democracy in peril - a preview

7/30/2019 Democracy in Peril - A Preview

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/democracy-in-peril-a-preview 1/25

DEMOCRACY IN PERILRestructuring Systems or Second Republic




G B Reddy



Notion Press

5 Muthu Kalathy Street, Triplicane,

Chennai - 600 005

First Published by Notion Press 2013

Copyright© G B Reddy 2013

All Right Reserved.

ISBN: 978-93-83185-61-0

This book is sold subject to condition that it shall not by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold or hired out, circulated andno reproduction in any form, in whole or in part (except for brief quotations in critical articles or reviews) may be made without

written permission of the publishers.



PREFACE

India’s democracy is at cross roads. Undeniably, there is a needor holistic and integrated restructuring o system or creatingthe “Second Republic”.

India’s mosaic is incredibly complex to understand rst;beore attempting reorms. Labyrinthine twists, blind turns anddead ends o its jigsaw puzzle appear sometimes bizarre. Yet, Indiais majestically moving ahead at its own elephantine pace to assumeits rightul place due to its size, population and geo strategicsignicance more by destiny or divine intervention than by humandesign. Such is, perhaps, the inexorable course o democracy like aship without rudder tossed around wildly on high seas; sometimesalmost appearing to sink; yet somehow survive.

India’s pluralist society dictates the course o politics o democracy; or, its curse. Its social plurality is summed up as

multiethnic, multicultural, multi communal and multi classsociety divided vertically and horizontally. It has an overarchinginuence over politics, economy, oreign aairs, science andtechnology and national security issues, choices and options.How India may emerge as a nation – unied or dismembered- depends on how eectively leadership steers its course by overcoming strategic challenges arising out o vicious social

churning and seizes opportunities.Majority, particularly youth and historically deprived

sections o society by accident o birth, want urgent changerom unjust status quo imposed rom above by senile andgerontocratic dynastically inherited eudal leadership.



vi Preface

In hindsight, all one can say with some certainty and prideis that democracy has embedded so strongly in the Indian psyche

that none can derail it easily like in other nations in South Asianneighborhood and ormer colonies elsewhere. None can dareattempt to derail it like what happened when emergency wasimposed in 1975 without a backlash consuming them.

Part 1 provides a ‘perspective’ – peep – into undamentals –riddles and paradoxes o democracy both in theory and in practice.In particular, leadership crises are breeding irreconcilable

adversarial postures among democratic institutions resulting inpolicy paralysis. Political parties without exception are besiegedby internal rits urther compounding their abilities to presentviable alternatives. Its natural allout is rapidly eroding trusto people both in their leaders and in democracy to shape theirdestinies. Ipso acto, credibility o elections is at an all timelow with money and muscle power on grand display. Even themedia is suering rom “Breaking News Syndrome” to spread

sensational or speculative news and views over trivial issuesthereby urther aggravating the divide in the society. And,the emergence o Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and theirincreasing assertiveness is emerging as a powerul actor. Tedemand is or propriety, probity and good governance. Finally,the vexatious issue o creation o small states is covered insucient outline.

In Part 2, an attempt has been made to review realities o unctioning o Parliament and Legislatures particularly the roleand conduct o the Speakers, MPs/MLAs/MLCs particularly time lost due to growing tendency to disrupt unctioning o thehouses. An attempt has been made to highlight the signicanceo the Committee system, drating o bills and measures toovercome communication challenges o “echnology Age”.

Sel assessment as ‘eedback’ tool suggested by internationalagencies has been included which can signicantly contributeto sel actualization.

Finally, in Part 3, key issues – education, healthcare,global water and ood security, sustainable development and



Preface vii

rapid urbanization, violence against women and child, globalterrorism and disaster management considered contextual

with ar reaching ramications on the society and the nationare reviewed in broad outline. Finally , the state o Nationis reviewed in outline to provide a perspective o currentrealities. Demographic transitions and corruption have beenlet out since they have been comprehensively addressed inearlier publications.

Paramount among strategic challenges is demographic

transitions – mother o security challenges. Te demographicrealities are compelling: an increasingly young populationcontrolled by an ageing leadership; hypothetical stationary population likely to cross 1.85 billion by 2050; decliningagrarian returns; and population shits rom rural to urbanareas and identity crises. Insecurity and uncertainty hauntseveryone. Sectarian polarization and violence makes headlinesquite requently. Tere is absolute lack o political will to controlpopulation or illegal migration rom alien lands. It is out o earo losing vote banks.

