Yes, I too had read this and found it to be a balanced and reasoned one. On 12 April 2011 22:10, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote:
> [The Indian Express is virtually running a concerted campaign against the > anti-corruption movement under way at the moment. > But this one is arguably a very perceptive and balanced analysis. > Needs be read together with Mukul Sharma's 'The Making of Anna Hazare', > another unsympathetic but detailed and nuanced treatment, at < > http://kafila.org/2011/04/12/the-making-of-anna-hazare/>. > > Quote > * > > If democracy on the one hand is about popular sovereignty, freedom and > equality, it is also about procedures and principles. One of these > principles is the separation of powers. It is of the utmost importance that > power should not be concentrated in one institution, and that democratic > decisions should be subject to review not only by citizens, but also by > other state institutions to ensure conformity with the Constitution. > Democracy is the only form of government that is capable of self- > > correction; this should not be compromised for any reason whatsoever. > * > > ** > > *...* > > * > > But this does not mean that we uncritically accept civil society > initiatives as wholly good and entirely democratic. Civil society is a > plural space, and some organisations can carry within them the seeds of > authoritarianism, and of an inexorable “will to power”. These initiatives > should also be subjected to public scrutiny and engaged with. Eternal > vigilance is, after all, the price we willingly pay for democracy. > > *Unquote] > > http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-seeds-of-authoritarianism/774794/0 > > The seeds of authoritarianism > > *Neera Chandhoke <http://www.indianexpress.com/columnist/neerachandhoke/>* > *Tue Apr 12 2011, 02:41 hrs > Any perceptive analyst of democracy will testify that there is no necessary > relationship between democracy and a corruption-proof regime, or > development, or political stability. If we were to evaluate democracy from > the vantage point of the desired ends we expect it to realise, it would fare > rather poorly when compared to authoritarian governments, say the one > institutionalised in Singapore by its former prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew. > Yew transformed Singapore from a malaria-infested swamp to an economic > powerhouse, and a major centre of finance. The island-state has one of the > highest per capita incomes in the world, possesses a world-class educational > and health system, and boasts of an incorruptible public service. > > But the regime ruthlessly controls the press, does not permit freedom of > expression, and stamps out dissidence — and, often, dissidents. It might > have controlled corruption, achieved material well-being, and become one of > the financial power centres of the world; but Singapore does not respect the > two prime fundamentals of democracy as India does: popular sovereignty and > the equal moral status of citizens. > > This is not to celebrate India’s democracy, which is deeply flawed in many > crucial respects. It is to point out that the proposed solutions for a > corruption-free India that are currently on offer might not be democratic at > all. I am by no means downplaying the achievements of the struggle against > corruption. Anna Hazare is significant because his fast unto death catalysed > the exasperation and the anger of Indian citizens against a system which has > trapped all of us in its ugly and greedy clutches. The sight of hundreds of > people holding candles in their hand was moving because it transmitted two > powerful messages. > > One, the political elite is but the representative of the people, and the > people are entitled to demand accountability of these representatives for > all acts of omission and commission. Two, all those hundreds of crores that > pass from hand to hand; from ministers, to industrial houses, to lobbyists, > to shady firms, and to individuals, are public money. People have a right to > demand that the taxes that are extracted from them are spent for the public > good and not for private gain. > > So, when members of the political elite castigate the campaign against > corruption as blackmail, it occasions a blink. Hello guys, this is what > civil society is about. In 1790, the eminent Irish orator, wit, legal > luminary, and member of the British parliament, John Curran (1750-1817) had > suggested that “the condition on which god hath given liberty to man is > eternal vigilance.” This is the historical mandate of civil society. In > democratic states, civil society is expected to keep watch on violations of > democratic norms by the state, through citizen activism, the making and > circulation of informed public opinion, a free media, a multiplicity of > social associations and sundry means of protest. > > Yet a word of caution might be in order here. Confronted with the > intractable problems that the messy but occasionally creative world of > democracy brings with it, some civil society organisations prefer to > substitute democracy with administration. Establish a Jan Lokpal, endow it > with colossal power, bestow on it the status of a Leviathan, and all our > problems will be solved. Sorry, this is not democratic. > > If democracy on the one hand is about popular sovereignty, freedom and > equality, it is also about procedures and principles. One of these > principles is the separation of powers. It is of the utmost importance that > power should not be concentrated in one institution, and that democratic > decisions should be subject to review not only by citizens, but also by > other state institutions to ensure conformity with the Constitution. > Democracy is the only form of government that is capable of self-correction; > this should not be compromised for any reason whatsoever. > > Certainly corruption is a major issue and needs to be fought, but > according to procedures and norms, and in keeping with the mandate of the > Constitution. The country is not Ralegan Siddhi, where alcoholics are > flogged to make them give up their ways. India is democratic, and in a > democracy even guilty people have rights. Anna Hazare may have earned the > status of a big brother, but no democrat can allow him to turn this Lokpal > into another big brother right out of the pages of George Orwell’s projected > nightmare. > > More worrying are the political beliefs held by this gentleman. He wants > corrupt people to be put to death! In a civilised society, surely, the very > idea of capital punishment is anathema. What gives cause for even more > anxiety is the extraordinarily low opinion that this Gandhian has of the > very people who had rallied around him during his fast. “Ordinary voter > [sic] does not have awareness”, he is reported to have said in a meeting > with the press. “They cast their vote under the influence of Rs 100 or a > bottle of liquor or a sari offered by candidates. They do not understand the > value of their vote.” > > This is an astonishing statement. Does not contempt for the ordinary > Indian citizen defy the very rationale of democracy, and that of its major > claim to legitimacy, that of equal moral status? Moreover, Anna Hazare > should pay more attention to the history of elections. Does he really not > remember how arbitrary and non-performing governments have been voted out of > power in national and state elections? > > More significantly this “voting out” has been carried out by the very > ordinary Indian who he betrays such disdain for. Despite all its flaws, > political democracy in the country has enabled large numbers of poor and > marginal people to understand the power of the franchise, enter the public > arena of politics, and to some degree influence the political discourse, and > the fate of governments. > > To wrap up the argument, it is time the holders of state power understand > that mobilisation in civil society against or for policies, is an integral > part of democratic politics, particularly when our representatives have > betrayed us time and again. The state enacts, implements and adjudicates > policies in our name, and governs in our name. We, therefore, have the right > to ask why we should accept unjust and arbitrary policies, and above all, > corruption. > > But this does not mean that we uncritically accept civil society > initiatives as wholly good and entirely democratic. Civil society is a > plural space, and some organisations can carry within them the seeds of > authoritarianism, and of an inexorable “will to power”. These initiatives > should also be subjected to public scrutiny and engaged with. Eternal > vigilance is, after all, the price we willingly pay for democracy. > > The writer is professor of political science at the University of Delhi > > ** > * > > > > -- > Peace Is Doable > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Green Youth Movement" group. > To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB. > -- Kavita Krishnan 9560756628 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
