 "Central hole in Indian democracy")
Around this time last year, President Barack Obama, chief guest at the Republic Day parade of 2015, while addressing a meeting of Members of Parliament of the two houses, said India had opted for the harder options in all spheres and become a model for the world. On Indian democracy, he said: "Instead of being lured by the false notion that progress must come at the expense of freedom, you built the institutions upon which true democracy depends - free and fair elections, which enable citizens to choose their own leaders without recourse to arms, an independent judiciary and the rule of law, which allows people to address their grievances; and a thriving free press and vibrant civil society which allows every voice to be heard. This year, as India marks 60 years with a strong and democratic constitution, the lesson is clear: India has succeeded, not in spite of democracy; India has succeeded because of democracy." Obviously all this was music to the ears of those in Parliament's Central Hall, where the speech was delivered:. Maybe not for the first time, MPs might have reflected on a system that, on the face of it, makes no caste, class or identity distinction in actualising democracy.
That's the irony. Indian democracy lives and thrives because of the party system. Political parties are what sustains the (largely) representative system. And, yet, two tendencies jostle each other in all political parties barring the Left. One, to democratise themselves, so that the best talent is allowed to be showcased by the parties in elections but the second, mimicking Indian society, to create systems that ensure perpetration of families and dynasties, interest groups and kitchen cabinets.
Political parties don't want internal political systems to be scrutinised. Although the demand for change is growing, they are fighting to ensure the status quo stays. This does make you wonder whether India is really as democratic as everyone says it is. For, if a vehicle that carries democracy forward is itself undemocratic, how can it serve the interests of the people it claims to represent?
Also Read
Tenure
Amit Shah was this week re-elected president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for a second three-year term. It was an uncontested poll; nobody stood against him. The BJP describes itself as "one of the few parties in India to have a popular-based governing structure, where workers and leaders at the local level have a great say in much of the decision-making". In fact, the President is an all-powerful individual and all national office bearers - all of whom are appointed by him - serve a term concurrent with his.
The president is powerful because he can initiate a change in the party constitution - it is not a process that can begin from the lower reaches of the party. When Nitin Gadkari was president of the party (2009), he got the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to sign off on a proposal to extend the president's tenure to consecutive terms. This had never happened before and, understandably, the brass in the BJP saw this as a way to bend the will of the party to the will of the president. At a national council meeting, senior leader Rajnath Singh moved the resolution to amend Article 21 of the BJP's constitution seconded by Venkaiah Naidu, former president. Members of the National Council approved the resolution unanimously. The amendment was passed by the BJP at its national executive and even as the amendment was being ratified by it, Naidu explained, almost parenthetically, that the passage did not mean the incumbent would automatically get a second term - it was only an enabling provision.
The first time the party constitution was amended was in similar circumstances, and also related to tenure of the party president. In 2006, an amendment became necessary because the RSS wanted Rajnath Singh to continue in office for three years instead of the constitutional two. This was not the result of a move to democratise the party but because of political exigencies: Rajnath Singh had to take over as president from L K Advani, removed from office midway through his term because of his statements about Jinnah on a Pakistan visit. Singh was asked to take charge for the remaining year of Advani's original tenure and later made president in January 2006. The BJP then decided all its presidents should have a three-year term. You could argue that changing the party constitution to extend or reduce a president's term is hardly a factor in internal democracy, especially when there are parties like the Congress around where organisational elections are - largely - a farce. That's another story.
CONGRESS: DEMOCRACY UNBOUND – IN THEORY
|
BJP: BOTTOM-UP, ON PAPER
|
Congress example
In 2013, Rahul Gandhi was 'elected' vice-president of the Congress at a meeting of the party in Jaipur. Before that, he was general secretary. In his speech Gandhi spoke powerfully about how he wanted to change the party. "Until we start to respect and empower people for their knowledge and understanding, we can't change anything in this country," he said. "All our public systems-administration, justice, education, political systems-are designed to keep people with knowledge out. They are all closed systems."
But, before that, in the run-up to organisational elections, messages flew between Gandhi's lieutenants and state leaders about who should be candidates. In Chhattisgarh, Rahul Gandhi's team member Jitendra Singh spoke to Congress strongman Ajit Jogi's son, Amit (since expelled from the party), to dissuade him from contesting the elections. Though 'Team Rahul' managed to prevent Amit from contesting, it could do nothing about the post being won by his supporter, Uttam Kumar Vasudeo. In Jharkhand, Manas Sinha, a youth leader who had the support of Subodh Kant Sahay (then a cabinet minister), became president. Priyavrat Singh, a supporter of former chief minister Digvijaya Singh was elected in Madhya Pradesh. "Only those who have a corpus of Rs 5-10 lakh can aspire to win the Assembly-level Youth Congress elections," said a YC functionary from Bihar, who did not want to be named.
The Congress has a hoary tradition of not holding organisational elections. These were suspended from 1973 because Indira Gandhi, who had fought the so-called Syndicate after her father's death and had managed to crush the traditional leadership of the party, wanted the organisation to be fashioned after her will.
The Gandhi family's influence endured even when it was not directly in politics. After Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, Maharashtra strongman Sharad Pawar threw his hat in the ring for the prime ministership against P V Narasimha Rao. Rao became PM and much later installed Sitaram Kesri as party president. In December 1997, Sonia Gandhi indicated she wanted to play a more active role in Congress politics. It took the party less than three months to throw out Kesri, and put Gandhi in his place.
AAP, too
The latest kid on the block, the Aam Aadmi Party, has gone through a celebrated break-up. Whether the expulsion of Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav was constitutional or not is a secondary matter. The fact is that elements who are seen as loyal to them continue to be targeted.
Party MLA Pankaj Pushkar, was suspended from the Delhi Assembly in November last year, he suspects because he opposed the party's action against Yadav and Bhushan. "I wanted to raise the issue of EWS (poorer sections) category admissions in schools and creches on Delhi Development Authority land in the capital under the calling attention provision. The government could just have stated whether it was being complied with or not...instead, I was suspended from the House. The Speaker's step tends towards being dictatorial," Pushkar said. This issue is now being heard in the high court.
Right to Information
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) is currently fighting a case in the Supreme Court that political parties be brought under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The argument is based on the legal premise that political parties are defined as 'public authorities' and Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act extends to them. This is based on a ruling to this effect by the Chief Information Commissioner in 2013. However, all political parties dispute this and say the RTI does not extend to them.
As a result, ADR went to the SC. Its petition, filed in November 2015, asks the court to direct "national and regional political parties to disclose for public scrutiny complete details of their income, expenditure, donations and funding including details of donors making donations to these political parties and their electoral trusts". Once funding issues become public, the result will be internal elections that are more democratic, without fudging voters' lists (in the Congress) and minus the caprices of the top leadership (BJP).