Following closely behind is corruption – oster mothero strategic challenges. Tose in power want to exploitopportunities to enrich themselves. As a result, gargantuanenvelopment o corruption – both moral and physical - is real.It is with utter disregard to survival or livelihood concerns

o majority. Nepotism and crony capitalism is to the ore.Loot o natural resources with utter disregard to sustainabledevelopment to meet the minimum needs o uture generationsis common place.

Crisis in values – national, organizational and individual -remains a ubiquitous threat to national security. Add to it, crisisin leadership accentuates all round crises prolieration. Leader’s

penchant or double morality is phenomenal. Majority o themare aficted by “I-Me-Mysel-My Dynasty” syndrome and allround siege mentality – sel inicted and destructive. Tey are at war rom within and among them only. Proactive crisismanagement is by exception; by rule, they do episodic reactive



viii Preface

crisis management. Leadership incompetence, more aptly,impotence is quite evident. Leadership vacuum is all pervading.

Most rustrating, but real, leaders, out o power, brazenly and arrogantly stir sentiments and arouse emotions o disgruntled sections to create crises, launch agitations throughprotests and sel immolations justiying them in the name o democracy. Invariably, they spin out o control resulting indamage to properties and disturbance to law and order andmore bizarre, suicides by students and youth. When riot control

measures ail, police open re to quell mob renzy resulting indeath o activists or bystanders or innocents or even suicides.Fringe elements are exploiting opportunities provided by such developments to polarize dierent sections o society onconrontational lines. More important, vendetta politics arequite common. Its allout is bitter emotional and sentimentaldivide o pluralist society undermining national values andunity.

Furthermore, there is growing economic uncertainty dueto widening rich-poor divide and sub regional inequalities, withthe rich paying scant regard to upholding national and humanvalues, rising ination, adverse investment climate loweringinvestor condence and energy insecurity. Energy insecurity,most critical means to achieve the end o prosperity, haunts thenation. Frightening it is, but true, the rapid pace o depletion

o raw material resources – both legal and illegal – may totally exhaust their availability or uture generations to sustainthemselves.

In sum, strategic security challenges aced by the nationare daunting in all elds – social, political, economic andpsychological. I the book provides a ramework to generateintense debate among all stake holders and lay the oundation

or designing architecture or the Second Republic, it ulllsmore than what it has been intended.



CONTENTS

PART 1 – DEMOCRACY AT CROSS ROADS

1. Riddles o Democracy 3

2. Paradoxes O India’s Democracy 15

3. Democratic Institutions At War – Redesigning PoliticalStructures 31

4. Leadership Crisis or Vacuum or Incompetence 43

5. Peoples Eroding rust – Maintaining Credibility 61

6. Crisis in Political Parties 69

7. Credibility o Elections 81

8. Media – Te Fourth Estate or Pillar 95

9. Civil Society Organizations 107

10. Strengthening Democratic Institutions – Checks and

Balances

117

11. Good Governance – Probity and Perormance 127

12. Creation o Small States – Changes to Structure 141



x Contents

PART 2 – PARLIAMENT/LEGISLATURES MIFFED

13. Conduct o Members 157

14. Perormance o Legislators in Te House and

Accountability

169

15. Role o the Speakers 177

16. Signicance o Committee System 183

17. Functioning O Legislatures and Drating o Private

Members Bills

193

18. Fixing ime Limit to the Governor or Giving Assent to

Bills

199

19. Communications Challenges or Parliament 203

20. Reorming the Budget Process 209

21. Audit System – CAG 217

PART 3 – KEY ISSUES

22. On Crisis in Education And Human Resources

Development

233

23. On Crisis in Health care 265

24. On Global Crisis - Water and Food 285

25. Sustainable Development and Rapid Urbanization 301

26. Violence against Women 317

27. Global errorism 339

28. On Disaster Management 347

29. Epilogue

Te State o Nation

361

Appendix I 371

Appendix II 375

Reerences 381



PART 1 – DEMOCRACY AT CROSS ROADS



1

RIDDLES OF DEMOCRACY – UNRAVELING

FUNDAMENALS

Unless common man – Am Admi - understands in outline the“Riddles o Democracy”, they cannot ollow the reasons orcurrent developments and probable uture course on which the

nation may traverse.In reality, the most heinous raud is being committed on

modern India by majority o covetous elected representativeson “We the People”. Its root cause is people’s blind aith withoutunderstanding its nuances. Democracy by ideal conception “o the people; by the people; or the people” has been deviously displaced by “o the ew; by the ew; and, or the ew”- Kleptocracy.

