The past two hundred years of world history is replete with examples of emerging democratic aspirations and accompanying fluidity of social and political conditions either regressing into earlier forms of retrograde beliefs and practices or slipping into dictatorships. Positive changes in democratic beliefs and refinements over practices have not happened in terms of smooth linear progressions. They have happened only over painful convulsions of society or even over show of organized and unorganized violence by interested parties and their adversaries. Even the so called matured democracies like the UK and the USA could not escape this experience.
This prelude though might look a little farfetched however would put the present situation in India in perspective. Democracies like good wine do not mature overnight. Let us have a brief look at our less than seven decade history of democracy.
On obtaining Independence, India’s elite thought that putting in place a well synthesized liberal constitution to support a form of parliamentary rule, would get us democracy. Constitutionalism and elite leadership exhausted their mandate by late 1960s. As a response, the major faction of the very party that pioneered national independence and liberal democracy, under Indira Gandhi regressed into experimenting first with a left leaning populism with a command economy and when that did not work, with dictatorship curbing constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and proclaiming Emergency. This was responded by waves of protests and resistance movements at the cost of many personal sacrifices of both leaders and cadres alike.
The fight against Emergency positively introduced two vital aspects into Indian democracy: i. the belief that irrespective of the state of socio-economic development and literacy, the Indian people can use their discretion to cause a ‘revolution’ through the ballot box (which they have once again demonstrated in some measure in the Assembly elections in Delhi); ii. the Supreme Court of India is a necessary bulwark against any derailment of democracy as it responded to Emergency misdemeanors by propounding the theory of ‘basic structure of the constitution’ thereby providing an in-built safeguard against any future abuse of the constitution by the legislators. This was a major paradigm shift leading to further strengthening of the institutional foundation of Indian democracy.
This set in motion the post-Emergency social and political activism culminating in new forms of political articulations and formation of political parties representing hitherto politically marginalized backward castes, dalits, tribals and ethnic groups. The politics of patronage by monolithic national and regional parties came to an end. The dalits, the tribals, the backward castes and women came to acquire independent powers of negotiation by winning elections either through the freshly floated parties or of-late, accommodated by mainstream parties as candidates. This, no doubt is not a mean achievement for Indian democracy and I would call that as another favourable paradigm shift. However, this also brought in, certain unintended consequences.
The new-found faith in elections made political parties and leaders get obsessed with winning elections by crook or fluke. They found a new cocktail by mixing policy populism and freebies with money and muscle and used it to win elections. This led to wholesale promotion of corruption and criminalization of political parties. The citizens came to be seen as purchasable voters. We nearly lost everything we gained through previous struggles and stood vouching for the most perverted form of plebiscital democracy. Neo liberal reforms and privatization provided opportunities of gold rush for parties and political leaders.
But what we very often fail to recognize is, Indian democracy’s ability for self-correction. When the political gloom encircled especially through fraudulent electoral practices and overwhelming corruption, two creative responses came through. First it was Sheshan as Chief Election Commissioner who marvelously responded to the situation by proposing and implementing a comprehensive election reforms which no one can deny effectively curbed many questionable practices and brought greater accountability in conducting elections. Second, it was the effort primarily of the social activist Aruna Roy which resulted in the enactment of the Right to Information Act in the year 2005. An impassionate analysis of the happenings of the past ten years would show the kind of potentials they have created for the well-meaning citizens for course-correction of Indian democracy. Does this not qualify as another paradigm shift?
Think for a while what Kejriwal would have done for stepping up his political career without RTI? How he would have created the activist platform ‘Public Cause Research Foundation’ the pre-politics that helped Kejriwal later launch Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)? How he would have fared in Delhi elections without Sheshan’s reform?
These questions I ask not to cause vain or discount Kejriwal’s achievements. It is first to underline the resilience and the true potential of Indian democracy for course correction if handled properly. Second, it is to properly locate Kejriwal in the right historical and institutional context so that we can assess what challenges that await him, and for us, what to expect from him. Without taking up this exercise we would historically see him as a messiah of mystical wilderness with superhuman potentials to deliver or, contemptuously dismiss him as another political aberration.
