Role of opposition in a democracy

 Democracy is a fragile political system that can be nurtured and sustained only if the parties both in government and the opposition play their roles responsibly. Otherwise democracy will degenerate in to dictatorship or anarchy.

It is the duty of the government to act in accordance with the Constitution. It is only to be expected that the policies of the ruling party and the opposition parties are different. They are not Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Therefore, many steps taken by the government will not be agreeable to the opposition, though they are perfectly legal. In such cases, the opposition can express its views but does not have the right to torpedo the government moves.

The opposition can also contest the government action legally. Adoption of demonstrations to create nuisance, inconvenience and traffic snarls are blatantly anti-democratic.

It is unfortunate that almost all opposition parties in our country now or earlier have misunderstood or misinterpreted their role. For example Ms.Kanimozhi, an M.P. from Tamil Nadu has argued in the Madras High Court that accusing the Chief Minister of corruption amounts to discharge of her duty as an elected representative of the people! In her view, this accusation cannot be a cause for a criminal defamation case. The honourable M.P. has not produced any evidence of corruption before the court and has gone on to add that she has said only Edappadi in her speech which is the subject matter of the criminal case and that this is not necessarily a reference to the Chief Minister Edappadi K.Palaniswami. This is a disingenuous argument that cuts little ice.

If the opposition thinks that its function is only to criticise and deactivate the government on an ongoing basis, there cannot be anything but inertia in the country's economy. This will only lead to widening the distance between the voters and the opposition. This is what seems to be happening in our country as the results of many recent elections show. Opposition's acts need to be such as to regain the confidence of the voters. If the acts only betray bitterness towards the party in power, they will only ensure a longer term in power for the ruling party.

Lessons from the elections

The long-stretched general elections have at last come to an end. The exit polls whose reliability has always been in doubt have also made their entry. Actual results which will be available on the 23rd may or may not be what most exit polls have predicted.

Do the 2019 elections hold any lessons for us? We take pride in being a democracy and rightly so. Sustainability of a democracy depends more on effectiveness of the opposition than on governance standards of the ruling dispensation. Any government not monitored by capable opposition tends to become autocratic and undemocratic. A disjointed opposition is an invitation to dilution of governance.

The exit polls, at least most of them, point towards absence of any national party barring the BJP. This is an unwelcome development. In the parliamentary elections, the influence of the Congress party is confined to the states of Kerala and the Punjab. It piggybacks on DMK in TamilNadu and is reduced to irrelevance in most states. Communists have been virtually banished from W.Bengal and are losing ground in Kerala. Other parties like the SP, BSP, DMK and Trinamool Congress are complete non-entities beyond a state or two. Weakness and dysfunctionality of the opposition are therefore guaranteed.

If Indian parliamentary polity is becoming unipolar, it will be a huge disappointment. The blame would rest with the Grand Old Party.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi : Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde?

November 2nd. A rainy day in Chennai. A working day too. Many competing programmes in the city including a conversation between  T.M.Krishna and Perumal Murugan around the same time at a venue less than a km away. So who would attend a talk on Democracy by Abhishek Manu Singhvi? Or so I thought.

The lecture at Srinivasa Sastri Hall on 'The institutional pillars of Indian democracy' by the well-known lawyer-cum-politician was surprisingly well-attended. Gopalkrishna Gandhi, Sriram Panchu and Suhrith Parthasarathy were among the audience.

It was raining cats and dogs outside. This was realised only after the speech was over when one had to return home. The lawyer was dissecting the democratic pillars with surgical precision inside the silent hall. Singhvi referred to 9 pillars , namely secularism, federalism, socialism, judiciary, press, CAG, army, Election Commission and Parliament. Executive was a notable omission perhaps due to want of time.

