In the run up to the 2014 Lok Sabha Elections, an interesting and very important development occured that went unnoticed. Kannada writers UR Ananthamurthy and Girish Karnad campaigned for Shri. Nandan Nilekani in the Bangalore South constituency. They sought votes for Nilekani on 3 counts -
1) He represents a secular party
2) He comes from a clean background with demonstrated leadership skills and
3) The current MP has not done anything for Bangalore.
We cannot evaluate these statements objective neither is it necessary. All of us know the value one must accord to election rhetoric even if it comes fro Jnanapeeth Awardees. But the THIRD reason for their support and campaign deserves deeper investigation. In this statement lies a significant recognition of an important contradiction in our democratic setup which people of their stature should either not have missed or deliberately sidestepped.
1) He represents a secular party
2) He comes from a clean background with demonstrated leadership skills and
3) The current MP has not done anything for Bangalore.
We cannot evaluate these statements objective neither is it necessary. All of us know the value one must accord to election rhetoric even if it comes fro Jnanapeeth Awardees. But the THIRD reason for their support and campaign deserves deeper investigation. In this statement lies a significant recognition of an important contradiction in our democratic setup which people of their stature should either not have missed or deliberately sidestepped.
It is a matter of high-school knowledge that in our democratic setup, Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) are law-makers. The Constitution of India does not expect them to deliver specific expectations of a constituency in terms of material development. That in our setup is the responsibility of a Corporator. Even if we stretch, most of the developmental works in a place are the responsibility of a State Government. For instance, Bangalore city's development is the responsibility of Urban Development Minister of both State and Centre as well as the Public Works Department of the State. By any stretch of imagination it is not the responsibility of the representing MPs or MLAs, at best they play a minor facilitation role.
Being the stalwarts that they are- Were Karnad and Ananthamurthy not aware of this fundamental reality? They were indeed. In this context, I am reminded of an incident a couple of decades ago. P V Narasimha Rao, the favourite Prime Minister of the middle classes of India, is best known as the saviour of India from the clutches of License Permit Raaj. Under his leadership a law was passed that gave every MP of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha with INR 1 Crore per year to initiate any key developmental work in their constituency. Kannada Theatre stalwarts like Shri.K.V. Subbanna opposed this on the grounds that this is untenable under the Indian constituency, that the constituency development was not the responsibility of an MP and this was almost formalizing and institutionalizing corruption. A Case was filed in a Court too - I am not aware of what end it met. Few have noticed this fundamental change in the Indian democratic setup. Fans of PVN, I am sure, cannot be proud of this change of far reaching impact - if they understand it correctly. Being close to Subbanna, Karnad and Ananthamurthy would be aware being close to people like Subbanna. Yet they chose to sidestep this episode when they chose to argue that Bangalore South MP should be changed as he has done nothing for the constituency. There are good reasons for it.
Clearly pushing an MP/MLA for constituency development is in contradiction with the constitution of India in terms of the way it organizes the roles. However, it is well within the expectations of Aam Aadmi of India from their MPs and MLAs. Irrespective of whether they vote for the Corporation, Assembly or Parliament people of India vote with a common mindset
1. With the expectations of constituency development
2. With the expectations of personal accessibility of the Leader
3. With the expectations of cultural connection with the candidate.
They may chose different parties in the local, state, parliamentary elections but the nature of expectations remain the same. It is important to note that Lawmaking is not an expectation that the common man has at all - for he/she does not understand this aspect of the Constitution. This pitch has been so strong in the recent past that even intellectuals have forgotten the fundamental design principles of Constitution of India and that there are different roles to be played.
Clearly pushing an MP/MLA for constituency development is in contradiction with the constitution of India in terms of the way it organizes the roles. However, it is well within the expectations of Aam Aadmi of India from their MPs and MLAs. Irrespective of whether they vote for the Corporation, Assembly or Parliament people of India vote with a common mindset
1. With the expectations of constituency development
2. With the expectations of personal accessibility of the Leader
3. With the expectations of cultural connection with the candidate.
They may chose different parties in the local, state, parliamentary elections but the nature of expectations remain the same. It is important to note that Lawmaking is not an expectation that the common man has at all - for he/she does not understand this aspect of the Constitution. This pitch has been so strong in the recent past that even intellectuals have forgotten the fundamental design principles of Constitution of India and that there are different roles to be played.
So whats the big deal? The big deal is the design principles of the Constitution of India are at logger-heads with the actual pattern of voting and people's expectations. So the contradiction we have is
1. People do not want to vote "Lawmakers" or atleast they dont have that expectation. Even in a minimal sense they are not evaluating candidates for their ability to conduct parliamentary affairs and make Laws.
