Mend your mindset, man ...

Mend your mindset, man…

 - Vinay Sahasrabuddhe 

More than three weeks after the December 16 gangrape in Delhi, the nation continues to be outraged over incidents of sexual assault against women. Even those who have never heard anything about either feminism or gender justice are aghast by the utter insensitivity betrayed by some individuals.

A large section of the media and some self-proclaimed champions of women’s cause chose to ignore the utterances of CPI(M) leader Anisur Rahman that were an outright insult to womanhood. On the other hand the lure of scoring brownie points made many wantonly misinterpret what RSS chief had observed. In the ensuing cacophony the fundamental issue of how and why the traditional male mindset needs to change never came to the discussion table. Thus one can understandably be afraid that at the end of the day even all this noise on issues concerning women’s security and safety may not result in any real public education.
It must be noted that gender occupies prime position in the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Apart from gender equality, ending poverty and hunger, universal education, reducing child mortality and improving maternal health are the other four goals where the role of women is critical and needs universal recognition.

Over the last over 25 years, societal perspective towards gender issues has undergone transformation. This has happened due to two principal reasons. First, large-scale self-realisation on the part of women has led to greater awareness about gender issues all over the world. And second, thanks to sound theorisation of gender equality by social scientists, thinkers and opinion makers, gender issues have acquired an element of political correctness. As a consequence, nobody dares to challenge the logic behind gender equality, especially in public. However, sadly but certainly, this pressure of political correctness has masked the mindsets of men — and at times even women — majority of whom continue to believe that men and women are naturally unequal and any effort to bring equality is bound to fail. This thinking prevails not only in the educationally or socially backward societies but also in the most advanced, economically affluent sections, the so-called progressive people.
This makes one realise that women empowerment hinges, among other things, primarily on changing the traditional mindset of men. If men continue to not understand the meaning of women’s rmpowerment, or if they wantonly ignore the applied gender-justice principals, it often adds to the agony of women, already under the burden of changing expectations in the midst of unchanged social climate.
Decades ago, Acharya Dada Dharmadhikari, a well-known Gandhian and Sarvodaya leader, had advocated what can be described as “reverse discrimination” within the four-walls of our homes. In traditional societies, when women started occupying all those spaces that were traditionally considered the sole reserves of men, family-centric societies started experiencing upheavals. It also created a picture of apparent imbalance. To correct this, as prescribed by Dada Dharmadhikari, what was needed was men’s entry into and occupation of those areas that were and are traditionally considered women’s only.  

What he meant was something very practicable and yet very difficult. If women are flying airplanes, why can’t men babysit and cook a meal, was his question. But majority of men are not inclined to do this and this is what has added further to the already stretched relationship between men and women. No wonder many male politicians find it hard to digest the proposed quota for women in political representation.

To correct this, building capacities of men through change-mindset training is the only effective way. We, at Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini, which is South Asia’s only training institute for elected representatives, has been doing this for a decade, right after quotas for women at the local government level were implemented in Maharashtra. Our experience in the context of a structured training aimed at changing the male mindset has been very interesting and the results very insightful.
After conducting a series of interactive training workshops for municipal councillors and other elected representatives, we have drawn four main conclusions. First, it is a must that men take extra effort towards understanding a woman’s world: women, their life-approach, their role in the family, their expectations and revisiting the typicality of the male view about these issues. Second, there is a need for men to empathise with women: understanding the psychological-emotional process that women go through and then developing an intellectual understanding of it. Third, men need to recognise that gender equality is integral to the concept of social justice. And last, understanding and pro-actively utilising the inherent leadership qualities of women while ungrudgingly accepting the fact that women are better managers. At the practical level, one may also think of introducing a set of behavioural norms or do’s and don’ts to ensure that gender justice gets translated in our day-to-day lives.

All this again makes us revisit the question of quota for women in Parliament and also Legislative Assemblies. Quotas are nothing more than accepting the fact that women need to be given the space, which is due to them. But much before that, they need their legitimate share in our mind-space, in our thinking world. Changed mindset of men alone will make way for that space.
For women to be able to walk freely and fearlessly, the one small but powerful step needed is to create enabling environs for them to gain a firm foothold, be it in politics or governance. Sadly but truly, empowering men with the ability to think in this way has become the precondition of genuine and effective women empowerment. The sooner both men and women understand this, the better.

The Asian Age has carried this piece today but with a misleading title. The right title is what appears 

Electors and the Elected

Why is the bonding missing?

Vinay Sahasrabuddhe

------------------------------------------------------------------

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment and he betrays you instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”. –

Edmund Burk, speech at Bristol 1774

It’s a strange coincidence that just when the Parliament is celebrating its 50^th anniversary, the hiatus between the electors and the elected is becoming more and more pronounced. After Arvind Kejriwal now it is Baba Ramdev who has indulged in calling names to our Members of Parliament. Expectedly, both of them have received flack from the parliamentarians and others as well. While members of civil society and parliament may continue with their war of words, it is enlightening to know as to how members of the public view these allegations and counter allegations. If the comments that readers routinely post below a news item on a newspaper portal are any indication, eight out of ten see nothing wrong about such comments, regardless the fact how irresponsible they are. But the real issue is not the comments or the objections to them. What is more important is looking into the factors that have adversely affected the relationship between people and their representatives. Withering away of the mutual bonding between the voters and the voted doesn’t augur well for the health of our representative democracy. If this distance remains uncovered, democracy will not be deemed as ‘of the people’ as what Abraham Lincoln had envisaged.

Why the very people who elect a representative tend to disown him/her almost the very next day? Why those who praise an elected representative publicly, assail almost the entire politician community privately? Why there is so much of derision and contempt all around about those whom we do not mind voting for? Why has the sense of belonging towards our elected houses been evaporating so unmistakably every time?  Where exactly has the bonding between the electors and the elected gone? Questions galore.

There are obviously multiple factors responsible for this situation. Not that people do not want to love the leaders, they elect. But the quality deficit understandably puts them off. More importantly, the crisis of purpose that has haunted politics of today has now come to the nerves of the people. They hardly believe that politicians fight elections genuinely for the cause of serving the people. Most of them continue to commit this mistake of over-generalisation thanks to the sensation-mongering media that routinely overlooks the contribution of serious, silently functioning, committed and studious elected representatives. As a consequence the image of an elected representative today is far more distorted than the reality.