What enthused the listeners was the totally apolitical approach of the speaker who is capable of spewing venom in any discussion on a TV channel. He eschewed any needless reference to political parties and diligently marshalled his arguments to prove that India is not only the largest but also an exceptional democracy. Similar ex-colonial countries have drifted far away from democracy whereas India continues to be a nuanced democracy though appearing as a functional anarchy.

Gandhi and Nehru, according to Singhvi, ensured that democracy was deeply entrenched in India. Their sequential position, Gandhi first and Nehru later, placed the country in a goldilocks zone to accept, nurture and enhance the features of democracy. He deftly stayed away from the Nehru vs Sardar controversy.

Secularism is not a condescending gift to minorities, but a requirement for sustenance of a pluralistic society like ours. Federalism - or quasi-federalism as it exists in India- is a safety valve that quarantines local problems. Chief Minister of a state, any state, is 5 times as powerful as a central cabinet minister in terms of administrative and financial powers even though they rank pari-passu in governmental protocol. He explained how panchayati raj is coming out of the shackles of benamidars and is becoming reflective of empowerment of women and the marginalised.

Some politicians may be right-wing in non-economic matters but they too are left-wing in their espousal of socialism and concern for the poor and the downtrodden. India's right-wing is far to the left of American left-wing in economic philosophy. Singhvi conveniently ignored the fact that free India was not born as a secular or socialist Republic. These were latter-day political developments.

Delays in judicial appointment have been disabling timely delivery of justice in the country for a long period. Singhvi felt more political will is needed to redress this easily rectifiable issue. When Sriram Panchu tried to trap him on his optimism about judiciary by pointing out that we need a more unpliable judiciary when we have an autocratic leader (Modi?), Singhvi declined to talk about any political leader and without contextualising commented that Indian judiciary is robust most of the times.

Singhvi came down heavily on the media. Paid news, advertorials, incestuous relationship between owners and editors and concentration of ownership were the ills pointed out by him. In his opinion, Press Council of India has failed miserably and is as toothless as Medical Council of India or Bar Council.

CAG was mentioned just in passing. Army must be allowed to be anonymous. Election Commission is our pride and others' envy. Parliament can become more productive if only private members are allowed to initiate legislation, scope of whips is reduced and disruption of proceedings is dealt with an iron hand.

I was happy that the rains did not deter me from attending this lecture.

Democratic Dividend

The state of J and K is permanently on the boil because of militant terrorism. The state of TamilNadu reaches boiling point due to electoral terrorism of J and K every five years. Verbal abuses are thrown about with nonchalant abandon, reputations already fragile are ripped apart and voter inebriation touches a new high.

To perform my constitutional duty and to exercise my citizenry rights, I went to the polling booth with a lot of enthusiasm. (Scorching sun and cloudy skies alternated during the day. Was it nature’s way of bemoaning the alternate misrules of the Rising Sun and the Two Leaves? There were intermittent showers too, as predicted by weathermen. Is weather easier to predict than election results?) After the polling was over, I conducted the most scientific exit-poll ever done. Statisticians say that the more scientific the poll, the smaller the sample requirement to maintain the same confidence interval. In my eagerness for innovation, I simply interchanged the if-then sequence and concluded that the smaller the sample size, the more scientific and unbiased the survey. So, I arrived at the least possible sample size namely unity. Principles of scientific survey dictate that the sample should be representative of the population. So, I chose the one who is as confused and clueless as the countless voters. I chose myself. The exit poll results are ready though I am forbidden by the strictly enforced rules of the Election Commission to announce this.

Everybody is saying that every voter in TamilNadu has been paid by both the leading Dravidian parties as a gesture of goodwill. I was wondering why the same goodwill was not extended to me. I got enlightened in the polling booth. My name was not in the voter list. (Political parties are very shrewd: why waste money on a non-voter?) When the list was getting updated a couple of years ago, I had informed the updating official that my mother was no more. Instead of removing my mother’s name from the voters’ list , the intelligent officer struck off my name convinced that I was an embarrassingly  transparent  citizen and therefore not deserving of the ‘democratic dividend ‘(being paid by the political parties under the cash-for-votes scheme) of participating in the electoral process. (Rs.570 crore was seized by EC officials in just one incident. It is no solace to know that the amount is only a legitimate transfer from one currency chest to another. What is revealing is the suspicion of the Election Commission. Political morality in TamilNadu has got into such a bottomless pit that the EC could readily entertain such a suspicion.)

