The triumphalism by sections of the mainstream media following the circumstances led to the calling off of Anna Hazare’s fast is completely misplaced. Additionally, it appears to be not without ulterior motives. The mainstream media would like to describe and interpret the settlement as a ‘victory of the people’.
The events constitute an unprecedented chapter in the contemporary history of parliamentary democracy in this country.
Now there is a contestation for claims to success and interpretations are being put forth to claim credit. But since this process is so important for the future of this nation and its people, it is absolutely necessary to delve into the underpinnings.
For the last couple of years the people of this country have been saddled with revelations of corruption in high places in the government and the corporate sector involving loss of stupendous magnitude of money to the public exchequer. The sense of public disgust was palpable. The need for a strong and effective Lokpal to oversee and deal with the misconduct of the executive was almost universally accepted.
But what is to be noted is that this backdrop was not to merely a result of the Jan Lokpal campaign but also the result of exposure by the judiciary and also sections of the opposition in Parliament.
Therefore, the description of the present state of affairs as a result of the singular efforts of Team Anna would be undoubtedly lopsided. This is not to suggest that the fast and some of the very relevant and meaningful suggestions of the Jan Lokpal did not contribute significantly to what was adopted by Parliament. In fact, the civil society has a major role to play in democracy. This is particularly so in highlighting the inadequacies of the political process and its misgivings by sensitizing the citizens at large to express themselves to rectify the situation. And, in that the intervention of the civil society culminating in the past did play a very important role.
But, at the same time, to pose the development as a triumph of the civil society over the political process and Parliament is not only patently wrong but also fringes on being mischievous. In order to strengthen democracy, the role of the civil society must be critical yet persuasive. The relationship between the civil society and the legislature cannot be adversarial. One has to complement the other. Because, finally, law making which takes into account the existing social reality and translate a desire of the people into a working arrangement sanctioned by law. And, that function is the ‘sole prerogative’ of the legislature.
There is no doubt that the outbreak of massive corruption is the outcome of policies pursued by parties in power — both at the Centre and states. The civil society, therefore, can and has given expressions to this sense of public disgust.
But certain disturbing questions do arise. Why were the civil society players pronouncedly silent on the corporate complicity? It is true that the Jan Lokpal version did contain certain suggestions on pursuing certain deterrence against erring corporate entities. But that was never highlighted. Similarly, the active attempt to delegitimise the political process and undermining the role of elected representatives and the parliament itself was disturbing. Can the misgivings of the executive and their wrongdoings be simply equated with Parliament as such?
The Indian Parliament, flawed as it may be, has evolved in establishing the institution of Standing Committees and the methodology of facilitating public hearings in scrutinising the provisions of the draft legislation placed by the government — has indeed created public space for incorporating citizens’ views in the process of law making. That cannot be ignored.
The government’s specious excuse that there can be no protest against the proposed law or its provisions outside Parliament once it has been taken up for consideration is atrocious. There are too many precedents involving even the Congress to accept this preposterous suggestion. But, equally, Team Anna’s claim that Parliament has to accept their version of the Jan Lokpal in total was no less atrocious.
Therefore, what happened in the end is, indeed, a certain maturing of our democratic process where Parliament as a whole — both the treasury and the opposition — could persuade itself to address the substantive issues that stood as sticklers were addressed but suggesting mechanisms which might not have been contemplated in the Jan Lokpal version. This moderation and adjustment was reflected in the sense of the House statement. This, therefore, was a triumph for democracy and its institutions — Parliament included.
Therefore, the triumphalism is suspect. More so when the increasing corporatisation of Indian media during the past course of reforms in the country has seen concerted efforts to jettison the political process and belittle the role of all those who raised their critical voice. Dissent over the neo-liberal course never found favour with our mainstream media. One wonders why Team Anna received the unstinted and full-throated support from 24x7 news channels in the manner that they did.
0 comments:
Post a Comment