Another important reason behind the public disdain for elected politicians is the weak connectivity between the electors and the elected. People who face some problem approach an elected representative with the hope of redressing their grievance. Rarely, those who want to offer some suggestions or give some policy inputs also meet an elected representative. But those who do not want to seek any favor or have no particular work with the elected representative, hardly think of visiting him and vice versa. Majority of the electors come in this last category and they end up feeling that the one whom they have elected hardly bothers for them. Obviously, this adds to the existing chasm.

The third, and perhaps the most vital reason is the nature of our electoral system. First-past-the-post system adopted by us has done several harms to our body polity. It has converted electoral battle into a mere matter of mastering the technique. Besides, it has promoted divisive tendencies, as the victory in our elections hinges more on dividing the negative vote than accumulating the positive one. If an electoral system is facilitating victory of a candidate who gets a mere 20% votes and ignores the huge (80%) popular opinion that has rejected him/her outright, how would the elected have legitimacy in the eyes of the electors?

All this has contributed to the fact that ‘aam admi’ today relishes denouncing the politician. This crisis of dis-connect has been compounded by our continued neglect of political parties as institutions. With no mechanism for monitoring the functioning of political parties and a deafening silence on the front of even electoral reforms, let alone all encompassing political reforms; this distance is bound to grow. It was proper on the part of the Lok Sabha speaker to admonish Team Anna Hazare for their utterances. But, lets not forget that their keeping the mouths shut is not going to create the missing connectivity trapped by the system. IN UK, in 2000, a commission headed by Lord Norton was set up to look into the ways and means of strengthening parliament. In its foreword Lord Norton had said, “Parliament has a number of functions that it has generally fulfilled effectively. However, there is an imbalance in the relationship between Parliament and the executive. There is a need to ensure that Parliament can call government to account.” Sixty years before we decided to institutionalise our democracy on the British model. Now, we realise that we have inherited the infirmities of the system as well. But in Britan there is a quest for solutions. There is no reason why this passion for finding answers should be in short supply here.

Vinays57@gmail.com
THIS was carried by The Asian Age and DECCAN CHRONICLE in their issues on May 14, 2012 

Strengthening Institutions to make Democracy Deliver: Learnings from Arab spring and after

(Text of the paper presented at the International Seminar on Arab Spring and After organised  by Centre for International, Strategic and Development Studies, Mumbai in Mumbai on 28-29-30 March 2012)

There are clear messages that the Arab spring has sent out to the outer world. The first and the fundamental message is that people have become restive. Aspiring societies in the modern world today are not going to remain silent in the face of deception, deprivation, and non-deliverability on the count of good governance. They want results. With the atmosphere full of uncertainty and insecurity, people all over the world are understandably losing patience. The desire for a promising tomorrow is now so acute that they would like to examine the seeds that are being sown to make sure that the crop is going to be as per the their expectations, both in quality and quantity. Besides patience, people are also fast losing whatever the faith in the system.

The Arab spring therefore has a multi-dimensional message. The popular unrest has served a notice to all those elements failing in ensuring a secured future. Secure, both politically as well as economically.  When Arab countries were witnessing this democratic upsurge, in India we had Lokpal movement. A year after the first protest fast undertaken by Anna Hazare, there certainly are question marks before the movement’s future. However, they should not make us unmindful of the challenge of finding answers to some issues thrown by the movement.

The three main factors behind the Arab spring were –

1. A very corrupt or weak government

2.Unhappy wealthy and military classes of people and

3. A desire for change supported and acted upon by different political and popular groups.

At the backdrop of these factors is the fact that most of the countries witnessing extempore popular uprising were governments working under a façade of democracy.

Sham Republics

Governments in Egypt and Tunisia were corrupt and more importantly weak on delivery count as well. Autocrats in both countries did not have genuine popular mandate and hence they severely lacked in legitimacy. The abysmal lack of good public administration added to the restlessness not only amongst the poor and disadvantaged sections but also the affluent and powerful sections of the society. Military, too had no reason to not to support and revolt against the corrupt heads of governments. In a situation of this kind, a desire for change got further fillip and people took to streets, without caring so much for the immediate consequences.

Were the uprisings in the Arab countries merely for democratic rights? To consider that replacing sham democratic structures by genuine one will leave the people happy thereafter is denying the hard reality. Democracy is essential, but perhaps no more enough. Along with democracy, people are now yearning for state building where quality public administration as a part of overall good governance is delivered. If democracy fails in delivering this; the specter of people preferring a dictator to a democratically elected government may not be all that remote. There is evidence to suggest that people may even prefer autocratic rule to democracy if there is a guarantee on the delivery count.

Yearning for effective governance

Senior American journalist and political commentator David Broder once pointed out that there is a widening gap between acceptance and effectiveness of democracy.[1] Analysing the reasons for the same, he says that death of ideology, decline of state, decline of religion, low esteem of politics as a profession, and the irresponsible role of media in general, are the causes behind democracy becoming less effective.

On the performance count, new and emerging democratic governments all over the world have more often than not, met with failures. Even countries where democracy was supposed to be already well established, such as Venezuela and Columbia, became “destabilized and seriously threatened in the past decade by economic mismanagement, corruption, and state decay as established parties and politicians grew complacent and distant from popular concerns.”[2] Many countries in South America, suffered a deep crisis of governance that inevitably resulted in sharp erosion in the authority and capacity of the state as also public confidence in democratic institutions. Similar is the case with some of the former Soviet countries. Even after a decade of democratisation, here, power is wielded with the same old style that smacks of authoritarianism, elections are still less fair and rule of law continues to be fragile. Little wonder then, that Richard Rose of University of Strathclyde in Glasgow found that 41 percent of Russians and 51 percent of Ukrainians   favored the restoration of communist rule.[3] As recently as in 2003, public opinion all over the world showed an alarming decrease in the support base for democracy. The results of ‘The Pew Global Attitudes Project for 2011’,[4] has brought out some interesting findings. The report says: In 1991, majorities of Russians and Ukrainians clearly favored democracy, rather than a strong leader, as the best way to address their country's problems. By 2002 opinion had reversed, with two-thirds or more in each country saying they preferred a strong leader. In Poland and Bulgaria views were mixed on the issue, while publics in the Czech Republic and Slovakia continued to strongly support democracy. A recent report about the State of Democracy in South Asia[5] has revealed that only 49% of Indians prefer democracy while 14% believe that democracy or dictatorship makes no difference to them.

