Rethinking Our Democracy !!

Debates around what form of governance is best suited for the peoples have been in existence since eons and still present enough fodder for contention as the world’s two biggest countries (economically) represent absolutely divergent forms of governance. The United States remains the oldest democracy in the world and China remains the only major functioning authoritarian communist state. While there is still no conclusive evidence regarding which form of governance leads to greater economic development, general climate of opinion considers democracy as a Universal value as it leads to better overall development of the people.

Democracy as a means of governance was first postulated around 2 millennia ago in Greece before it collapsed and was replaced by more authoritarian and asymmetric forms of governments. The triumphant emergence of modern day democracy happened around the 18^th century in the French and American Revolutions. The rise, death and rise of democracy has often attracted proclamations around its vitality by great thinkers such as Winston Churchill, George Orwell and William Durant. Succinctly democracy has often been argued as: “It is not the best form of governance, but the best one we know of”.

Democracy and the Indian State

India today represents a very unique and successful experiment of a democratic set up. Her monolithic structure presented a source of skepticism and pessimism about her success as a democracy. During its formation as a democratic country in 1947, the British expressed anxiety over the Indians' ability to govern themselves. The anxieties had been re-expressed by John Stuart Mill’s hypothesis (1958) that democracy is completely impossible in multi-ethnic societies especially in linguistically divided societies.  However, the collective wisdom and clairvoyance of the then Parliamentarians headed by JL Nehru paved the way for what we today call as the Biggest democracy in the world – India.

In 1950, the constitution or the supreme Law of free India was laid down with its basic tenets significantly borrowed from the liberal democratic societies of the west, esp. British democracy and in parts the American constitution. The Indian constitution provided its peoples with Fundamental rights and their duties towards the nation. It also defined the political principles, powers and duties of government institutions. The basic framework of the Indian constitution provided for the three pillars to support the functioning of the democracy: Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. The creation of the constitution involved strategic debates that characterize normal politics and had reasoned deliberations to define public interest where individuals are treated equally and fairly.

Questioning the Indian democracy

Having succeeded in carrying forward a democracy that was deemed to be a failure more than half a century ago, is it time for India to have a renewed look at it once again? I strongly believe so.

The moot question for us today should not be whether we have succeeded in our quest for creating institutions where the heads are simply democratically elected representatives. According to me, we should now question whether the quality of the very institutions the representatives were elected for has depleted. This becomes significantly more important considering the dire times we are living in India. Mismanagement by the governments both at the state and the federal level and rearing corruption in the legislative, judiciary and executive, have significantly degenerated the sanctity of public service.

Shouldn’t therefore, the putrefaction of the democratic framework of the constitution lead us into questioning the relevance of the three pillars of the constitution? Do we still need to abide by the wisdom of the great leaders who framed our constitution in 1950? Is our constitution so sacrosanct that we can’t question its relevance today? What if we added more pillars to the constitution, after all dire situations call for extreme actions?

I am strongly of the opinion that no text is sacrosanct, the constitution more so. After all it was only framed by a set of individuals. Today, we not only should feel the importance of the Legislative, Judiciary and the Executive but also add two more dimensions – a free & fair Press and the People of the country. Occurrences of the recent past suggest many of the people or the civil-society issues have been taken up by the press first – the 4^th pillar – before the legislature acted upon it. It is a complete reversal of the ideas of 1950. During the formation of the Indian constitution the legislature was supposed to take up people issues and press simply express them. Hence, why not consider providing controlled powers in the hands of the people directly such as formation of legislations through referendum, especially when legislative fails to perform its duties proactively? While the press in India has remained fairly vocal and free for quite some time, the people have lost cogency. Considering, the legislature who is an elected representative significantly forgets the people who he is supposed to take care of but for every 5^th year, the people should be assigned more powers to control the representatives. Especially in the 21^st century technology should play a significant role in controlling the one up-manship of the existing arms of democracy.

Rethinking the Democracy

Can we rethink our democratic government system in terms of a private ltd. organization?

In such a system the people of the country can be considered as shareholders of the organization and public office bearers of the government as the board members of the organization. While the board members act as agents of the shareholders to perform smooth functioning of the organization, their failure to deliver proper returns leads them to be shunted out even before their contract is over. There are multiple checks and balances that prevent board members or agents of the shareholders to benefit their own coffers. These occur through quarterly reporting by organizations, reporting standards set by statutory bodies and external audits which together bring in greater transparency.

Like private organizations therefore, can’t democratic governments bring in greater transparency in their operational efficacy? Can’t our governments provide a much more fair distribution of power to its people such as those with the shareholders of an organization?

Some of the simplest and easiest solutions for bringing in greater transparency in government functioning can be quarterly reporting of targets achieved and not achieved in the projects implemented. These reports can be made available on the government websites for all to view. Similarly, comprehensive ratings about the performance of the ministers in their constituencies can be obtained on a bi-annual / yearly basis from the electorate. Most importantly instilling greater ethical standards in public office functioning should always be paramount for engendering greater public faith.

A lot of work still remains to be done to take the nation ahead. May be rethinking our democracy is just the right antidote. After all, we are still a “Flawed Democracy” according to the Democracy Index.