Opinion We the bullied

Can our basic democratic procedures be so easily dispensed with?

April 13, 2011 03:43 AM IST First published on: Apr 13, 2011 at 03:43 AM IST

Burning questions too long to be put on SMS or Twitter but all unanswered so far. Why are you worried about who is on the committee to draft the Lokpal bill or what this movement comprises? What is this movements politics,which will decide on this important bill? Is Baba Ramdev in or out? Was Narendra Modi ever in? It reflects a mood,we have been told,and that the government has accepted it as such,so enough is enough. A retired IPS officer explains,wincing as she enunciates the word representation: It is not about representation. The people in the panel know the law and will give us a good Lokpal bill.

No one is making a case for the disappearance of pressure groups or NGOs to try and change things and strengthen ideas of representation. On the contrary. Movements,social and political,past and present,have helped Indias democracy mature and deepen from Vaikom,where there was a move to enable Dalit entry to temples,to anti-zamindari movements that helped India break the back of feudalism and create conditions for the middle class to emerge. The freedom movement was not just about the overthrow of colonial rule. It explored the idea of citizenship and enfolded identity into a brand of inclusive nationhood through a series of stirring agitations,including the real Gandhis very own projects and fasts against communalism and caste oppression. Indeed,with the Periyar-led movement for backward castes in south India and the Mandal movement for the OBCs in north India many years later,political agitations deepened democracy by exploring the meaning of equality and opportunity. They drew more people into the discourse,by giving them a vote and a voice and thereby opening up access to power.

Of course,the link between rulers and those who have elected them has often been tenuous and imperfect,but there is no denying the incremental progress even if gradually the citizen is acquiring a sense of being a participant in Indian democracy,a real stakeholder. Huge and shocking inequalities of opportunity remain,there is a lot we need to demand from our system and push it to be more responsive,something each of these movements did. And along with dignity and ideas,each of them threw up their own sets of leaders and representatives,who pulled in their weight,imparting some of their colour,energy and personality to the system. A whole new set of leaders were embraced by successive movements who werent nihilists,but had worked hard on ways to broaden the idea of representation and make their place in the democratic structure.

This latest demand by some NGOs,that their self-appointed representatives be given a final say in law-making,is therefore of an entirely different order. It begs the question,why did the Central government give in to these demands so easily? Certainly,the agitation found the Congress at a most vulnerable moment,when the air is thick with talk of scams. But more than that,the tactic of para-trooping a Gandhian outsider as part of a civil society movement has hit the ruling establishment where it hurts the most.

The top three faces of UPA-2 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi had managed to together convey stirring images of dependability and trustworthiness during the spectacularly successful 2009 Lok Sabha campaign. But it was constantly emphasised between the lines that their redoubtability drew from being outsiders to the system. The system,whether in government or in the party,was always shown to be separate from their personal images. Dr Singh played the non-politician; the Congress president is not part of the executive formally nor is Rahul Gandhi. Being the outsider gave each of them a certain halo and distance from the mess the system was supposed to be in. And it worked.

But now,when a few pushy activists threw in a genuine outsider,a hinterland Gandhian known to champion causes with fasts,with his spartan,raw appeal,it served up a useful symbol for some of the middle classes (known so far,for an entirely different set of consumption patterns from Anna Hazares). And suddenly,in contrast to the Gandhian,the PM and the Congress leadership now appeared starkly as establishment and this made allowing images of the continuation of the fast live on TV very damaging. Therefore,the imperative to act quickly especially when many in the opposition had also begun to appropriate the anti-establishment mood.

This is where the political class is flirting with danger. It is failing to articulate a political position that emphasises what is wrong with imposing something,howsoever good,without a legitimate process that it will eventually undermine the very system that is being sought to be fixed. If the system can so easily dispense with basic democratic procedures,what is this shiny new system we are working towards? In the future,if someone does not like something about the system,could she just rally anger around the subject,cite it as injustice and create the atmospherics to have her way?

Also,assertions of being apolitical and pious have often been the most dangerous ones,as they are used to keep ideas and ideologies beyond questioning. To silence questions that are raised about this movement by saying that it has no ideology is disingenuous,and absolutely undemocratic. Of course,for the political parties,including those in government,it may appear to be easy to play along with this civil society quest for a one-shot solution,instead of summoning a patience with procedures,and genuinely cleaning up and simplifying them to fix the corrupt.

But the quick and easy path in this case is also the more dangerous road,and it is one on which we have already embarked all because there are some people around who talk loud enough to make claims about representing the people. We,the electors and those we elected,have just given them a walkover.

seema.chishti@expressindia.com