Our Constitution describes India as a sovereign, democratic republic. And we have a system of representative democracy. But after 60 years, the question arises: do we?
In a representative democracy, “we the people” elect our representatives and they make laws for us till the time they enjoy the confidence of the legislature or their term runs out. We then have the option of rewarding them with another term or booting them out. It may be true, as Walter Bagehot, an expert on the English Constitution, wrote: “Democracy is the way to give the people the greatest illusion of power while allowing them the smallest amount in reality.” But, in the final event, it is a contract between “we the people” and those we elect.
It is true that during the 20th century, in communist countries the party was supreme and unelected apparatchiks ruled. That did not matter because the concept of free multi-party elections was alien to these countries.
But party supremacy is unheard of in a modern representative democracy. Equally unusual is the ability of civil society and NGOs to determine policies. Though civil society and think tanks across the democratic world have presented and forcefully promoted policy alternatives to governments, they have rarely been able to dictate policies.
Perhaps the first serious attempt by a party to dictate policy to the government was in 1945 when Harold Laski, the great political scientist, became chairman of the British Labour party. He thought he could tell the mild-mannered prime minister, Clement Atlee, how to run the government’s foreign policy but Atlee forcefully told him to back off, writing: “You have no right whatever to speak on behalf of the government.” By the following year, Laski was no longer chairman of the Labour Party.
Our problem currently lies in the fact that for the first time since independence, the power lies outside Parliament — in the hands of Sonia Gandhi. Her colleagues on the National Advisory Council (NAC) are not elected and, thus, not accountable to the people. In a democracy, once a government takes office, the party almost becomes a cypher. For instance, how many people can name the chairman of the British Conservative Party or of the US’ Democratic Party? In India, however, we have no such difficulty!
Though there may be a wide agreement on a number of NAC’s suggestions, in a parliamentary democracy, it is the government that must initiate policy, draft Bills and pilot them through Parliament. But here are some headlines from national dailies over the past few months: “Communal Violence Bill unlikely to get NAC nod in this session”; “Govt to introduce 3 bills before NAC nod”; “NAC pulls up tribal affairs ministry on Forest Rights Act”; “NAC clears communal riots bill”; “NAC opposes land bill”; and “NAC objections block land bill”. NAC nod? NAC pulls up? Who is running this country?
This is preposterous and weakens and discredits parliamentary democracy. Who are these unelected people to dictate to the people’s representatives? The bureaucrat-NAC members have worked with ministers during their IAS tenures. Surely they know that it is for the minister to make a policy. Perhaps the chance to make policies is too heady to resist? Some NAC members strut around as if they were ministers of the republic.
The latest edition of a newsmagazine carries an article on the Land Acquisition Bill. There is just one reference each to the ministry and the minister and long interviews with two NAC members who hold opposing views on the Bill. Let us assume that the government is dragooned into accepting the view of the majority of the NAC. Now something goes drastically wrong; there are riots and many lives are lost. Who will be held accountable? The superannuated bureaucrat who, firing from the shoulder of the NAC chairman, thrusts the Bill down the government’s throat or the minister?
Is it not ridiculous that self-appointed civil society lay down conditions to talk to the government on the Lok Pal Bill? And if the Anna-backed Lok Pal Bill causes serious problems, who do we nail? The Bhushans would have retreated to their legal practice, Mr Hegde back to his Lokayukta job, Mr Kejriwal back to his RTI applications and the good Anna back to Ralegaon Siddhi. All gone to the hills (as the Baba already has) and the minister left holding the baby.
Frankly, how is the NAC any different from groups backing Anna Hazare or Baba Ramdev? It is the brazenness of the NAC towards the elected government that has encouraged the Annas and the Babas. Who are all these Sawdust Caesars and who has appointed them to represent us? They all claim to represent civil society but none of them have any legitimacy at all. These are all marks of an unconstitutional grab for power — no more and no less.
The NAC has played a major role in weakening the elected government. It is about time the NAC was disbanded lock stock and barrel, and the authority of the government restored. An extra-constitutional authority has no place in a democracy. If Mrs Gandhi wants to run the “social” agenda of the country, let her join the government as minister of social welfare with a number of relevant ministries reporting to her — but not wield power from outside the cabinet.
Protest fasts are fine but fasts unto death have no place in a democracy. Invoking Gandhi and going on fasts unto death and blackmailing the government for personal agendas is shaming the Mahatma. His fasts were primarily against alien rule and not against an elected government.
The words of Stanley Baldwin, a British prime minister, correctly describe the NAC, Anna, Baba and others of their ilk: “Power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot through the ages.”
The author is a political commentator
drsmail@gmail.com