It is a fact that strengthening institutions that facilitate the expression of democratic demands is extremely important. Introducing elections is an essential ingredient of this process, but that alone is perhaps not enough. If this process eventually fails in enhancing governance capacity in managing the delivery of basic public goods and services, it will ultimately end up promoting greater public disenchantment. Hence, the future of Arab spring movement is pregnant with the grave challenge of establishing state mechanisms that are open, participative and democratic and at the same time efficient and productive while making democracy deliver.

Unified Theory

In this context, it is worth examining what noted political scientist Pippa Norris has presented as ‘unified theory’.[6] This theory predicts “that the institutions of both liberal democracy and state capacity need to be strengthened in parallel for the most effective progress deepening human security, within the broader enduring fixed constraints posed by structural environments.  Democracy and governance are rightly regarded as separate and distinct phenomena both conceptually and empirically.”    Norris’s ‘unified theory’ underscores that regimes reflecting both these dimensions are necessary (although not sufficient) for effective development

There is a particular pattern in the way dictators of the Middle East, whether they are called kings, presidents, and prime ministers, some of them disguising their authoritarian regime better than others. This pattern involves a two-pronged approach. Keeping the wealthy elite in good humour on the one hand and satisfy the lower classes through providing heavily subsidized essential commodities. However, while this pattern helps a dictator stick to power, it also makes his position vulnerable. When economy is in bad shape, the elite expect more than the leader can give, and the now educated population wants jobs, prosperity, and the voice in the government, which has previously been denied to them. This leads to the end of legitimacy of the leader and people gather courage to raise a banner of revolt.

Arab spring was a surprise for many. The general impression was that the Arab republics were generally doing well. Most of them even today are republics for namesake. There were houses comprising representatives elected by the people and at least ostensibly, the governments were run by these elected representatives. People were fed up of this façade of democracy, as it did not deliver at all. They tolerated the autocrats who were ruling under the garb of a republic state till such a point as things became absolutely intolerable.

Democracy being a holistic idea, mere elections or mere freedom of expression is not enough. With technological advancement as it is preventing access to information and avenues for expression of thoughts has become lot more difficult, if not impossible. Besides, universally there is an acute sense of insecurity filled in the climate and hence somehow, people want to express their pent up feelings. Uprisings in the Arab world as well as the largely extemporary character of the Anna Hazare-led Lokpal movement are a pointer to this state of mind of the people.

Delivering democracy

Developing sound institutions for facilitating a delivering democracy is fundamental to the idea of effective democracy. If democracy is all about free exercise of the right to select then availability of worthy options of groups and leaders for selection, and evolving smart electoral systems facilitating undistorted expression of genuine public opinion become extremely important. This has to be coupled with a deliberative system for result oriented and decisive governance mechanism. Political parties, Electoral system and Parliament are therefore the three critical corner stones of any democratic edifice.  Absence of sound institutional development and the resultant poor quality of governance coupled with muzzling of public opinion has arguably proved to be the lethal cocktail for overthrowing of the established regimes in Arab spring. On this backdrop, it is high time for democracies like India to look within, audit the performance of its institutions and adopt an agenda for massive reforms. In democracy, traditions and precedents are important and tokenism too is a part of this. But too much of tokenism often leads to hypocrisy. A feeling of deception is inherent to hypocrisy, and this very feeling of being deceived all along seems to have caught the imagination of the masses in India too.  When the entire edifice of democratic governance is perceived as unproductive, democratic institutions evoke not respect but revulsion. India is passing precisely through the same process. Anna Hazare-led movement could rightly be described as an expression of the deep- seated popular disenchantment with the entire political class.

In order to understand the striking similarities in the ground situations both in Egypt and India, it would be enlightening to read what an article in Foreign Affairs has said about Egypt. The article says,  “Everything in Egypt -- from obtaining a driver's license to getting an education -- is formally very cheap but in practice very expensive, since most transactions, official and unofficial, are accompanied by off-the-books payments. The government pays schoolteachers a pittance, so public education is poor and teachers supplement their salaries by providing private lessons that are essential preparation for school exams. The national police were widely reviled long before their brutal crackdowns at the inception of the January 25 revolt because they represented, in essence, a nationwide protection racket. Ordinary citizens had to bribe police officers all too ready to confiscate licenses and invent violations”[7]

Both, in Arab countries as well as in India, the young activists in each country have been sharing ideas, tactics, and moral support, but they are confronting different opponents and operating within different contexts. Now that the euphoria about Arab spring is over, it is high time efforts for building strong democratic institutions in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are taken up by social and political leaders with all dexterity at their command. Much has been said about the role and impact of social media in the context of both, the Arab spring and the Lokpal movement. It does have a role, important but also limited. It allows informal association, temporarily overcomes the lack of leadership and enables free flow of information. All this helps greatly in organising protests. But it must also be remembered that communication can start the process of democracy but it cannot complete it.

Challenges ahead

Preventing corruption, arresting economic decline and establishing a rule of law are the three basic challenges in all Arab spring countries. Corruption and economic decline have remained common obstacles in the path of successful new democracies. While these factors added to the popular skepticism about democracy in Latin America, in Russia they seriously undermined the country’s democratic experiment during the Boris Yeltsin presidency.

If the challenge in Arab world is that of building institutions, in India it is that of preventing their collapse and revitalizing them. India, will have to pay urgent attention to all encompassing democratic reforms about which little is being discussed. In Arab world as well as in India the common point to be placed high on the agenda would be reducing the gap between those who are empowered and those who are not, both politically as well as economically.

In the Indian context, it would be misleading to get unduly impressed by the increased percentage of voting in Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. Winning elections has already become a technique and with flawed electoral system, rarely it turns out to be a genuine popular mandate. The sooner we stop boasting about being the largest democracy of the world and start introducing reforms to wipe off the wide spread cynicism and frustration about the political system, the better.

