Events & Issues
New
Delhi, 23 February, 2017
TN Succession War
DEMOCRACY VS DEMOCRACY
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
The
Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu enacted on 18th February a curious
democratic drama -- one party claiming parliamentary majority made of members
physically kept away from the external world for 10 days and straightaway
brought to the legislature to vote in a “confidence motion” under “whip”, and
another party insisting on democratic secret ballot by force inside the
House.
The actors
are members elected by the people, and the stage is supposed to be the “temple
of democracy”. The scene presented violent actions and ended in forcible
eviction of members of the main opposition party and adoption of the confidence
vote. Clearly, it is a case of democratic institutions working against
democracy, but not a lonely case in India or in Tamil Nadu.
In
remarkably quick succession of political events, Tamil Nadu has unfolded the
potentiality of democratic institutions to endanger democracy. The challenge is
not likely to come from political players, but has to be moral and ethical
spearheaded directly by the people.
The
evicted DMK has moved the Madras High Court to declare the result of the
confidence vote as null and void, and is going to move a no-confidence motion
against the Speaker.
It all
starts with undemocratic notions like “political heir”, identification of
successor by the predecessor, political legacy, proximity and/or resemblance to
a leader -- all of which are seen as granting rights to a person or group to
political power and positions. Legitimacy is claimed by using democratic forms but overthrowing
democratic principles. And “Samadhi shows” (prayers at funeral sites and
memorials) are played to raise popular emotions to substitute popular mandate.
On the whole, the importance of gaining popular support by hook or by crook is
maintained.
The case
of Tamil Nadu is extremely complicated. The criminal side of politics stands
exposed and punished. The extent to which legal machineries can be used to
cover crime and corruption is uncovered. Yet, within and outside the legislature
and parties, there are ardent supporters and admirers of tainted politicians --
alive or dead -- which is evidence of total bifurcation between popularity
among masses which can be converted as votes on the one hand and personal and
political integrity and adherence to law on the other. The bifurcation is
facilitated by the people -- ultimate sovereigns in democracies -- and
politicians are beneficiaries.
“Yatha
raja, tatha praja” (meaning “like the king, so the ruler”) – the ancient saying
is still true in modern democracies. It can be perceived as two-way traffic in
Tamil Nadu, each side influencing and shaping the other. The masses are
satisfied with freebies and do not question the source, and the rulers assume
benevolent posture and do not mind the means. A few dissenters still alive and
alert to the goings have to act now.
Conducting
periodic General election and convening Legislative Assemblies are certainly
essential democratic institutions, but not a barometer for democratic character
of democracy.
No less
important is the voice of the people represented by members in the legislature
and by people outside. Popular opinion expressed through social media and
street level action is raised as an argument which goes beyond electoral
mandate. Need to consult voters and right to recall elected members are also
demanded due to loss of credibility of the elected members.
Established
constitutional bodies are found inadequate to ensure democratic governance.
In-between elections, people want to be consulted.
Political
democracy has degenerated into a form without substance as decisions were taken
in riot-like situation in the law-making body, whoever may be the culprit.
There is then a danger of democratic institutions transforming into instruments
for cheating and exploiting the people. Paradoxically, the worst danger to
democracy lies within democratic institutions themselves in the current Indian
society.
Several
parties have emerged in various States including Tamil Nadu which are centred
around an individual or a family. These are run as a family enterprise and
administered like a family property. Party elections are organised to stamp
legitimacy to heirs and successors. Manufactured majority gets authority in the
name of democracy.
The AIADMK
as a political party under the leadership of Jayalalitha was known for severe
discipline and public expression of absolute loyalty and devotion to party
leadership. Loyalty is sine qua non for promotion and even for survival in the
party. Public display of submission and sycophancy and competitive spirit among
party men in that display became too common to escape public notice.
The demise
of Jayalalitha was so unexpected that the rank and file of the party was quite
unprepared. It involves shift of loyalty. Regional parties particularly need a
“figure” to rally around and keep the flock together. Loyalty to a person or a political party is
not a democratic virtue like loyalty to Constitution and law. But, the former
is necessary for survival in current politics and not the latter. When the two
forms of loyalties are in conflict, democracy is on trial.
There is
no mention of political parties in the Constitution except in the Schedule on
Defection added in 1985, but they are well established in India. But, the
importance of inner party democracy is not recognised by many of them resulting
in degeneration of parties as autocratic structures with fragmented parts
within and elevation to posts and wielding of power by nominees, proxies, and
appointees where election according to the Party constitution should be the
method of selection.
The way
the AIADMK is ridiculed by media as “proxy rule”, and “remote control” reflects
signs of undemocratic democracy, and puts a heavy responsibility on the party
to steer clear of such epithets to prove its democratic character. That its
arch rival, the DMK, is subject to the criticism of wielding “one family rule”
is no answer to all-round degeneration of the party system.
The 170th
report of the Law Commission (1999) recommended adoption of a law to govern
internal democracy of political parties. It has stated that democracy and
accountability, which are the core principles of Indian democracy should bind
the political parties also. The Commission maintained that a party could not be
“dictatorship internally and democratic in its functioning outside”.
The
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, 1949 is the only constitution
providing for establishment of political parties and to prescribe that their
internal organisation should conform to democratic principles.
Political
liberty, believed to be the hallmark of democracy, assumes prevalence of
freedom of information, of opinion, of thought, of research, and of
propagation. If some parties demanded secret ballot in the confidence vote, it
merits consideration in the context.
Exclusive
reliance on precedents to deal with an abnormal situation, such as the one in
Tamil Nadu, is open to debate. Every precedent has a starting point. People
holding high offices cannot simplify their work by looking for precedents, but
have to take decisions in their contexts.
Any
election, the principal instrument of taking a democratic decision, has to be
conducted in a free atmosphere with free circulation of information and freedom
of choice. Decay in procedural democracy will inevitably lead to decay of
substantial democracy. What is going on in Tamil Nadu is a case of democratic
institutions pitted against democracy. –INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|