FORMS AND YPES OF DEMOCRACY

Political theories o democracy as an ideology, more aptly, as aconcept, oers many orms and types as given in able 1 below:

Democracy - Forms and ypes

Representative

-Parliamentary,

Presidential - Semi presidential,

Liberal - Direct,Inclusive - Participatory,

Socialist - Cosmopolitan, etc-

Figure 1.1 Democracy – Forms and ypes



4 Democracy in Peril

Democracy is one among many o political orders invogue or practice. Political sages had emphasized long ago

that the ‘Chemistry” o societies and nations in perpetualtransormation is the determinant o political order/conceptbest suited to realize their ull potential. So, it must spring rombelow; not imposed rom above.

In today’s context in India, the reverse is the reality.Democracy in practice is imposed rom top by ew autocrats(High Commands), mostly eudal or neo Maharajah’s,

masquerading as democrats and hijacked by criminals with allother institutions toeing their line. It is borne out o ear thatthe pace o change may also displace them and adversely impacttheir own interests.

Riddles of Democracy or ransformations

Te riddles o democracy are most exciting and complex. It

is 2500 years old. It is one o the many political options orsocieties to exercise, besides anarchism and authoritarianism.

According to John Dunn, the study o history o democracy reveals a gloomy moral drawn by most political theorists o early modern Europe that sel-government is a simply a recipeor chaos, and that some orm o a strong rule is indispensablei.Plato, Socrates disciple, had ponticated over 2300 years ago

(Republic, VIII, Sections 562b-563e) “democracy ruins itsel by excess o democracy. …Mob rule is a rough sea or the shipo state to ride; every wind o oratory stirs up the waters anddeects the course. Te upshot o such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy.” Mob’s are on rampage everywhere incited andinstigated by political leaders claiming to be championing theircause. Kleptocracy and mobocracy are on the rise in India today.

Robert a Dahl, a political scientist, identied threetransormations in political ideas and institutions concerningdemocracy: the Greek city-state democracy; the nation-state democracy; and its ongoing modern dynamic pluralisttransormation - polyarchy.ii



Restructuring systems or Second Republic 5

As per Dahl, the Greek city-state democracy was based onsatisying six requirements. Homogenous citizens inhabiting

a small city (smaller than the orty to ty thousand) withharmonious interests and a strong sense o a general goodwere pre-requisites. Tey should be able to not only assembleand directly decide on the laws and decisions o policy, but alsoactively participate in the administration. Te city-state mustremain ully autonomous. Its essence was based on unanimity.

Dahl’s critique on Greek democracy is illuminating. Greek

democracy suited primordial loyalties o primitive societies. Itdid not cater to the needs o large and heterogeneous nation-states o the later Ages, particularly o complexity o today’sIndia. It was highly exclusive rather than inclusive. A largepart o the adult population was denied citizenship. Women,long term alien residents and slaves were excluded. Betweenseparate Greek city-states, there was no democracy. Te concepto ‘reedom’ did not extend beyond the community. Te Greeks

did not design a stable structure o representative government.

Te republican thought, which swept aside Greekdemocracy, shared its premises: “small states’ and “good man,good citizens, good polity and good civic virtue or the goodo all”. It too experienced conicts o interests. Te ragility o virtue became its major threat concern. Te collapse o civicvirtue was considered inevitable when actions and political

conicts torment societies. Alongside, i people or its leadersbecome corrupt, then the collapse o the republic was consideredinevitable.

Te republican thought developed around two views:aristocratic republican and democratic republican. Tearistocratic republicans developed constitutions based onmixed government o democracy, aristocracy and monarchy

somehow balancing the interests o the many, the ew and theone or promoting the good o all - public good. As per theirview, the unction o the people is not to rule, but choose leaderscompetent to govern the entire polity. Leaders exclusively servethe ‘one’; yet, balance others interests.




