The widely prevalent corruption in the Indian nation has left
the people insensate and, paradoxically, seething inside. However, the recent media
coverage of CWG and 2G scams and the judicial pronouncements, thereon, brought
the issue forth into public focus. The conniving, for the antagonist, or hapless,
for the sympathetic, government of Dr. Manmohan Singh was jolted out of its
stupor of ambivalence and take note of the public anger.
The Anna Hazare team,
fixated on its own version of ombudsman, Jana Lokpal, bill, spearheaded the
agitation to force a bewildered government to abandon its reluctantly drafted
bill, which was labelled ‘toothless’ and
angrily dubbed ‘jokepal’. The rhetoric
was reinforced with threat of fast unto death by Anna Hazare. This technique of
protest was resorted to, effectively, by Mahatma Gandhi, during British occupation
of India and pronounced unsuitable in independent India, by the Mahatma
himself. There has been a lot of debate about the alleged intrinsic
governmental apathy to fight corruption and the role of the civil society to
force the government to accept its prescriptions for the social ills through
methods which are not necessarily envisaged in the Constitution of India. It is
argued that as all political parties come to close ranks on the issue and have
a vested interest in perpetrating corruption from which they gain immensely. Therefore,
people of India, as represented by the civil society of Mr Hazare, have no
other recourse but to accept and support the discourse of the group. The
agitating group, in fact, received immense emotional response from the people
of India. The ills were not categorised and a simple and single cure was sought
by the harassed population. The people also did not recognise the difference
between corruption which can be addressed by an institution like the Lokpal and
corruption due to maladministration which indeed hurts general public much more
and may require humongous infrastructure for detection, training of personnel and
provision of equipment et cetera over a considerable period of time and
therefore, may have to be tackled differently. They also ignored the possibility
of an omnibus Lokpal turning out to be Frankensteinian monster, in the course
of time. The hope of Eldorado here and now has pushed back the possible scenarios
of future. Be as it may, the popular response put a faltering government on the
back foot. The political opposition
smelt blood and several riff-raff also jumped in to the fray.
The issue has been
discussed on TV and other media ad nauseam.
However, I suspect that the role of the government in the modern society
and the concepts of leadership which are also involved have not received the attention
that it deserves as more radical views and exotic solutions caught more eye
balls.
The cliché, ‘of the
people, for the people and by the people,’ is often repeated with considerable
vehemence and passion in order to remind the government that it must carry out
the wishes of its masters, the people. People's wish it is implied must reflect
in governments policies. However, it is important to realise that governance
per se involves coercion. People’s will and governance, is, perhaps, dichotomy
of democracy, yet inseparable. There is an element of juxtaposition in
governance and reflecting the passing moods of the people. If everyone is doing
what one ‘should do’ then where is the need for government? If social good is
aggregate of maximum good for an individual then there is no scope for conflict.
Each one of us will, without any compunction, pursue what one perceives is best
for him or her. (since aggregate of individual good is hypothesised to be the
good of the nation then we need not pursue any grudge against a Raja or a
Kalamadi!) If it is presumed that
individual action can never impinge
adversely upon the interest of other members of the society then elaborate
rules, laws, courts and other instruments of governance become redundant.
Therefore, the important question is, if this concept of ‘godly person’, who
would always do what gels with the general social needs, is correct and
acceptable? The planet Earth is not Eldorado yet: as such a modicum of
governance, albeit minimal, with the consent of the governed and which respects
individual liberty, is requisite. It will be naive to presume that every person
or a group of persons can be granted complete freedom of action and the liberty
to pursue what he or they may consider good for themselves or even good for the
people at large without audit. Passionate rhetoric and intemperate language
must not take the place of considered and informed arguments. Noise is not
music and as Shaw said, ‘sneers are no arguments.’
In the milieu of national governance who can
be this auditor? I believe it can be the representatives of the people duly
elected by them and ultimately people themselves who would express themselves
at the time of elections. There may be no short cuts to this and no group
proclaiming to be the voice of the people can appropriate to itself the right
to represent them without their consent.
A nation state will
require a government and the people must ensure that this government is a good
government but they must not circumscribe it into incapability.
Political leaders are much reviled lot who
constitute, probably, the largest group who are the butt of the most cruel of jokes
and gossip. God knows, several of them have earned it for themselves. However,
the politicians are drawn from the same society as the rest of us and,
therefore, as a class, must have good people as well as the bad ones, in the
same proportion as in any other trade, indeed in the society itself. To contend
the MPs are villains and the rest of the society which elects them is Lilly
white, is naive. Indeed politicians, even the bad ones, are the instruments
through which the various interest groups interact and arrive at an optimum
share of benefits for the groups. This process fulfils the aspirations of the
people and ensures inter-group peace and harmony. Therefore it will not be wise
to decry the institution of the political leadership entirely.
In a democratic setup people are supreme but
almost, for the governments cannot function by the Gallup polls. It is well
argued that the politicians must project and carry out the wishes of their
constituents. However, the politicians have a role, apart from being one of
them and representing the people, that of being a leader; a role which a
society can deny to them only at its cost and peril. Obviously, a leader should be a person of
acumen with ideas for future direction. He must be able to communicate with
people and persuade them to accept his paradigms. Perhaps, a tall order but that is what is
requisite. The society needs to assume responsibility to elect such people
instead of berating its own choice, at all the times. A leader cannot be a mere mouthpiece for the multitude.
And politicians cannot be replaced with any number of wise Judges, heads of
tribunals or commissions lest the nation is lost to a dictator or an oligarchy
of dictators.
(This was written during the first Anna agitation)
No comments:
Post a Comment