Since I was denied the privilege of voting, I do not have a burdened conscience. Whichever Thuggish party comes to power, I am not to be blamed. I feel free. Freedom always comes at a price. The price is ineligibility for ‘democratic dividend’. I understand that a voter who has not been provided the democratic dividend by the candidates can lodge a complaint with the Election Commission. (Shouldn’t rules follow the practice?) Long live our Democracy!

A noble but impractical idea

No one will question the desirability of democracy. Yet the fact remains that there are so many aspects of life which are eminently desirable, but not possible.

True democracy should satisfy two conditions: 1) Will of the people should prevail and 2) People should benefit from the system.

When the Election Commission was not robustly independent, the first condition was not satisfied because the ruling dispensation was at liberty to tinker with the ballot. Now there is unanimity that elections are conducted freely and fairly and therefore the first condition is met. If any citizen is too lazy to exercise the vote, we cannot blame the political system. So even if only X % of voters exercise their franchise, we need to accept that the final result reflects the popular will. So much, so good.

The political system will benefit the people if and only if the elected representatives are honest and the voters are really alert. Unfortunately, neither of these requirements is met in our country. Corruption is rampant among the elected. Ability of the ministers to understand their basic Constitutional obligations is suspect. A particular minister in Bihar is unable to understand a term in his mother-tongue while taking the oath of office. We cannot expect poorly educated and grossly dishonest ministers to sustain fair democracy. This does not mean education is a requirement. But, ignorance in association with deceitfulness is toxic to democracy. Politicians in India know that offer of freebies at the time of elections is an antidote to citizens' grievances.

Voters are not alert. At best, they vote for the least dishonest elements. They are reconciled that there isn't much variety of candidates to choose from. Even those who are relatively honest initially are lured by the attractions of office to opt for the easier way.

Added on Nov.22:
Unless the ruling and opposition political parties have national interests in their mind, democracy cannot succeed. Whether in power or in opposition, a political party should have the same consistent stand on any issue. Absent this, only chaos will prevail. 

Distorted Democracy

We may take pride in claiming that we are the largest democracy in the world. Any thought about the kind of democracy we are practising will be an antidote to that pride.

Some may claim that we are a democracy, plain and simple, since all citizens above the age of 18 have an equal voting right at the hustings. This is only superficially true. It is well known that voting rights are not freely and fairly exercised. We have what is called 3M Democracy at the time of elections. Money, muscle and moonshine (bootleg or hooch) play an invincible role in almost all constituencies.

Elections are only the starting point of democracy. With a false start, our subsequent journey is characterised by obnoxious inequality everywhere. If you are a Manmohan Singh or K.G.Balakrishnan or Dayanidhi Maran or Shashi Tharoor, law will never catch up with you, not to talk of justice.

Manmohan Singh is protected by the advocacy of 'Zero Loss' Kapil Sibal who would argue and the Supreme Court will agree that the culpability of a minister, that too a prime minister (also called Crime Minister in a most meaningful typo), cannot be a matter of judicial scrutiny because such a scrutiny will stymie executive decisions ! Therefore, Singh has immunity from any criminal investigation. He is more equal than others.

Petition against K.G.Balakrishnan was taken up by the Supreme Court only after his term in the Human Rights Commission was over. Why cause inconvenience to KGB for his petty offence of misuse of Chief Justiceship to amass wealth and to enable his relatives to do so? The Supreme Court recognises that a former brother judge is more equal than other citizens.