Pippa Norris[8] noted political scientist from Kennedy School of Government presents a brilliant analysis of similar conditions, which is worth understanding. She says, “…development is most effective where regimes combine the qualities of democratic responsiveness and state effectiveness.” According to her, regardless of whatever the theory suggests, in practice, liberal democracies often prove imperfect on the count of accountability and good governance related procedures “particularly where party competition is limited, electoral systems are manipulated, or channels of participation are skewed towards money votes over people votes.” Norris further argues that “The institutions in liberal democracy can limit the abuse of power, but curbing Leviathan does not ensure that leaders will necessarily have the capability to implement effective public policies addressing social needs.” Norris further points out that “Moreover the initial move from autocracy, and the rhetorical promises commonly made by leaders during transitional elections, often encourages rising expectations among ordinary citizens. If these cannot be met by elected officials, due to limited state capacity, this can be a recipe for frustration.” [9]

Learnings for India

What Pippa Norris has analysed is significant in the context of India. Venomous statements of the likes of civil society leaders Arvind Kejriwal will come always under flack, and perhaps rightly. However, how exactly we as a nation are going to meet the questions that are posed by the situation continues to be a big challenge. Continuously widening gap between the electors and the elected is a pointer to the grave situation. When we have 78% of the Lok Sabha members today winning the election despite the fact that 50% of the electors in respective constituencies have voted against them, legitimacy of the representative democracy itself has become questionable. Should this continue for long, we will have neither good governance nor genuine democracy.

While describing the huge popular response to Lokpal movement, media had compared Jantar –Mantar in Delhi to Tahrir Square. Comparisons like these have limited meaning. But, like those spearheading the Tahrir Square upsurge, Lokpal movement also loses its way and fails in unveiling a larger agenda for political and institutional reforms for an effective democracy, people will have a new set of reasons to be more cynic about the system. One certainly cannot rule this out. Strong visionary leadership with organisational skills and strategic thinking after all is in short supply on the banks of both Nile and Yamuna.

Vinays57@gmail.com

---

[1] David Broder, Lecture at the Salzburg Seminar session 384, on Democracy. June 13, 2001

[2] Larry Diamond, “The Global State of Democracy”, in ‘Current History’ Dec. 2000, Vol.99, No. 641 p.416

[3] ibid p.417

[4] http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/?cat=commentary

[5] SDSA team, State of Democracy in South Asia p.228-229

[6] For reference, please see -    http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/WhyDemocraticGovernance/Chapter%201.pdf

[7] Demystifying the Arab Spring, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2011

[8] http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/WhyDemocraticGovernance/Chapter%201.pdf

[9] ibid 

UPA: The Crisis of Ownership

Nobody seems to be in charge of the Government, hence none is accountable!

The way the UPA is being run, the way almost with unmistakable regularity blunders are being committed one after the other and the way persons at the helm of affairs continue to give a false impression of business as usual, one wonders as to who is the maai-baap of this Government. Is there a single soul around who would own up the acts of omission and commission of the UPA?
Serial blunderers at the helm of affairs of this Government have not only added to the overall cynicism but also severely damaged popular confidence in their ability to lead. No Government in the past had reduced itself into a virtual lame duck regime due to its own non-performance. In the 1980s, Mrs Indira Gandhi had at least promised a Government that works. Her daughter-in-law seems to be happy presiding over a Government that shirks.
Event after event, the Government seems to be in competition with itself as to how further messy can things be made. Anna Hazare and the complete saga of his Lokpal movement was the height of complicating simple things. The fact that none of the senior members of the Cabinet has had any brush with a popular movement became more and more telling when senior UPA functionaries appeared clueless in dealing with Team Anna. The Government could have easily rectified its initial mistakes by roping in the Opposition in the consultation process, thus making it a broad-based negotiating platform. As if the earlier mistakes were not enough, in the Winter Session the Government’s sheer inability on every front — from media management to floor management — was on full display.
Expectedly, the new year dawned with no fresh approach towards a better management of the multi-dimensional task of running a Government. The near total relationship breakdown with Ms Mamata Banerjee and her Trinamool Congress, the abysmal lack of tack and dexterity in dealing with the issue of date of birth of the Army Chief, and the highly disappointing weak-kneed approach in handling the Salman Rushdie visit are three cases in point.
Ms Banerjee is known for being unpredictable. After having agreed to play second fiddle to her,it was not difficult for the Congress to pre-empt some teething problems. Right at the beginning of the partnership, the Congress could have played hardball with Ms Banerjee, making her accept an institutional set-up like that of a coordination committee. Besides, the party would have lost almost nothing had it chosen to call it a day after her insulting treatment and reminded her that, like marriage, alliances endure only when both the partners realise the need for it.
The unseemly controversy over the date of birth of the Chief of Army Staff speaks volumes about the lack of the Government’s administrative acumen. The UPA leadership appeared devoid of foresight, essential for preventing any institutional damage such incidents cause. Forget preventive measures, even the semblance of damage control mechanism also seemed to have been in short supply. Was it inevitable? Were all the available options for avoiding this public controversy tried?
If mishandling of the Lokpal issue and the avoidable relationship-breakdown with the Trinamool Congress betrayed a sheer lack of political management, the dispute over date of birth of Army Chief brought to the fore the insensitivity and the lack of politico-administrative decision-making on the part of the Government. This ineptness by the UPA leadership is also seen as an insult to the entire community of ex-Army men.
As if all this was not enough, the Salman Rushdie episode was handled with abject lack of imagination. Perhaps, it was wrong on the part of the liberal fraternity to expect the UPA leadership to be taking a truly secular approach while dealing with this issue. The international literary fraternity realised that both the liberal establishment as well as the Government here readily crawl when, in fact, they are just asked to bend a little, when it comes to caste and community  politics. Again, adroit handling of this issue was certainly not all that difficult.
The latest is the series of crises emerging out of the multiplicity of approaches on the part of different arms of the Government is the controversy over Indian Space Research Organisation scientist Madhavan Nair. Merits of the case apart, how can the Government move without taking the head of the Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Council on board when the issue is so very sensitive and involves some leading lights of the nation’s scientific community? Besides, how can the chief of the Prime Minister’s SAC go public and assail the Government’s move so very brazenly?
At the root of this series of failures is a crisis of ownership. Whose Government is this, after all? Is it a Manmohan Singh Government managed by Sonia Gandhi from behind the scene or a Sonia Gandhi regime with governance outsourced to Mr Singh? Who owns this Government? Who is responsible for repeated mistakes? Are the Government officials and Ministers out to hoodwink us by pointing fingers at one another? Is there any internal assessment mechanism? In these days of acute power shortage, do the UPA leaders ever turn the searchlight inward?
Remember, a division of responsibility on the political and the administrative lines is not only meaningless but also against the popular interests. In an arrangement like this, one can hardly expect any accountability and transparency. In a situation like this, accountability is shrouded in mystery and transparency has become illusionary, as what is being seen is not what is happening in reality.
India has witnessed several coalition Governments in the past. UPA1 could easily pass the burden of its non-performance on the recalcitrant Left parties. But if UPA2 is delivering almost nothing, it is mainly because of the ‘mutually beneficial’ arrangement of ‘coalition of convenience’.  Once and for all, the nation needs to be told as to who is running this Government? If at all, who owns UPA2?
(Published in The Pioneer, Delhi, February 6, 2012) 

