Democracy is perhaps one of the most noblest of ideas to have emerged in human mind. A few ideas in human history are as egalitarian and as sweeping in application as the idea of democracy.
However the implementation of democratic systems are always fraught with raucous contentions and counter opinions. Like In the context of the worlds largest democracy, one may ask what is the most effective manner for democratic systems to function?
Globally there are two systems. one is direct democracy the other is indirect democracy ie the rule directly by people and the rule by peoples representatives. Both these systems are fraught with hazards and its own troubles.
In Indian context, It is known that constitutional makers adopted the indirect democracy. But we now understand the problems that a representative democracy brings. The sheer levels of corruption of our representatives, the pitiless indifference to the issues of the masses and the disconnect with the real body politik. So one is always tempted to ask can we get better than this?
Some suggest why not go for a radical decentralization as Mr Arvindh kejriwal suggests or implement swaraj policy of AAP party?
Is Swaraj the panacea for the troubles surrounding our society? Can Arvindh kejriwal's Swaraj bill root out evils from our soiceity? Or can it create more problems that it can solve? I try to answer these question.
Firstly the idea of deeping democracy or radical decentralization is a laudable one. But with with great decentralization of powers comes great responsibilities.
Let me briefly summarise my points on why I feel swaraj could become a theatre of absurd.
1. No gaurantee for elimination of corruption
Firstly there is no gaurantee that swaraj system of governance can eliminate corruption. The police, the administrators, the corrupt netas all are cut from the same cloth of the society which is abysmally corrupt so it is difficult to believe that merely because the local self government operates, the officials will become automatically squeeky clean.
Kejriwal's logic seems to be that people will gather in large number and pressurize their local administrators to act or change them through local election. However this is not true for our society because even for local garbage issues no one calls up the local muncipality, no one bothers even if some troublemakers are next door unless they make noises to trouble them. How many people do you think will call up police when they see sexual harassment on the streets? Not many.
Basically ours is not an citizen centric or a socially conscious activist society but rather the opposite a selfish self interested and calleous society. Therefore the only way one can reform things is by systemic change and not by decentralizing activism or localising democracy.
2. Fear of Majoritarian excessess
Some one rightly pointed out the weakness of democracy in a simple quote
"Democracy is when two wolf and a goat vote on what to have for dinner"
Mr kejriwal intends to give powers to the local mohalla sabha over the police administration. Just imagine if this power was available to hindu mobs that attacked the muslim in 2002 riots. They would have asked police also to attack the innocent muslims. The fact of the matter is that it is wholly dangerous to let a local majoritarian group gain control over police administration.
3. Strengthening deeply pervasive caste structures and undoing social progress
Many argue that India is a semi-feudal society in as much as the caste system operates bothe covertly and overtly in out city and country side. It is an open secret that the Indian country side lives in another century than the metropolitan cities. We hear many stories of regressive actions taken by village elders, community leaders, village panchayats.
Consider the recent example. The panchayat of a tribal village in westbengal orders a mass open rape of a women in village square merely because she dared to enter into relationship with a man outside the clan. There was a huge consensus in the tribal village to this decision whichs is seen as reclaiming the honour of the clan. Now imagine giving administrative powers to these tribal leaders who would now command the police and local government servants. It is aa dangerous idea even for contemplation
The constitution of India through a centralized system had tried to do away these social evils whether people of the area like it or not and bring in social change. Local self government could strengthen caste structures and undo social change
Conclusion
There is a reason that great thinkers like BR Ambedkar choose representative version of democracy for India over direct democracy. The reason that the swiss model of democracy will not work for India is because indian demographics is exceedingly diverse, its economic populace exceedingly unequal, its social structure historically feudal, and its culture patriarchal and deeply misogynist.
However the implementation of democratic systems are always fraught with raucous contentions and counter opinions. Like In the context of the worlds largest democracy, one may ask what is the most effective manner for democratic systems to function?
Globally there are two systems. one is direct democracy the other is indirect democracy ie the rule directly by people and the rule by peoples representatives. Both these systems are fraught with hazards and its own troubles.
In Indian context, It is known that constitutional makers adopted the indirect democracy. But we now understand the problems that a representative democracy brings. The sheer levels of corruption of our representatives, the pitiless indifference to the issues of the masses and the disconnect with the real body politik. So one is always tempted to ask can we get better than this?
Some suggest why not go for a radical decentralization as Mr Arvindh kejriwal suggests or implement swaraj policy of AAP party?
Is Swaraj the panacea for the troubles surrounding our society? Can Arvindh kejriwal's Swaraj bill root out evils from our soiceity? Or can it create more problems that it can solve? I try to answer these question.
Firstly the idea of deeping democracy or radical decentralization is a laudable one. But with with great decentralization of powers comes great responsibilities.
Let me briefly summarise my points on why I feel swaraj could become a theatre of absurd.
1. No gaurantee for elimination of corruption
Firstly there is no gaurantee that swaraj system of governance can eliminate corruption. The police, the administrators, the corrupt netas all are cut from the same cloth of the society which is abysmally corrupt so it is difficult to believe that merely because the local self government operates, the officials will become automatically squeeky clean.
Kejriwal's logic seems to be that people will gather in large number and pressurize their local administrators to act or change them through local election. However this is not true for our society because even for local garbage issues no one calls up the local muncipality, no one bothers even if some troublemakers are next door unless they make noises to trouble them. How many people do you think will call up police when they see sexual harassment on the streets? Not many.
Basically ours is not an citizen centric or a socially conscious activist society but rather the opposite a selfish self interested and calleous society. Therefore the only way one can reform things is by systemic change and not by decentralizing activism or localising democracy.
2. Fear of Majoritarian excessess
Some one rightly pointed out the weakness of democracy in a simple quote
"Democracy is when two wolf and a goat vote on what to have for dinner"
Mr kejriwal intends to give powers to the local mohalla sabha over the police administration. Just imagine if this power was available to hindu mobs that attacked the muslim in 2002 riots. They would have asked police also to attack the innocent muslims. The fact of the matter is that it is wholly dangerous to let a local majoritarian group gain control over police administration.
3. Strengthening deeply pervasive caste structures and undoing social progress
Many argue that India is a semi-feudal society in as much as the caste system operates bothe covertly and overtly in out city and country side. It is an open secret that the Indian country side lives in another century than the metropolitan cities. We hear many stories of regressive actions taken by village elders, community leaders, village panchayats.
Consider the recent example. The panchayat of a tribal village in westbengal orders a mass open rape of a women in village square merely because she dared to enter into relationship with a man outside the clan. There was a huge consensus in the tribal village to this decision whichs is seen as reclaiming the honour of the clan. Now imagine giving administrative powers to these tribal leaders who would now command the police and local government servants. It is aa dangerous idea even for contemplation
The constitution of India through a centralized system had tried to do away these social evils whether people of the area like it or not and bring in social change. Local self government could strengthen caste structures and undo social change
Conclusion
There is a reason that great thinkers like BR Ambedkar choose representative version of democracy for India over direct democracy. The reason that the swiss model of democracy will not work for India is because indian demographics is exceedingly diverse, its economic populace exceedingly unequal, its social structure historically feudal, and its culture patriarchal and deeply misogynist.