CBI may be accountable for investigating crimes. But it has no right to demand custodial investigation of Dayanidhi Maran because only common people need to be so investigated. Maran may steadfastly refuse to be truthful, he may influence the prosecution witnesses, but so what? Is he not a former minister? Is he not rich and powerful? How will the Supreme Court allow CBI to treat him like an ordinary citizen? Maran is more equal than others.

Shashi Tharoor may have been complicit in the murder of Sunanda Pushkar. How can the police be allowed to investigate this case with a free hand? Does not a minister, especially one who procured a U.N. assignment to Manmohan Singh's daughter, have a right not to be suspected even if the evidence is stark against him?

What democracy are we talking about? 

Democracy and India

Democracy is almost universally hailed as the best political system. India has been a non-flourishing democracy since independence barring a brief interlude of emergency in the seventies.

As Bihar is preparing for a momentous election whose results are likely to impact the nation's future policy, we get an opportunity to introspect what democracy has done to us and what we have done to democracy. Winston Churchill complimented democracy pleading that it is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. In his saner moments he could also realise that the best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter. This may be interpreted as a patronising and cynical view but cannot be dismissed offhand.

Nitish Kumar cannot hope to retain power in Bihar unless he aligns himself with a scamster. BJP's development-economics cannot guarantee victory unless it is diluted by caste vote calculations. Democracy dictates alignment with the dishonest and the disreputable because they are a substantial chunk whose support is necessary to gain control of the government.

Consequences and requirements of democracy are so ominous that one has to agree with John Adams, the first vice-president and second president of the United States who mournfully declared that there never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.

Pleasant surprise in Guatemala

Otto Perez Molina, the tough President of the Latin American country Guatemala has resigned in response to a popular furore over his involvement in a multi-million dollar customs scandal. Subsequently, he was arrested on the same day. He has agreed “All Guatemalans have to respect the law, and I assure you I will respect the law and this process.” The process refers to judicial hearings.

Molina was earlier a General in the army. Guatemala's history is pockmarked with a series of military takeovers and scant respect for will of the people. Molina was expected to dig in his heels and continue to ignore the allegations against him. It is not clear what caused change of his mind.

This is something that does not happen in India, putatively the largest democracy in the world. Indian political leaders think that they are armed with impunity against charges of any criminality. Very few among the corrupt in India resign. Even fewer are arrested. It is an inexplicable irony that will of the people prevails in dictatorship-prone countries and it is powerless in a 'democratic' country. 

Gujarat Model?

Amartya Sen, the Nobel-laureate, had famously pronounced that democracies would not witness famines because any developing food crisis would receive a lot of media-attention and the government being democratic in character would be forced to take preventive steps to negate the possibility of a full blown famine. The same logic should apply to any health crisis like severe malnutrition.

But, Sen could not foresee the emergence of Narendra Modi’s style of democracy.  Government of India and UNICEF together conducted a state-wise study on nutritional standards of children and women. The study was completed and the report was ready in October, 2014. GOI is yet to release the report for public consumption.

However, The Economist magazine has managed to obtain the report christened the Rapid Survey on Children and has made it available at www.economist.com/indiachildren. The report shows that the state of Gujarat fares very poorly in various parameters relating to child nutrition. The proportion of hungry children in this comparatively wealthy state is as high as 33.5% . 42% of children in Gujarat are stunted (that is, short for their age) and 18.7%  weigh too little for their height. These statistics obviously are not an effective advertisement for the Gujarat model of development. At the same time, this cannot be the reason for withholding the eye-opening report from the public.

It is a shame that we need to know about ourselves from a foreign magazine.

Added on 5th July:

 Following additional statistics taken from The Economist are revealing:

1)Underweight children (aged under 5 years, % of total)

    Gujarat: 34%, All India: 29%, Maharashtra: 25%, Tamilnadu: 23%, Kerala: 19%

2)Stunted children (aged under 5 years, % of total)

    Gujarat: 42%, All India: 39%, Maharashtra: 35%, Tamilnadu: 23%, Kerala: 20%

3)Immunisation (children aged 12 months to 23 months, % of total)

    Gujarat: 56%, All India: 65%, Maharashtra: 77%, Tamilnadu: 76%, Kerala: 83%

Rules of Indian democracy

Demonise your opponents.

Embellish your achievements (if any).

Market yourself as the polar opposite of what you really are.

Outshout others.

Crucify the honest.

Rehabilitate the corrupt.

Aggravate anarchy.

Condemn the judiciary.

Yet, pretend to be the paragon of innocence.

Salman Khurshid's press conference

Salman Khurshid should be applauded for conducting a 100-minute press conference to defend himself against the allegations made by "guttersnipes". He was very articulate as is his wont and lost his cool on a few occasions which is not his wont.

He called himself a 'democrat' and also said his first instinct was to disallow the representatives of India Today from participation in the conference. There is an uneasy contradiction here. A democrat does not exclude anybody.

He has added a colourful description for his accusers. They are "hooligans in the street". He is a very honourable minister indeed.

He set the ground rules for the conference. He would deal only with what according to him are core issues. The core issue identified by him was whether the camps were held or not. This amounts to unintelligent skirting of the issue. The real main issue is forged papers were used to claim money from the government.

The minister gives a lot of weightage to people's pedigree. He was introducing a person as very distinguished because of relationship with a former Foreign Secretary. Owing to his fascination with pedigree, the minister feels that "hooligans in the street" have no right to question him or his Trust.

Salman Khurshid "blackmailed" Aroon Purie threatening that he will sue him and India Today group in the U.K. also. He indulged in a little bravado saying that "India Today" will become "India Yesterday".

Though the minister has to be congratulated for becoming as transparent as possible and yet not admitting the basic irregularities, he has not convinced the aam aadhmi that he need not resign. Nation's interest in terms of upholding principles of governance and retention of minister's own integrity demand that he quit forthwith.

Update: An observant viewer has pointed out that "a union law minister" is an anagram for "miniature son-in-law".

Perils of nascent democracy

Transition from dictatorship to democracy is a painful process. It is also very costly in terms of sacrifice of precious lives. Events in Iraq, Egypt and Libya are too recent to forget.

The present international crisis over a film produced by a madcap brings centrestage the travails of any fledgling  democracy. The TIME magazine argues:

"Before the Arab Spring, this chain of events would likely have been stopped early. Dictators like Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and Libya's Gaddafi either blocked internet access to prevent their people from seeing inflammatory material (among other things) or used their security agencies to crack down on protests long before they could reach critical mass. ----------- The tendency of democratically elected governments has been to look the other way and hope the demonstrators run out of steam. It doesn't always work."

Well said. However, it is neither desirable nor practical to get back to despotism. But we need to be constantly aware that a true democracy asymmetrically pits  law-constrained government against lawless thugs. Democracy demands patience and stoicism to bear unpredictable strains.

Is Arvind Kejriwal anti-democratic?

Indian politicians got the chance of their life yesterday (28th Feb.) to lambast Arvind Kejriwal of team Anna for not exercising his voting right. The omission was interpreted as Kejriwal's flagrant disregard for democratic processes which per se disqualified him from critiquing politicians.

What an argument! Our prime minister who hails from Assam for the limited purpose of becoming a member of the Rajya Sabha is known to have desisted from voting in many elections. Does this make him anti-democratic?

Faulting a person for not voting is an admission that we are not able to question him for any graver lapse. It is regrettable that TV channels exaggerated the incident beyond sensible proportions. One hopes that people like Kejriwal will not be cowed down whatever be the provocations from unethical politicians.

The omniscient Congress leader Digvijay Singh has questioned Kejriwal's probity in the light of this incident. How lucky we are to have such enlightened leaders ! George Oewell's 1984 is in full play in our country.