In the days of de-ideologised politics, it is always difficult to make a logically neat analysis of what a leader like Kejriwal and his Aam Aadmi Party stand for. Is he right of centre or left of centre? Or is he simply an old fashioned utopian socialist? Going by his immediate announcement of water and power subsidy after Delhi victory, can we blame him of having continued with populism? Worse, the party’s economic manifesto is still under preparation.
When we try to comprehend Kejriwal and his movement only the following come to our mind with certain incoherence and apparent contradictions: from the beginning he has been consistently pro-poor; equally consistent has he been in his crusade against corruption; he believes in constitutionalism meaning that he believes in the authority of the government and therefore he also believes that good governance derive from good laws as was evident from his fight for enactment of Lok Pal; but he does not categorically exclude vigilantism; he believes in the support of the intellectuals, academics, middle class professionals, corporate honchos and celebrities; but he also believes in the direct participation and decision making by the Aam Aadmi; he wants to hold the constitutional office of the Chief Minister of a state; but he would also like to continue with street protests; but would run the state; but would foolishly call himself as an anarchist.
I will simply excuse Kejiriwal for the lack of coherence not only because he needs more time to settle down in his new role but also for the simple reason that he did not start with a theory or ideology or even a party. His sincere and honest involvement in one issue led to the involvement in another. Improvising upon and expanding his area of operation, he became the Chief Minister - took a less traversed road to power.
But I will not excuse him for his giddy acts of street protest, his loud-mouth and inability to honestly restrain delinquent party colleagues. Kejriwal seems to suffer both from a pattern of regression resorting to earlier habits of protest as well a delusion of grandeur which makes him say that he is an anarchist [revolutionary]. Perhaps the unexpected success has shocked him too much. What he seems to have suddenly forgotten is the immense trust people have come to place on him is because of his honest and pragmatic involvement in addressing issues that directly affect the poorer strata, particularly in Delhi -fair working of PDS, corrupt free administration, access of the poor to basic necessities like water and power and efficient working of the law and order machinery. The middle and privileged classes too, see in his anti-corruption crusade several answers for their own urban woes and of course guilt-free wealth creation. In other words, amidst gloom why people chose to vote for him was because he would give good governance. Perhaps they do not have the right vocabulary to say that to him.
Unfortunately Kejriwal by saying “Change can’t be incremental,” and “I am an anarchist” is after all selling some cheap fantasy that he is up to founding an alternate system of polity and economy. Kejriwal must first realize that he is very much a product of neo-liberal polity and economy and by all fair judgment has ample scope to further improve upon the democratic polity and nothing beyond. This in itself is a laudable goal and he must have the woolliness of his vision removed. He must also realize that his very strength for mobilization of people, campaigning and protest do not draw from a revolutionary upsurge of a people asking for demolition of a system but from within the facilitating structures of the Indian democracy and the aspirations of millions of people longing to get good governance by participating in an electoral process. His and his colleagues’ populist anarchy would not only demean the rule of law but also weaken the very platform on which he is standing.
Kejriwal awaits two immediate acid tests to pass. First one is a major political challenge passing of which would certainly help him cross the threshold factor as a harbinger of major political reform. This means winning of 6 out of 8 Lok Sabha seats in Delhi and polling of at least 15% of total votes in AAP’s favour on the total count, in the coming Lok Sabha election. This he ought to do using the same transparent way of fund collection and choosing the right candidates. Then he would prove to the world that he has the potential to clean up corruption from India as the very root of corruption as we have argued above is in its electoral system. He will create a cascading effect all over india.
Second, he should quickly settle down to give Delhi a model of governance at least in a year so that the model can be replicated elsewhere without which he will quickly loose his turf in Delhi itself.
For these two things to happen he has to put a party in order and make it work responsibly with some focus and commitment. For the moment it looks a motley crew. Mr. Kejriwal are you clear of your mission?
Dr. Chinnaraj Joseph
No comments:
Post a Comment