Open Forum
New
Delhi, 14 April 2011
Governance Vs Government
NEED TO DEMOCRATIZE GOVT
By Dr Anupam Saraph
“If people want to move towards the process of
democratisation, they have our good wishes”. No, it is not President Obama or
Secretary Clinton but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh responding to a query from
the Al Jazeera TV representative at his recent press conference about the
developments in Egypt
and other Arab countries.
Manmohan Singh’s own Government enjoys support of a mere 19
per cent of the electorate. A whopping
81 per cent of the electorate did not
vote for the Congress. For those like Dr Singh democratization has come to mean
a Government of the people. Or more
correctly it has become synonymous with a Government of the Party that has the
most candidates with the largest votes in each constituency. Or a Government of
the Party that can secure the largest number of supporters in a coalition.
George Orwell would have sighed in despair. After all his Animal Farm highlighted long ago the
insight that replacing a Government, by whatever means one chooses, is not the
path to accomplish the purpose of
democracy.
It is not the
purpose of democracy to provide an alternate method for the coronation of
tenure-track dynasties, dictators or kings and queens in the form of an elected
Government. The purpose of democracy is to provide a method of governance where each person can
participate.
A democracy therefore is not about its elections and even
less so about its vote banks. A democracy is about the ability of the ordinary
citizen to be able to participate in governance that makes life for the citizen
worth living.
The usurping of governance by an elected Government is at
least as bad, if not actually a lot worse, than that by an un-elected ruler by
whatever title. To paraphrase Daniel Quinn, if governance is saved, it will not
be saved by old minds forming new Governments but by new minds with little or
no Government at all.
The moral man, as many political
thinkers have insightfully stated, delegates his sins to a Government. Unless
there is less Government as
Henry David Thoreau put it, we cannot have a good Government. Better still is
when governance substitutes Governments, not the other way around.
The cash-for-votes scam, 2-G and S-band spectrum scams,
Adarsh housing scandal, black-money scam, food scam, farmers suicide scams, the
JNNURM scam, CYG and CWG scams, Jaitapur scam etc underline how well the
delegation of sin works with the Government.
Clearly, the wrongs of Governments are not about a number
game. The wrongs cannot become right if everyone were to practice them.
Even the illiterate farmer form the Ganges plains describes India’s
democracy as a “contractor driven democracy”. In the delegation of sins to
Government, we leave the vital issues of governance to be driven by contractors
who privatize public land, take over the commons, usurp the inviolable and
inherent rights to water, food, shelter, even take to taxing mobility through
toll plazas, and convert natural forests and agricultural fields into resource
mines and real estate.
If the ordinary citizen cannot choose in a just and fair way
to exercise the inherent and inviolable right to live, to access a safe, clean
environment and natural resources --- land, water, food, air --- and the
governance of everything affecting life, whatever the manner of appointing a
Government, it’s not a democracy.
Isn’t our “democratic” Governments’ performance at
protecting our national heritage --- water-bodies, mountains and forests ---
that we sing about in our National Anthem miserably poor? Is our Governments’
track record on satyameva jayate any
better? If our “democratic” Governments have failed to ensure water, and roti, kapda aur makaan for every Indian,
are we even addressing the purpose of
democracy? Would our Government’s even have a pass performance at delivering
the equality, liberty, justice and fraternity that the Constitution guarantees
us? Ouch- that hurts.
Further, our elected Governments have a poor track record at
creating an inclusive, open and long-term policy for anything. They privatize public interest and also find
its members as part of the private parties taking over the public interest.
Our “elected” Governments have successively failed to ensure
voting as a proxy to governance and
not Government. The processes of forming Governments and having them stay
afloat have become an end in itself rather than a means of governance.
True, Governments justify everything in the name of
expediency. Forgetting that governance is not about expediency. Governments
hide behind the collective. Governance is about taking responsibility.
Governments put procedures, not purpose at the top. Governance is about the
purpose, not the procedures.
If the purpose of democracy is to provide a method of governance where each person can
participate, after six decade why has no elected Government accomplished even a
small part of this?
Privatization of governance by elected Governments, under
Build Operate Transfer (BOT) whatever, retiring from a business area etc. rely
on private institutions to satisfy people’s needs. Thus, leaving the private
interests to service the need of the people disengages from the interests of
the public.
The Open Source
movement in contrast creates a platform for users
to take charge of intellectual property. It is an example of our times where
governance has been de-institutionalized and returned to the community of stake-holders. The Open
Source community is not a Government, rather a mechanism of governance where
anyone can participate.
Imagine a world where you can pick from many alternatives to
shape and run your neighbourhood in ways that are open, neutral to technologies
and organizations, don’t discriminate any person or community, are
non-exploitative of nature, natural resources and people, don’t require
Government budgets and licenses to implement. Think what Open Source governance
would look like.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on the principles of Open
Source. Users create their own encyclopedia. Or at the level of a topic, the
users interested in that topic mobilize together and generate a page that is
meaningful to all of them.
Simple rules of engagement have helped Open Source solutions
like Wikipedia to work. The community manages these rules, not Parliaments and
legislators. If you are affected, you need to participate. A few guiding
principles that have worked include openness, inclusion and fairness to all
The Open Source governance would be similar. Stake-holders
would mobilize around neighbourhoods and issues that concern them. Together
they would transform the community even as those stake-holders outside the
neighbourhood begin contributions if they are affected by the transformations.
The premise that an elected Government is the democratic
solution to the problems of the nation is religious fundamentalism. ---- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|