A resurgent Republic can't eschew reform

Vinay Sahasrabuddhe

EVENTS in the recent past clearly manifest what can be described as the delivery deficit of democracy in India. Judiciary has raised the pitch of its activism. Civil society suddenly has become very articulate and assertive. A pro-active media — even in the days of its diminishing credibility — has suddenly started pointing fingers and conducting trial by itself. All these are the symptoms of a situation where most of the principal players continue to be clueless and yet pretend that they have some answers — answers to the all pervading in-efficacy of our model of democratic governance!

Forget mega challenges like corruption-free good governance, poverty, unemployment and national security. Has this republic been able to give potable water to everybody? What to speak about cities free from slums? Or, say footpaths without squatters? When we, all the taxpayers hope a safe and secure civic life, are we asking for moon?

Political scientists and observers believe that India has chosen stability of a sort over growth. India-born British economist Lord Meghnad Desai had once cryptically observed that to stay a peaceful and stable society India has to be a muddle and mess. While many will certainly differ with this observation, the fact remains that a country like India with a billion plus population, 28 states enjoying considerable autonomy, 33 major languages and 1650 dialects and six major religions, one of which is Islam followed by 13 per cent of people, understandably; has to put staying together above everything. As what the Economist had once observed we appear to be satisfied with remaining “a slow moving but flexible democracy” as if that “is the only way of holding all this together”. But still, questions remain unanswered. Was it really necessary to tolerate the lack of jeepable roads and schools sans teachers or live with power cuts and load shedding even 65 years after Independence?

However, with changing times, people have become restive, not happy with just “holding together” and are craving for change. Many believe that India requires both political and economic reforms together. There also appears a very strong opinion that unless either of the two major political parties has at least 200 plus seats and coalition government has a majority in the Lok Sabha, serious efforts for major reforms of any kind will continue to be neglected. One cannot find fault with Rahul Bajaj’s observation that what absorbs most of the energies of the Government are mainly “short-term political expediency and crisis management.”

Several others also have stressed the need for political reforms. After more than half a century of the attainment of Independence and having given the present Constitution a chance, it is worthwhile to ponder over as to where are we exactly heading. Let us accept the ground reality that ‘we the people’, have failed in achieving the goals set before by the makers of the Constitution and we all need to have a re-look at the present system. To say that the Constitution has not failed people in India but the latter have failed their own Constitution takes the discussion only little ahead. And even if people have failed the Constitution, what is essential is to study all those factors that have led to this situation. Many concur with this conclusion. Founder chairman of software giant, Infosys, NR Narayan Murthy, had once gone on record without mincing words. He had insisted that we require reforms since “our institutions—from parliament and legislatures to courts and distribution systems—have become pervaded with corruption.”

As a consequence, popular faith in democracy is fast on the wane. People, mainly those who have experienced the Emergency of 1975 do not say it in so many words. They understand what lack of democracy means. But what about others? Many who are socially conscious and ideologically committed rightly believe that to be cynic is a luxury. No wonder then the younger generation may want to ask “can you give us a single reason why one should not get frustrated with the non-functioning of the systems here?”

This depleting popular faith in democracy and the consequent tightening of the grip of all pervading cynicism on the minds of the people has resulted in an absolute lack of popular initiative. A sense of utter contempt, almost bordering on a deep-seated hatred, about the political class is visible when people voice their opinions. A glance at the excerpts of a letter written to the editor by some of the readers of a newspaper in Ahmedabad soon after the 1999 elections have been quoted by Jagdeep S Chhokar, a senior activist of Association of Democratic Reforms. Excerpts quoted by him read as follows—“Thank God! The verbal cacophony, throwing of abuses and trading of charges by political parties with each other is over…what democratic values this bunch of self-appointed leaders will propagate with such narrow-minded approaches. Our democracy ends the day we cast our vote No wonder people showed fatigue and displayed lack of enthusiasm in the type of democratic exercise now repeatedly held to elect the begging candidates so that on being elected they can sit in power and loot us, and amass wealth and power for their dynasties.”

A popular ballad-type folk song in Maharashtra originally sung by Shahir Sable in 1956 in a Marathi folk-theatre programme named Bapacha Bap ridicules the entire political class by narrating a story. The narrative suggests that god had once wrongfully sent a brain-less creature on the earth and how the same has become a political leader. These examples are a true reflection of public disdain and all pervading cynicism about the entire electoral process that has singularly occupied the centre-stage of our democracy.

Several Indian-observers abroad also believe that introducing reforms is the only way to retrieve the situation. Few years before when as a researcher, I interacted with some prominent political scientists in some foundations in UK and USA, they insisted that we in India essentially have to do away the populist character of parliamentary democracy by cleansing the entire body politic. Many of them further advocated that political parties in India must tighten the formal control and revitalise their organisations. Power brokers must not be given any patronage at all. If this is not done, the next generation will get more disillusioned.

Unfortunately, widespread disdain about politicians has acquired centrality in public discourse. In the April 2011 agitation led by Anna Hazare, ridiculing politicians had become a favourite pastime. While politicians have to seriously look into the reasons behind this widespread disdain, others must understand that mere disdain can take us nowhere. This situation has added to cynicism, the virus of which has generated a crisis of motivation as also a crisis of leadership practically at all levels. According to experiences narrated by a group of newly elected members of Municipal Corporations in Mumbai, Pune and Solapur, a noteworthy aspect of the 2007 elections for Municipal Corporations and District Councils (Zilla Parishads) in Maharashtra, political parties had to organise stage performances of beer bar-girls prior to the public meetings in several parts of districts like Ahmednagar in order to ensure people attending public meetings. Whereas in the 2007 elections to the municipal corporations in Maharashtra, in cities like Mumbai, Pune and Solapur, members of some housing societies collectively bargained with a brazen demand for sops in the form of taking care of the construction of compound wall, or payment of electricity charges against assured en-bloc voting of the society members. According to a sitting member of a Municipal Corporation of Mumbai, he had to outsmart his rival by actually completing the work of paver blocks in the courtyard of a housing society, which was his traditional stronghold; and where the voters were preparing to auction their votes en-bloc. These are all symptoms of the erosion of popular faith in democratic values and by implication, in the democratic system.

Discussion about political reforms in India is not new. Need for such reforms, has been felt by many for several years. Some of them also have articulated the same. Once, our former Vice President Shri Krishan Kant had correctly diagnosed what ails our electoral system. According to him, there was an urgent need “to break nexus between the individual and the constituency”, because of the fact that the present “election process has established and consolidated such individuals and interest groups all over the country.”

If a particular factor is to be held responsible for this, it is the gradual weakening of party organisations. In the case of several smaller political parties in India, the party organisation today is a loose alliance of such interest groups. Neither do they have any ideology nor a national programme. Any individual desirous of getting in elected has to succumb to some pressures. This has created an invisible divided in our polity. Dominant corrupt social and political elite on one side and the people on the other. There is now a complete alienation between the two. This has led to a decline in popular deterrence, giving fillip to unscrupulous politics. Uncontrolled corruption and growing social tension are the net results of all this.

Systemic Change?

Many political analysts, thinkers and several Constitution experts have squarely blamed First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system for the present day ills. To many, this system results in the election of candidates and of parties on a minority of votes cast making both unrepresentative. A Handbook for Electoral System Design, prepared by the Stockholm based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IIDEA) has clearly brought several disadvantages of the FPTP and one can easily conclude that India provides an example of how FPTP proves to be perilous. Some of the key disadvantages are:

1. Exclusion of minorities as well as women from fair representation.

2. Encouragement to the development of political parties based on clan, ethnicity or region, and

3. Exaggeration of “regional fiefdoms” where one party wins all the seats in a province.

Commenting upon the Indian experience of the FPTP, IIDEA handbook says: “The nature of the system meant that small changes in vote share often had a dramatic impact upon the shape of the resulting parliament.” Obviously then political parties often tend to influence small but guaranteed chunk of voters and lure the same by hook or by crook. To make this happen, mobilising monetary resources becomes essential and for that illicit money gathered through corrupt practices comes handy. This is how; electoral system or the voting system becomes central to the discussion as it is rightly deemed as the fountainhead of corruption.

Several of the problems associated with democracy in India are in fact, products of the FPTP system. Domination of electability factor, pressure of electoral compulsions and the resultant competitive indulgence in electoral mal-practices, greater chances of victory of candidates despite being opposed by majority of the electorate thanks to an inbuilt mechanism facilitating strategic division of votes, ability to give over-representation to en-bloc voters’ community at the cost of numerically stronger but scattered communities, are widely recognised as systemic flaws of the FPTP.

Another serious factor that calls for a systemic change is the fact that the FPTP system also promotes fragmented politics. Consequently, caste and community loyalties become the foundations of parties. This also influences the politics of larger parties with a national appeal and they too give in to the pressures of caste considerations. All this has had a great impact upon voting behaviour of the people. Candidates are generally selected on caste lines and citizens vote on caste appeal. States like UP, Bihar and Tamil Nadu are already in the grip of caste politics and other states like Karnataka, Maharashtra or Rajasthan are not far behind. In a situation like this, the electoral system has been almost totally subverted by money power, muscle power and vote-bank considerations of caste and communities. As a result, caste considerations and communalism apparently weakening in social life, in fact are provided vitamins and nutrients through electoral process.

Although reforms are hard to come about, they are integral to any living society and polity. There are scores of examples of nations who have opted for a particular form of democracy and subsequently switched over to the other. In neighbouring Sri Lanka, several experiments were tried during the last three decades. Starting from majoritarian democracy at the time of Independence (1947) to executive presidency and proportional representation (1978) to the present combination of run-off and preferential voting for the election of a president, Sri Lanka has come a long way. In far off Australia too, parties and politicians have experimented with a variety of voting systems that they believed would advance popular democracy and pragmatic politics. Between 1911 and 1962, Australia introduced major reforms to the electoral systems. Compulsion in the enrolment of electors was introduced in 1911, while FPTP was replaced with preferential voting for the House in 1918 and for the senate in 1919. Again, in 1948, PR was introduced for the Senate. Similarly, New Zealand and South Africa too have experimented with changes in either forms of governments or the electoral systems, or even both.

One of the most crucial aspects of representative democracy—where elected officials make decisions on behalf of the people—is how these officials are being elected. This translation of the citizen’s votes into representative seats is performed through elections and by way of using an electoral system. When it comes to election, the strength of numbers comes into the play. Ideally, it is expected that an electoral system should reflect the strength of numbers without leaving any scope for distortions. Hence, electoral system is the most fundamental element of representative democracy.

As growing numbers of people are becoming alienated from the political process, the debate needs to focus on which electoral system can best empower voters by extending the range of political voices, by treating all voters equal, by offering an effective choice between parties and candidates, and by providing an incentive to vote. With just one act of voting, a voter elects a parliament and also chooses a government. Electoral systems have to be judged in terms of how democratically voters are able to perform each of these functions through equalising the value of the votes polled.

All this calls for a deeper thinking about and dispassionate review of the electoral system with which we are trying to make our democracy work. While debate must happen one cannot forget the fact that massive political reforms alone will make our republic a resurgent one!