By contrast, the democratic republicans did not ear thepeople or the many, but the ew and the ‘one’. For them, the

‘public good’ does not consist o balancing the interests o the many with ew and the ‘one’, but the welare o the peopleor many. o overcome the problem o designing a mixedgovernment or a democratic republic, they adopted a mixo the old with the Montesquieu idea o constitutional andinstitutional separation o powers – legislative, executive and

judicial with each serving as a check on the others.

Yet another crucial development is the clash between theparticipatory Vs representative democracy. Direct participation,the invention o classical democrats, is not possible exceptat‘village’ level today. Representation, the allout o the EnglishCivil War, has come to stay.iii But, Locke had little to say in theSecond reatise (1689-90).

Montesquieu avored representative government in TeSpirit o Laws (1748). Laws, Montesquieu wrote in Book 1,“Tey should be adapted in such a manner to the people orwhom they are ramed that it should be a great chance i thoseo one nation suit another. Tey should be in relation to thenature and principle o each government; whether they ormit, as may be said o politic laws; or whether they support it,as in the case o civil institutions. Tey should be in relationto the climate o each country, to the quality o its soil, to its

situation and extent, to the principal occupation o the natives,whether husbandmen, huntsmen, or shepherds: they shouldhave relation to the degree o liberty which the constitution willbear; to the religion o the inhabitants, to their inclinations,riches, numbers, commerce, manners, and customs. In ne,they have relations to each other, as also to their origin, to theintent o the legislator, and to the order o things on which they

are established.”

iv

However, he had concluded that republicswere best suited to the small countries, limited monarchiesto the middle sized and more prosperous, and enlighteneddespotism’s to the large nations.




Furthermore, Montesquieu reections on passing o lawsare quite illuminating: “Intriguing in a senate is dangerous;

it is dangerous also in a body o nobles; but not so among thepeople, whose nature is to act through passion. In countrieswhere they have no share in the government, we oten see themas much inamed on account o an actor as ever they could beor the welare o the state. Te misortune o a republic is whenintrigues are at an end; which happens when the people are gainedby bribery and corruption: in this case they grow indierent topublic aairs, and avarice becomes their predominant passion.Unconcerned about the government and everything belonging toit, they quietly wait or their hire.”v

In retrospect, the current state o aairs in India truly reects Locke’s lamentation almost 250 years ago. Locke, yetanother political science emeritus, had shown the right path o governance in his book Second reatise: “Tings o this worldare in so constant a ux that nothing remains long in the same

state. Tus people, riches, trade, power, change their stations,ourishing mighty cities come to ruin, and prove in timesneglected desolate corners, whilst other unrequented placesgrow into populous countries, lled with wealth and inhabitants.But things not always changing equally, and private interestoten keeping up customs and privileges, when the reasons o them are ceased, it oten comes to pass, that in governments,

where part o the legislative consists o representatives chosenby the people, that in tract o time this representation becomesvery unequal and disproportionate to the reasons it was at rstestablished upon”; ….; “whenever the legislators endeavor totake away, and destroy the property o the people, or to reducethem to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselvesinto a state o war with the people, who are thereupon absolvedrom any arther obedience, and are let to the common reuge,

which God hath provided or all men, against orce and violence.When so ever, thereore, the legislative shall transgress thisundamental rule o society; and either by ambition, ear,olly or corruption, Endeavour to grasp themselves, or putinto the hands o any other, an absolute power over the lives,




liberties, and estates o the people; by this breach o trust they oreit the power the people had put into their hands or quite

contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a rightto resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment o anew legislative, (such as they shall think t) provide or theirown saety and security, which is the end or which they are insociety.”vi How relevant and appropriate are Locke’s reectionsmade over 300 years ago to current convulsions rocking Indiandemocracy.

