Author: Chandan Mitra
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: August 6, 2011
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/358900/Driver-of-change-not-the-vehicle.html
Civil society movements contribute to the
expansion of democracy, but cannot substitute democratic institutions or usurp
law-making powers of the elected legislature
With the tabling of the Lokpal Bill in the
Lok Sabha last Thursday, the Anna Hazare-led section of civil society can
afford to bask in the glory of success. Although they have denounced the official
Bill and even burnt its copies in several cities, the fact is that no such
piece of legislation would probably have come before Parliament had it not
been for the pressure exerted by them. Of course the passage of the Bill is
a long way away because it will now go to a Parliamentary Standing Committee
for examination and possible modification. And meanwhile the Anna group will
mount an all-out campaign for the inclusion of the Prime Minister, higher
judiciary and conduct of MPs inside the House within the proposed apex ombudsman's
ambit.
All three suggestions have been stubbornly
stonewalled by the Government. Given that the majority of MPs in the Committee
on Law & Justice Ministry comprise UPA members and allies, it is most
unlikely that the Opposition will have its way even on the Prime Minister's
inclusion for which the BJP has argued forcefully. The Bill may have to be
modified eventually because, as argued by Ms Sushma Swaraj and Mr Arun Jaitley,
it has a huge anomaly in that it creates two categories of Ministers - Prime
Minister and others - which flies in the face of accepted canons of jurisprudence.
How the Prime Minister can be excluded from
the definition of Minister for the purposes of the Bill, while the principal
law governing corruption (Prevention of Corruption Act) makes no such differentiation,
boggles the mind. Also the time bar of seven years before a Prime Minister
can be subjected to investigation by the Lokpal is most illogical. It is not
explained if a person who serves more than seven years as Prime Minister,
such as the incumbent Manmohan Singh, can be probed once he completes seven
years in office. These legal infirmities must be rectified before the Bill
is brought back to the two Houses for debate and adoption, and to that extent
India is not expected to get its first Lokpal in a hurry.
The twists and turns in the Bill need not
engage us at the moment; arguments and counter-arguments about its provisions
will be made vigorously by rival sides over the next few months. What is of
immediate relevance is the proposed fast to be undertaken by Anna Hazare starting
August 16, barely a week from now. It remains to be seen if this group will
succeed in generating the same degree of public support as it managed earlier
this year, compelling the Government to (a) commit itself to bringing the
Bill in the very next Session of Parliament and (b) including five representatives
of the group in the official committee to draft it. Having successfully quelled
Baba Ramdev's audacious show of strength two months ago, the Government appears
in no mood to mollycoddle representatives of civil society, convinced that
their power of mobilisation and hence psychological coercion of the authorities
is limited.
In this background, it is important that India
debates the fundamental question of civil society's role in determining public
policy because its intervention in this arena will not stop with the Lokpal
Bill irrespective of its final shape. My colleague Sidharth Mishra and the
Investcare group must be complimented, therefore, for organising and sponsoring
a day-long seminar on the rise of civil society at IIPA in New Delhi last
Friday. Attended among others by Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit, BJP
leader Arun Jaitley, leading light of the Anna camp Kiran Bedi, Reva Nayyar,
Prof Subrata Mukherjee, Nai Duniya editor Alok Mehta and I, the seminar helped
crystallise thoughts on a subject that has been inadequately discussed at
an intellectual level so far. I take this opportunity to put before readers
some of my thoughts as expounded at the meeting.
Arguing that the civil society movement in
India was in its infancy but would assume importance progressively in light
of the media explosion and advent of social media such as Facebook and Twitter,
I said this amorphous entity could emerge as society's conscience keeper in
the years to come. Interestingly Mr Jaitley, speaking in the concluding session
while I presented my views in the inaugural, said the civil society movement
was ideally expected to be a group of "crusaders and campaigners",
but without a direct role in policy-making.
Falling back on the originator of the term,
Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci, I pointed out that civil society
was expected to be the society's repository of virtu (virtue), and exercise
a degree of moral hegemony over the state, seeking to correct imbalances and
authoritarian trends that invariably creep into the functioning of the Establishment
even in mature democracies. Such non-state, non-party movements have influenced
India's political evolution twice earlier, first under the leadership of Jayaprakash
Narayan and his Nav Nirman and Total Revolution movements and a second time,
to a lesser extent, in the VP Singh-led campaign against corruption in high
places triggered by the Bofors scandal.
But in both these instances, sections of the
political class plunged into action leading to change of Government at the
Centre. To that extent, I suggested to Kiran Bedi and her associates that
their "all politicians are corrupt" and "elections are perverted
by corruption" themes do great injustice to India's political class.
Many of our politicians are undoubtedly venal and lack moral fibre, but it
must be borne in mind that it is they who have brought about legislation to
contain corruption and distortions in the decision-making system. So to fulminate
against politicians without differentiation militates against the very causes
espoused by sections of civil society.
What makes this shrill campaign repugnant
is its latent anti-democratic streak. India's multi-party, pluralist democracy
has recorded many achievements and our political class has often demonstrated
remarkable enlightenment. For instance, while England, the mother of democracies,
permitted its women to vote only in 1906, India opted for universal adult
franchise from the very inception of democracy enshrined in our Constitution
dating back to 1950. But just as the Suffragettes' agitation (a civil society
movement in the real sense), led to women getting the right to vote in Britain,
Indian democracy too can be expanded and strengthened by civil society's contribution.
However, to arrogate to itself the sole right of decision-making goes against
the very definition of civil society, which should be the driver of change
but not change itself.
Law-making is the preserve of democratically-elected
legislatures and cannot be usurped by unelected groups, no matter how high
a moral ground they may occupy. Therefore, civil society has to work in tandem
with the political class, arguing, pressuring and agitating, but cannot aspire
to substitute democratic institutions. If stalwarts of the section of civil
society that currently enjoys huge credibility with the urban middle class
accept this basic argument, I believe India will be a less corrupt, more equitable
and morally empowered society that we need to be as an emerging Great Power
in the new world order.