This post has been published by Weekly Organiser, August 14th, 2011

Why Politicians Amass Wealth?

Vinay Sahasrabuddhe

Can this be a question? One would ask. But beyond greed, one of the fundamental human weaknesses there are other reasons too that make corruption indulged in by the political leaders a phenomenon worth analysing.

Corruption is not new to India. Right after the independence Mahatma Gandhi had advocated dissolution of the Indian National Congress as he believed that Congress has outlived its purpose and if it has to continue to function, it should convert itself into a voluntary social service organisation of sorts. Mahatma Gandhi firmly believed in ethical and disciplined functioning of all Congressmen, especially party legislators[1]. He had also approvingly welcomed a draft declaration to be signed by all those holding public offices, mooted by one Brijlal Nehru.[2] However, no institutional set up to ensure disciplined, ethical and value-oriented functioning of party organization was mooted during his times. In the last over sixty years, the nation has paid a heavy price for this absence of any institutional set up ensuring cleaner electoral politics. This has also facilitated percolation of corruption further. Little wonder then that sometime in sixties, Shri Prakash, then Governor of Maharashtra openly admitted the deterioration of the moral fiber of our society when he said that ‘I can resolve that I will not take bribe, but I cannot resolve that I will not offer bribe’.

What could not happen in the lifetime of Mahatma missed the functional agenda of the party almost forever thereafter. Mrs. India Gandhi, in fact; tried to rationalize corruption when she had openly stated that it has become a Universal Phenomenon. It was during her time that the nation witnessed Tul Mohan Ram and the Nagarwala episodes. Thereafter, we had seen affairs after affair. Until Bofors, digging out cases of corruption involving crores of rupees used to cause some turbulence in the society. There were times, when people used to discuss these issues on their dining tables, family gatherings and at work places like college staff rooms. But later, looks like our society internalized corruption. People started pretending and hypocrisy quietly entered our personal lives. Understandably, we started shying away from discussing issues about morality and ethics. To each other, we kept on convincing that morality, like character; is simply a personal matter. With concepts of individuality and privacy gaining firm and disproportionate ground in our collective societal values, we almost stopped raising morality issues. Consequently, we pushed the element of answerability or accountability even from within the four walls of our homes and within our once famous close-knit families. What was externed from our personal lives soon got suspended from our public life as well. What more fertile ground was required for a bumping crop of corruption?

Besides it is a fact that our governance systems and our judiciary are devoid of effective and timely grievance redressal mechanisms. In a situation like this, our street-smart politicians could easily make money dispensing a La Robin Hood justice, acquiring immense nuisance value as well. Add to this the near total absence of moral leadership and the picture becomes complete.

Three other factors added to the worsening of the conditions. They were diminishing importance of austerity, growing sense of alienation and insecurity in our political leadership and most importantly; our overall inertia in respect of bringing in massive political reforms to cleans our body politick.

When it comes to austerity, today hardly anyone even refers to this value let alone practice it. Carried away by mindless consumption, GenNext India probably finds it to be a worthless and irrational concept. Since “Be Seen” is the mantra of modern management, then “Be seen as Smart as possible” is its logical extension. Popular approach to the concepts of luxury, comfort and necessity also has undergone a drastic change. Yesterday’s luxury is today’s comfort. Besides, life in the fast lane today has become far more competitive and hence ‘life style one-upmanship’ also has become the order of the day. More importantly, since austerity as a principle or high human value has apparently lost recognition, many apprehend that simple living is likely to be misconstrued as a sign of weakness. Obviously then, nobody likes to be seen as lacking in anything. Add to this the difficulties in defining as to what is austere and what is not.

When it comes to discussing the importance of taking due care of their family relations, some of my younger friends, who are MLAs, Municipal Councilors and political activists, often realise how they have always taken their close family members for granted. Emotionally detached from their loved ones, suspicious of their colleagues and unsure about their own political future, many politicians end up as loners at the top. When this feeling of being alone gets acute, political leaders give needless free hand to their progeny who often land in deep trouble. When they realise their mistakes, they cannot help but feel trapped. The fact that they just cannot share their agonies and apprehensions with anyone adds to the severity of the crisis. Many psychiatrists say that this deep sense of insecurity motivates several of our politicians turn unscrupulous and amass illicit wealth.

The third and the most important factor is off course our inertia for -- forget introducing but even discussing -- political reforms. Lack of internal democracy in most of our political parties has made organisational decision making arbitrary. With no mechanism like primaries as in the US, factors such as personal likes and dislikes and artificial proximity in interpersonal relations often dominate political decisions. Lack of objectivity also impacts candidacy decisions in several ‘unorganised’ political parties.

In fact, majority of our political parties are unstructured and un-institutionalised. Many have stressed urgent need for a comprehensive law for political parties. Election Commission has repeatedly recommended bringing a new law for regulating the functioning of political parties but the government refuses to pay heeds. True, that politicians and more particularly parties can do a number of things to check factors that promote corrupt practices; but certainly it is not the making of political class alone. It is because of this that parties need to be considered, what two American researchers Andrew M Appleton and David S Ward have described as "unwilling victims, attempting to adjust their organisational patterns to the vagaries of an undisciplined electorate.” Although most of the factors that have contributed to this degeneration of political parties are embedded in the system itself, the fact remains that the very system creates an inertia leading to a passive approach towards even simpler reforms, on the part of the political parties.

An important point for everybody’s consideration here is the fact that in flawed systems contributing to the process of perversion of democracy; parties get an escape route. While looking into the systemic solutions, the objective is to explore ways and means of plugging this escape route. Once this is done, parties could be held squarely responsible and that may pave way for reforming the party system and thereby prevent the degeneration of political culture in India. If we are able to make this happen, chances are that the systemic checks and balances will deter politicians. If not total eradication, this may lead at least to a substantial reduction in political corruption. Eventually, this also may reinstate the credibility of the political class. With more credible political parties, popular confidence in India's democratic system could also be reinstated.

---

[1] M.K. Gandhi, ‘Indian National Congress’, in ‘India of My Dreams’, p.288

[2] M.K. Gandhi, Chapters 7 and 8 in Section 3,”Members of Legislatures”, Gandhiji Expects. P.15, 16, 17

vinays57@gmail.com

------

Blog writing is the expression of personal thought process. Views expressed in the blog are the writer's personal views. Organisations with which a writer is associated may not necessarily subscribe to these views.