2. They certainly want to vote those who deliver their developmental expectations from all their representatives ie., in some sense they are evaluating their capabilities in this direction.
3. If the expectations are well-set to choose a genuine Law Maker, we may see a greater number of NOTA votes.
4. Personally I do not believe that people can vote the right law makers as they lack knowledge and instruments required to make necessary evaluations. This has nothing to do with formal/modern education as such an electing ability by its definition will fall into a specialized domain. For eg., even an excellent Engineer will not be easily able to evaluate the candidates and select an effective Law Maker.
1. People do not want to vote "Lawmakers" or atleast they dont have that expectation. Even in a minimal sense they are not evaluating candidates for their ability to conduct parliamentary affairs and make Laws.
2. They certainly want to vote those who deliver their developmental expectations from all their representatives ie., in some sense they are evaluating their capabilities in this direction.
3. If the expectations are well-set to choose a genuine Law Maker, we may see a greater number of NOTA votes.
4. Personally I do not believe that people can vote the right law makers as they lack knowledge and instruments required to make necessary evaluations. This has nothing to do with formal/modern education as such an electing ability by its definition will fall into a specialized domain. For eg., even an excellent Engineer will not be easily able to evaluate the candidates and select an effective Law Maker.
5. Net-net, the society is voting MPs/MLAs to do a certain job but actually they are supposed to perform an altogether different job. Worse, they are ill-equipped to elect what the candidates are expected to perform. As a result, to put it crudely, MPs/MLAs are not ready for their jobs in that sense.
Narasimha Rao may have effected this for tactical reasons - to save a government in minority. All subsequent elected representatives recognize the contradiction but they understand that the root cause of the contradiction is the constitutional organization of the roles being not aligned to the ethos of the society and hence play to the gallery. Intellectuals recognize the contradiction but they are caught between their worship for Constitution and wrath of the society, hence they are turning a blind eye. The grand summary of all this is - you have an MP, MLA and Corporator all focusing on developmental work. Given that the Parliament is bigger than Assembly and Corporation, people have higher development expectations from them and MPs naturally play to the gallery. As a consequence of all this, we experience the following distortion in our polity
1) Genuine Law Making suffers or such central Law Making is not necessary in the eyes of the public
2) Its a burden on the exchequer that 3 representatives actually are focused on the same job
If we want our MPs to be primarily law makers then the current mechanism of direct elections to the Parliament based on Universal Adult Franchise may not the right mechanism. Indirect mechanisms could be far better. Legislative Assemblies/Corporators can decide the Law Making representatives from their state for the Parliament. It will then turn the focus of democracy towards the local bodies and result in a sweeping decentralization. In any case, we have to take note of this anamoly as a country and drive some change in this direction.
These are, of course, fundamental structural problems that can be addressed in the long term. However, this distortion is also spring force of another problem that the entire country is consumed and concerned with - THE CORRUPTION. The misalignment between the democratic setup and people expectations is indirectly resulting in all round corruption across legislature and executive, thereby consuming the entire system. It is tragic and a great irony of our times that the intellectuals, constitutional experts, social leaders are extremely concerned about corruption without any effort towards identifying its structural root. Constitutional dogmatism is probably the reason.
2) Its a burden on the exchequer that 3 representatives actually are focused on the same job
If we want our MPs to be primarily law makers then the current mechanism of direct elections to the Parliament based on Universal Adult Franchise may not the right mechanism. Indirect mechanisms could be far better. Legislative Assemblies/Corporators can decide the Law Making representatives from their state for the Parliament. It will then turn the focus of democracy towards the local bodies and result in a sweeping decentralization. In any case, we have to take note of this anamoly as a country and drive some change in this direction.
These are, of course, fundamental structural problems that can be addressed in the long term. However, this distortion is also spring force of another problem that the entire country is consumed and concerned with - THE CORRUPTION. The misalignment between the democratic setup and people expectations is indirectly resulting in all round corruption across legislature and executive, thereby consuming the entire system. It is tragic and a great irony of our times that the intellectuals, constitutional experts, social leaders are extremely concerned about corruption without any effort towards identifying its structural root. Constitutional dogmatism is probably the reason.
Is this 2017 post or 2014? Anyway it's a timeless article.
ReplyDeleteIndirect election is good. That's how ancient republic's were. Mauryans and Buddhism time gana rajya were like that. But that would be termed elites republic with no say for common man. Today's scenario is to play to the gallery.