Festival of Democracy
Lok sabha elections have been announced.
There are these usual song and dance sequences of Indian Democracy.
The so called political leaders are throwing up the dry grass to assess the direction of wind. The weather cocks are aligning or trying to align themselves.
New alliances are being made or announced, old are either being reaffirmed or broken. Political conveniences, alignment on religious, linguistic, regional, caste or in many cases sheer and blatant opportunistic strange bed mates being seen. A minority is the political leanings of being a rightist, leftist, right of centre, left of centre, socialist and many of such a kind. Opportunism looks to be the rule of this game.
These can be discussed and debated as a natural phenomenon in a vibrant democracy, where the people and the parties vying to “Rule” seek the “Blessings” of the electorate. These electorate being very diverse, grouped, are also discrete in their identities.
Hence all these have to be factored in to a complex equation of y = f(x), where multiple “x” are there and the “y” is the winning probability function.
Claims and counter claims of championing a cause, be it in the name of religion, economic advances, self-reliance, family politics and not to discount the allegations of anti-bribery, anti-nepotism are all crawling out of the woodwork of Indian democracy.
I am not writing this to debate these. We should recognise these as a given and have to accept as reality of Indian politics. The very fact these can be discussed and debated shows the openness of this society and we should be proud. With all counter claims around, I would confidently say that "we the People", have continued to retain the "right to choose or reject" the people and parties that we want us to govern this nation.
Haven’t we after all rejected parties and people and shown the power of ballot?
The purpose of this article is to debate as to how much of “opposition” is opposition? Do we need an “Opposition mukth Bharath”? Do we have at all, a constructive opposition? Is the opposition for the “sake of opposing”?
Should opposition be seen as a road hump or a speed breaker on the road to prosperity in a democratic set up?
While there is a clamour to have more than 75% of the seats to be won (ab ki baar 400 de par) is this good for a vibrant democracy and will it hasten economic development with least resistance to reforms?
Some legislations passed without a debate in the lower house or the upper houses while technically seems to be above board, is it in the spirit of democracy?
A Manthan or a churn is needed and it always throws up both Piyush, the nectar and the haalaahal or that deadly paralysing poison. How to handle the poison of such debates while savouring the sweetness of nectar?
This depends on a healthy opposition who does not “oppose for the sake of opposing”, but constructively criticises. A ruling party who accepts the criticism with an open mind and willing to be critiqued and not bulldozing the opposition by a mere fact that they have been "mandated" to do so by the people. The same very people have also elected the opposition members and that has to be respected too. I am reminded of the great statesman politician of recent time Sri Atal Bihari Vajapaye ji who was nicknamed as "Ajaathashatru". His support to Indira Gandhi ji at the time and post Bangladesh war is exemplary as a member of opposition.
What is a healthy ratio of winning for effectively and efficiently governing this nation? Is it bordering just about the half way mark which brings in itself unstable situation? Would that then be 60:40 to have a healthy debate to govern in a just manner, but slowing down the process of governing or a brute majority to ensure that the nation building happens in a speedier manner with a clear purpose and goal to reach with least of debate and discussion and allow “some” to think and implement for “all”?
It is for us, as people, who have been given this power to decide and exercise our franchise in a manner that we deem fit.
So, let us think. Let there be a chintan manthan in our mind. Let us decide what is best for us and for our nation.
Come what may, exercise your right to vote and vote as per your conscience.
Jai hind!
A link to a satirical verses penned some time back..
Pretty much sums up the scenario. By acquiring and admitting the very forces who were being opposed so far, defeats the purity of being a "party with a difference." Concept of opposition has to also undergo a paradigm change. Like in tennis the percieved more powerful player creates space for an opponent by a concept called unforced errors. Hence the space created by the lacunae of the ruling party must be occupied by an entity that has larger ambitions for the nation while ensuring the cultural ethos of the land and its character not just preserved intact but strengthened. There's a lot of opportunity for them there, only if they can see it.
ReplyDeleteSo true Madan. Unforced errors.. A big brother attitude?
DeleteThere is a difference between the alliance having a healthy majority and the lead party of the alliance having a safe majority.
ReplyDeleteThe former creates some tension and if managed well can deliver healthy, governance.
The latter results in a use and throw attitude of the lead party.
Agree Srikanth
DeleteAny working democracy should have a strong and constructive opposition.But in India we are left with Hobson's choice.Party with a one leader and cocktail of parties.Earlier experiments with Coalition governments have miserably failed.Until the opposition is able to project a strong party with an able leader I will settle with the lead party having brute majority
ReplyDeleteYes Satish, it is a choice. Hopefully a "benevolent dictatorship" is better than absolute anarchy and "Kleptocracy". Interestingly, we as Indians have always believed in a "Messiah" delivering us justice rather than collectively owning our destiny (Yadaa Yadaahi Dharmasya........ Sambhavaami Yuge yuge)
Delete