--------

Individuals fail, institutions collapse...

Vinay Sahasrabuddhe

Three serial blasts, and the entire public discourse seem to have shifted from Team Anna to what can be called as Team Thanana. (In colloquial Marathi, Thanana is a term often used to describe sheer emptiness or hollowness.) People seem to be becoming used to to the usual making of noises particularly from the side of those who are in power about incident like that of the last Wednesday. Popular response, as always had started from initial scare mongering to sensationalizing to a mature and the much talked about Mumbai Spirit, which; one wonders as to how has not evaporated so far.

In so far as blasts in Mumbai are concerned, since 1993, when the metropolis first witnessed a dastardly attack on its citizens, things have changed to such an extent that people have become familiarized. A newspaper, reporting on the highly satisfactory response to the newly released movie Zindagi Na Mile Dobara (ZNDB), in terms of Box Office has quoted a reaction of a movie buff. “Mumbaikar’s are now accustomed to blasts and in fact immediate post-blasts period is the most safe and secure as the police is on high alert!” says he. Also, it is said that the restraint on the part of both, the people and the government of India, acclaimed worldwide, has been construed as cowardice, not by outsiders but Mumbaikar netizans themselves. Somewhere down the line, does it look like that the City that never sleeps, is slipping in a kind of coma?

There is a quintessential state of numbness all around. One wonders whether, this very de-sensatisation masquerades as the spirit of Mumbai. If political compulsions are making particularly those in power respond in a typical manner, economic compulsions are making Mumbaikars react in a particular way. Their spirit is being applauded but that certainly cannot be a solace. By praising Mumbaikars for the so called Mumbai spirit, the establishment cannot wash of its hands and continue to test the tolerance of its people till another series of blasts takes place.

Nothing brings this all-encompassing hollowness to the fore in a more vivid manner than the stereotype handling of these blasts by the government. When it comes to governance, one wonders when exactly are we going to learn the art of handling such crises in a more mature manner. People no more believe that the government is serious enough when it talks about not allowing any such blasts taking place in the future. No body believes that those in government can and will do anything substantial and serious for preventing such blasts. From Rahul Gandhi to the Zaveri Bazar traders, all are talking about helplessness. As if, just like the issue of preventing infiltration from Bangladesh, preventing bomb blasts too is beyond our capacity. No question of “Catching the bull by horn”, spirit; not even a semblance of “We shall overcome!” attitude. A sense of having given up is all around. Tired of reassuring the people, the guilt-conscious rulers seem to have thrown both their hands in the air. Far from Ram rajya, what UPA is giving is a Ram Bharose rajya, for sure.

The statements made by the Chief Minister barely within forty-eight hours after the blasts have brought his sheer ineptitude to the fore. When people were expecting some strong action and few reassuring words, in an interview to a TV channel the CM went on record nursing his coalition woes saying that “giving Home ministry to the coalition partner NCP was a mistake”, as if a Congress minister would have had greater efficiency and prevented the blasts. Granted that what CM was saying was perhaps factual. But was this the appropriate time to discuss these issues? May be inadvertently, but has not the CM, through his statements poured salt on the wounded psyche of the Mumbaikars?

The decease of Oral Diarrhea seems to be catching up with all and sundry in the Congress establishment. Where was the need for Home Minister PChidambaram to point out that every city in India is vulnerable to terrorist attack? Everybody knows this. But when a Home Minister says the same, it smacks of a war; lost even before being fought. As if this was not enough we have Prince Rahul telling us that 1% of the terrorist attacks cannot be prevented. How does he know about the exact percentage? Does the internal security establishment concur with him? Is it not adding to further demoralization of the police? Why should heroes like Late Tukaram Ombale sacrifice their lives if 1% of such attacks are kind of permissible? Is it not an insult to the entire internal security establishment? Adding insult to the injury is our usual Diggi Raja. How can he sleep quietly without referring to the RSS and the Hindu forces? After all, a character has to say all that a playwright wants him to say. All these happenings and the utterances about them point to twin factors. They are, failed individuals and collapsing institutions.

While Mumbai continues to cry for justice, in the corridors of the apex court, the Central Government is trying to put a brave front and argue that the courts cannot take the role of the executive. The government reminded the judiciary that the courts “do not substitute their views and judgment in matters which squarely fall within the executive's domain,” alleging that the black money order completely erased the executive's role. The government has also reminded the apex court that the “function of the court is to see that lawful authority is duly exercised by the executive, but not to take over itself the tasks entrusted to the executive”.

Legally, perhaps; the argument may win the battle. But if politics is majorly about public perception, then what matters is the fundamental question as to why; other pillars of democracy are able to occupy the space that belongs to the executive? Whether it is the media, the judiciary or the civil society; if any of these are overstepping; let us not forget; it is the passive and ineffective executive that had asked for it. Like nature, democracy also never allows any vacuum. Never have people in democratic countries allowed a deficit to be carried forward too long. Some one or the other has to occupy the space.

With the issue of LOK PAL having still not satisfactorily resolved, and with people in the country witnessing a sense of having given up through the articulations of several Sate Actors, one wonders whether the civil society will be constrained to ask for LOK Police? Obviously, that is not the answer. But when established institutions continue to fail, those in power continue to be clue less, interventions of judiciary continue to be opposed, the only way people may feel left for them is asking for a parallel mechanism. People have supported the idea of LOK PAL primarily not because they have understood the thinking behind, but because they see a ray of hope even in an unclear and amorphous concept of its kind. If Mumbai continues to bleed, those in government continue to defend their lapses by way of expressing sheer helplessness, the days when sections in the newly enthused civil society coming out with a demand for LOK POLICE may not really be far away. If those in power do not want this to happen, they will have to show that they are serious in tackling the terror menace and come out with credible and effective deterrence infrastructure. What the situation demands is a POTA like act, and certainly not a highly ill conceived Communal Violence Bill. Is someone in the UPA listening?

Author's Note:- Blog writing is an expression of personal thought process. To believe that the organisations, a blogger is associated with, will also subscribe to this thinking every time is oversimplification.