Rousseau was against representation in the Social Contract(1762), which was inconsistent with his earlier writings.Rousseau had remarked that “ormulating the general will andthe laws based on it were the business o the whole people”.Te power o legislation, he argued, could never be properly transerred to an elected body.vii Executing the general will,however, could legitimately be the business o the elected body.Tus, the growing conict between those wielding power and

the civil society may plunge the society into utter chaos soonerthan later. o the credit o Rousseau goes or the most invokedremark by human rights activists’ world over that “Man isborn ree; and everywhere he is in chains”. Undeniably naturedignies people; civilization corrupts them; people would be lesscorrupted, i civilized institutions ollowed nature more closely.Freedom is the bedrock o democracy. Te coercive apparatus o

the state cannot be made to trample it.Will Durant lamented on the decay o democracy in his

book “Pleasures o Philosophy” published in 1929: “democracy without education means hypocrisy without limitation; itmeans the degradation o statesmanship into politics; it meansthe expensive maintenance, in addition to the ruling class, o alarge parasite class o politicians, whose unction it is to serve

the rulers and deceive the rule”. How true it is to prevailingsituation in our nation. People are too emotional and tooparochial to govern in India’s context.viii

As per ‘Duns Dilemma’, democracy is the name or whatwe cannot have – yet cannot cease to want it.ix So also, reedom




and order cannot co-exist. For reedom, which is the main teneto democracy promotes anarchy, whereas order breeds tyranny.

Te dierence between reactionary liberals and authoritarianconservatives is also slender.

Factually, democracy was more than a political method – aorm o State since ancient days. It is simply an institutionalarrangement or reaching political decision. Even in democracy people do not rule; they merely elect those who rule. Tosewho rule are the ew powerul politicians - they raise issues and

determine people’s lives. More aptly, they ool the majority andplay around with people’s lives.

Genesis of Nation State

Te concept o ‘state’ was conceived and practiced during theancient and medieval eras, but in dierent orms – the ribalState, the Feudal State, the Papal State and the Empire State.Plato and Aristotle, ancient philosophers par excellence, werethe idealistic exponents o the state. Kautilya (4-3 BC), ancientIndia’s security strategic emeritus, preceded them in India. But,they had prescribed rules or monarchy as political order.

SAE - CONCEPS

ribal State

Feudal State

Papal StateEmpire State

Nation State

Figure 1.2 Concepts o States

Te modern ‘nation-state’ is a post-French Revolution(1789) prescription, albeit nation-states emerged ater the

Peace o Westphalia in 1648. Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu,Rousseau and Hegel, distinguished scholars, comprehensively developed the theory o state.

Laski, an eminent political theorist o 20th century,dened the state as “a society, which is integrated by possessing




a coercive authority legally supreme over any individual or groupwhich is a part o the society”. Also, the object o the state must

aim at “satisying the desires o all its citizens, and satisyingthem in equal measure.”x

Laski had also ruled out rigid or static interpretationand application o the theory o the state. His reections onthe uidity o the concept o state are relevant or eternity:“Political philosophy, thereore, cannot content itsel witha static theory… When we say, thereore, that the state must

secure to each citizen the conditions under which he can ulllhimsel as a moral being, we must realize that those conditionsare not permanent but relative to an environment perpetually changing.”

Modern scholar’s postulate that the State is a pathologicalparadox – an institution that has to tackle problems, it iscongenitally incapable o solving. Tey eel that the State is not

just the product o divisions, but also the producer o divisions.

As per John Homan, yet another eminent politicalscientist, the concept o State is a contentious one. “Te State”,as per Mann, “has been ‘withering away’ in the ace o ‘politicalauthority’, the ‘political system’, ‘administration’ and ‘society’or the past 40 years”.xi In particular, the State is under siegerom non-State actors besides multinational corporations.

Systems Failure

‘Systems ailure” is the buzzword today among intellectualcircles. What does it imply? Simply viewed, it is the decay orailure o institutions to deliver on what is enshrined in thePreamble o the Constitution over the past nearly 63 years.What is the remedy? Opt either to resensitize or reactivate them

to deliver or adopt an appropriate orm o political order or thenation to achieve its ull potential. Yet, politico-bureaucraticcombine wants to maintain status quo ante and sulk invokingthe mantra o “within the ramework o the Constitution”. Forthey oppose even changes within the system. For ormulating




changes within the system acceptable to all alike is impossiblein the emerging Indian context and content. Moreover, changes

disturb laid back norms; and, disturb peace and prosperity o the ew at majority’s cost.

