Author: Kamal Mitra Chenoy
Publication: The Asian Age
Date: October 30, 2007
URL: http://www.asianage.com/presentation/leftnavigation/opinion/op-ed/pm%E2%80%99s-notion-of-democracy-is-obsolete.aspx
Dr Manmohan Singh's lament against democracy goes on and on. As the father
of the pro-US strategic policy shift culminating in the Indo-US nuclear deal,
the Prime Minister has been gravely distressed by the determined opposition
led by the Left and backed by the majority in Parliament, to his crowning
achievement. He first took a philosophical stance. Life is full of disappointments,
and this was one he would have to live with. But this was soon displaced by
the PM's grumbles against his allies. Dr Singh grumbled that he had been embarrassed
and let down by his allies, a statement dutifully denied later. Now he has
come out into the open with some staggering political analysis. The problem
is "competitive politics" leading to "fractured verdicts"
which prevent what is "manifestly obvious" from being done.
Of course being a career economist-bureaucrat
and an unelected PM is not the best training for a senior politician. But
still the venerable Dr Singh should surely have enough experience and savvy
to understand electoral democracy. Firstly, democracy is all about competitive
politics, especially multi-party democracy, parliamentary or presidential.
Even in one-party systems different tendencies jostle for power, as commentators
noted during the recent Communist Party of China Congress. Secondly, without
competitive politics there is a lack of representation from below and lack
of accountability from above. In a word, dictatorship.
Can there be pluralist politics without competition?
No. Differing economic, social and political interests compete to maximise
their power through the ballot and through policy interventions. This is generally
a healthy and invigorating process that is at the core of democracy. Of course,
opinions may be sharply divided and even rancorous, but the latter did not
happen during the foreign policy-nuclear debate. In fact, the sustained effort
by the UPA was to avoid debate. The Indo-US military framework agreement was
signed without any discussion in the empowered parliamentary committee or
in Parliament. The far-reaching Bush-Manmohan accord of July 2005 was also
signed without any prior democratic discussion. Because the Congress evidently
believes that competitive politics leading to a fractured mandate, leads to
the overlooking of the manifestly obvious. So no parliamentary debate before
or after. Not even a reference to a joint parliamentary committee. But even
a "fractured" mandate is better than no mandate. Because a fractured
mandate is a mandate in that it represents the plurality of public opinion,
which the PM's fulminations do not. So the Manmohan line is more authoritarian,
less democratic. It is this that is "fractured" because it has a
fractured, obsolete notion of democracy that was prevalent before universal
suffrage.
The PM might argue that all this hullabaloo
was unnecessary because the US-India deal was agreed upon in the NCMP. But
as the Left has vigorously argued, it was not. On its part, the BJP which
initiated the process of closer relations with the United States, has also
vigorously opposed the deal, and denied that it had ever discussed the strategic
concessions the PM-led UPA had made. Even the UPA now has its cracks, with
the DMK supremo M. Karunanidhi opposing the deal.
Even the category "manifestly obvious"
is a contextual and contested one. "Manifestly obvious" to whom
and why? For example, the Indo-US deal that has led to the PM's fulminations
is not obvious, far from being manifestly obvious to the Left, DMK, Third
Front or NDA. In fact, in this context, the PM's political strategy is clear.
He wants to label the opponents of the deal as spoilers, representing only
a fractured mandate, out to deny the country a course correction that is manifestly
obvious. So those who are demanding a detailed debate are projected as disrupters
and followers of unprincipled competitive politics, while the PM and others
in their Olympian heights are following national interest and enlightened
principle. Verily a case of the truth turned upside down.
What is dismaying is the relative silence
of the media on the PM's new "democratic" discourse. They have dutifully
reported it at length, so that we all know in full measure what the leader
of our government has said. But the Fourth Estate is also the conscience of
democracy. It not only has to report but to comment, even to criticise those
at the top. The media may consider the PM the hero of economic reforms, an
upright person committed to leading the country forward despite all odds including
short-sighted politicians and the allegedly obsolescent Left. Be that as it
may, the PM must not be immune to criticism, particularly when he attacks
basic and fundamental tenets of democracy. One can praise Dr Manmohan Singh
as an innovative and dedicated PM, and yet find fault when his current fulminations
are writ large in the vernacular and English press, and faithfully reported
in the electronic media.
Some might argue that the subtleties of democratic
theory are for the scholars to comment on, not for the generalists in the
media. This is wrong for three reasons. Firstly, this is not "high"
abstruse democratic theory as shown earlier. Journalists can fully appreciate
these criticisms of the PM, and add their own. Secondly, the media has an
immediate and far reaching effect which no scholar can dream of. Thirdly,
for most readers or viewers what the media says is assumed to be true. In
fact the media is assumed to be objective, non-partisan and informed in a
way politicians are not. Thus it is the media's place to critically examine
important statements whomsoever they emanate from.
What about the "Teflon" factor?
Is the PM above all criticism, because none of it sticks given his endearing
qualities and office? But the "Teflon" effect is itself a contribution
of the media. The media has a powerful role in creating images and assessments
of people from politicians to film stars. When a powerful politician, frustrated
because he finds himself in a minority over a major policy issue, questions
basic tenets of democracy in theory and practice, then the media must speak
up. That is why it is the Fourth Estate. An onerous responsibility, but one
sections of the media stood for even during the internal Emergency of 1975-1977.
These are friendlier times, and politicians no matter what their eminence,
must be pulled up for their mistakes. As always "eternal vigilance is
the price of liberty."
Kamal Mitra Chenoy is a Professor with Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi
