Author: Mr. P. R. Ramesh
Publications: The Economic Times
Date: May 3, 2006
URL: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1513199.cms
Introduction: Democracy is all about shaping
public opinion through dialogue- a dialogue between peopleand the party in
power. Dialogue does not mean interaction between prime ministerial aidesand
a section of the media. Reluctance to engage people on issues of importance
will erode the PM's stature.
Thomas Friedman, Pulitzer Prize winning author
and columnist for The New York Times, has this to say in his text on Nandan
Nilekani in Time magazine's power list of 100 people who shape the world:
"In this era of mounting complexity with
more people, systems and products entwined in a bewildering web of global
networks, explaining is an enormously valuable skill.''
Friedman goes on to hail Nilekani as the explainer-in-chief
and acknowledges that it was the Infosys co-founder's insights that inspired
him to write his widely-acclaimed book, The World is Flat.
While one may not agree with Friedman on whether
Americans should have gone to Iraq, there cannot be any dispute on his point
that there should be someone to make sense of things. For, the requirements
of the world have changed. There are new opportunities. There are new challenges.
And there should be someone to explain what it all means.
Traditionally, this role belonged to the country's
leaders. In countries like the US, the President performs this role. It was
Franklin D Roosevelt who turned the opinion in that isolationist country around
after the Pearl Harbour address.
And President Bush regularly used the radio
to reach out to his audience. Our first prime minister Pandit Nehru used to
communicate regularly with people and political leaders on issues of national
importance.
His response to the allegations against party
MP H G Mudgal, who took money from Bombay Bullion Merchants Association to
lobby their case in Parliament, points to the power of dialogue.
In a letter to chief ministers of the Union
after the scandal broke out, Pandit Nehru wrote: "If once the reputation
of our legislatures goes down, then democracy itself will be in peril. Any
misbehaviour should lead to enquiry and action." And action was taken.
The MP was thrown out of Parliament.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh never spared
an opportunity to flaunt his belief in Nehruvian values. His spin-masters
take care to advertise that this or that decision of the prime minister is
similar to the reflexes displayed during the Nehru era.
But by the standard set by Nehru, he's sordidly
lacking if democracy is all about shaping public opinion through dialogue
- a dialogue between people and the party in power. After all, people are
not subjects in a democracy and dialogue is essential to a functioning democracy.
Even his ardent admirers would agree that
the country is keen to know what the prime minister thinks on quota politics
- an issue that threatens to sharpen the social divide and bring in major
distractions. His ministers have made their preferences clear.
The 'Young Prince' has added to the confusion
by saying that both sides (the pro- and anti-quota spectrum) have valid points.
But the prime minister has taken shelter behind the model code of conduct
to explain his silence on the issue.
Considering that successive governments have
been complaining that the model code is a hindrance for governance, it's a
specious argument.
The model code only prevents the government
leadership from announcing policy measures. It does not prevent the leaders
from stating where they stand on the issue.
If Arjun Singh is right when he says that
his promise of additional quota for the OBCs in centrally-funded educational
institutions flows out of the 93rd Constitutional amendment passed by Parliament,
the prime minister should ask Kapil Sibal to shut up.
If it's not correct, then he should restrain
Arjun Singh, the latest pretender to the social justice mob's leadership.
On the issue of quota in the private sector, too, the prime minister has opted
to remain ambiguous. Mr Singh recently chose a business club's meeting to
air his views on the subject.
"I urge you to assess at a firm level,
the diversity in your employee profile and commit yourself voluntarily to
making it more broadbased and representative. Such affirmative action on your
part can be a crucial component of the inclusive society we hope to build,"
Mr Singh said. This statement was variously interpreted by the media.
While a section said the prime minister nudged
the industry to broadbase their work force, others said it was a wake-up call
to act on the demand or face legislation. There has so far been no clarification
from the prime minister's office.
In any case, such a clarification would be
unhealthy as dialogue does not mean interaction between prime ministerial
aides and a section of the media. It has to be between the leader and the
people. This approach is not going to help the prime minister.
Once the elections are over, the prime minister
cannot dodge questions on these two issues. He will have to say which side
of the quota fence he belongs to. The reluctance to engage people on issues
of national importance will further erode his stature.