Parliamentary form of Democracy – First Past the

Post Method

From among various types o democracy and elections, India’sounding athers – mostly idealistic, red by ‘spirit o sacrice’

or the sake o reedom rom colonial yoke - chose parliamentary democracy with “rst-past-the-post” method o elections.xii

Over the past nearly 63 years, those ew wielding powersexploited loopholes in the system to perpetuate status quo ante– dynastic and eudal inheritance, sans ollowing prescriptionsby enlightened political sages par excellence. Even those ewmembers o historically deprived sections o society, claiming

legacy o Dr B. Ambedkar, acclaimed as the second greatest Indianater Mahatma Gandhi in the recent poll, who gained powerdue to quota system are simply ollowing the ootsteps o theirpeers to perpetuate amily inheritance. Real democracy remainsa orlorn hope or majority despite high sounding sloganeeringlike “demassication o democracy” and ‘devolution o powers”.Its root cause is simple. Te system – the Constitution o Indiaby original conception was inappropriate to the chemistry o the ‘Great Indian Society’.

It raises a key issue: which orm o democracy is moreappropriate to the current or emerging India’s context andcontent? For the most part, discussion has ocused on therelative advantages and drawbacks o the three major modeso structuring the relationship between the executive andlegislative branches: parliamentary, presidentialism, andsemipresidentialism, which also addresses the issue at the“op” level.

Presidentialism has many advocates. It is a system inwhich the President is directly elected by the people, the




government is appointed by and answerable to the President,and the President enjoys real executive powers. Presidentialism

oers the advantages o a separation o power, holding that thepresence o two entities (the presidency and the legislature),each with its own source o electoral legitimacy, reduces thedanger o radical missteps. Tey maintain that a presidentelected by the whole people can embody the national will betterthan any legislature can. Tey urther contend that a President,as a unitary actor, may be more capable o rapid, decisive actionthan a legislature.

In contrast, those upholding the merits o parliamentary democracy are suspicious o Presidents with real executivepower. Tey laud the permanent dependence o the mostpowerul executive (the prime minister) and his or hergovernment on the legislature. Tey note that no matter howpowerul prime ministers may appear to be, in a parliamentary system they serve at the pleasure o the assembly and can be

dismissed by that assembly i they lose their majority. Teevidence shows that the presence o a powerul legislature is anunmixed blessing or democratization.

Semipresidentialism, sometimes called a “dual” or“mixed” system, combines eatures o presidentialism andparliamentary. It provides or mutual, and oten contested,control o the prime minister and the government as a whole

by both the president and the legislature. Semipresidentialismmay be deended on the same grounds as parliamentary andpresidentialism. Since it provides or some separation o powers,it may, like presidentialism, temper the blunders o either thelegislature or the president. Since it involves direct election o the president, the people as a whole have a decisive voice in theselection o the chie executive. It may also reduce the risks o

presidential arrogance.Tis review in broad outline does not provide insights into

more ruitul way o thinking about how political institutionsinuence democratization, one that examines the capacity orpower o specic oces. Suce to highlight that some advocate




parliamentary and others Presidential and semi-Presidentialorms.xiii Whatever may be intellectual divergences, one thing

is clear. Conceptually, ‘Chemistry” o the societies undergoingrapid re transormations o echnology Age should governthe type or orm o democracy opted to suit the context andcontent.

Need for Tird ransformation

Robert A Dahl has raised the issue “Is a third transormation

o democratic limits and possibilities now on the horizon?”Polyarchy is his prescription.xiv Dahl succinctly identied theneed or the new paradigm. He or she justies the need ornew set o political institutions to cater to developments o echnology Civilization Age – the third transormation in themaking.

It is long overdue to identiy and ormulate the “Tird

ransormation” in Indian democracy due to the awakening o masses on account o inormation technology revolution. Tedays o heredity or dynastic democracy, which is both despoticand autocratic, are over. Surely, wisdom and arbitrary power asit is in practice by the ew in India today is not the prerogativeo ew by dynastic inheritance at all levels. Democracy “o the people, by the people and or the people” is a conceptualmirage. Democracy is conceived or the good o the people. I elected representatives do not contribute to the good o thepeople, it calls or a de novo review to suit to the chemistry o the emerging society. Changes are inevitable, inescapable andimperative with utmost expedition.

democracy in peril - a preview

Documents