt in the proposition that the thousands of people gathering in Ramlila ground and elsewhere are mere spectators of this unprecedented happening, certainly exasperated by the unleashed corruption rampant in almost every office of Indian administration. The author has also alleged Anna’s methods to be undemocratic. Though since day one, Anna’s team endeavour has been of high integrity to clean up India of the clutter created by corrupt officers and politicians, and this is the cause that is being shared by all the enthusiastic supporters of Anna, but there is no denial to fact that cause can never justify the means. And so is the methodology of stubbornness and holding indefinite fast unjustified. It is because such methods simply hold the authorities hostage to the huge threat of a disorder, unrest amongst public which can lead to national security crisis and eventually a coup d’état. But what is worth a thought here is that why did we ever come to such a critical situation?

The author has suggested that Anna’s agitation is devoid of informed public debates, and has juxtaposed it with the public rallies and election campaigns of our legislators which create public opinion by rightly or wrongly defending their agendas against opposition’s. And then the final verdict rests in the hands of people, who are held supreme by the socio-political contract called Constitution of India. However I am not very convinced on this point, as Team Anna has sufficiently circulated their idea by using printed material, electronic media, and organised public seminars to let people know as to what is the basic difference between their Jan Lokpal and the government’s version. In fact here it is the social responsibility of media to spread awareness among people by broadcasting good talk shows and publishing articles, instead of just holding referendums or public polls. Still it is unfortunate that many of the Anna supporters are ignorant of what Anna is demanding and are just following him because they have lost faith in government and are overwhelmed by a 74 year old ready to sacrifice his life for a common cause.

Now coming back to the debate of whether Anna’s methods are undemocratic or not, I personally feel, that yes they are. It is because Anna is not ready to budge from his version of the bill and wants the Parliament to pass it unconditionally and that too in a very short time period, lest he shall fast. He has shook the govt. by showing support of people, who are supporting him by public protests, and may call it the choice of people and hence the democracy. But this is a kind of parallel government, as we do have constitutional methods to win support of people and make laws. What he should do instead is to put his views forward and let the legislators, Parliament, Standing Committees and expert, chosen by We the people of India, to decide the best. Or he should himself fight the elections.

Now this again raises the question of credibility in the present government. The flip flops of our political leadership clearly exhibit a lack of political will to effectively fight against corruption. Under these circumstances, does it mean that We the people of India have no way to correct a mistake that we made in the General Elections for five long years!! And who guarantees that the next party to come in power will not murder the aspirations and emotions of people. So does it boil down to the fact that Anna must himself contest elections? But he alone can’t even make a change as an MP. To pass a bill, he needs support of majority in both houses of Parliament. We may be ready to have blind faith in Anna and his small group. But will we believe so easily in others who will be contesting elections for the same purpose as Anna and let us assume even at behest of Anna, but may always turn hostile later, even out of Anna’s control. Can we hand over the right to write our destiny for five years to anyone so easily? My answer is No.

So what’s the alternative to this apparently irresolvable logjam? We adopted representative democracy at the time of independence because it was felt that it would not be feasible to have a general referendum on every issue that arises in a country of 300 million (now  1.2 billion). Moreover having freshly won independence after a long and united struggle, it was believed that the political leadership could be trusted to make laws that would be good for all. But today the situation is different. We need a representative democracy in true terms, and there must be methods to register the voice of nation on issues of such colossal importance apart from the five yearly elections. It is high time that we adopt the right measures and constitutional and electoral reforms in the present scenario where capitalist tendencies are growing, and everyone is too busy to be considerate but for himself. And it may not be wrong to say that for such reforms, such Annas will have to come forward even if it leads to a second Independence struggle.