The term Juggernaut, in the English language, is a distortion of the Indian name for Lord Jagannath. The famous ‘Rath Yatra’ – literally, ‘Chariot Journey’ – of the Jagannath Puri temple, in the South Indian state of Odisha, consists of three chariots, carrying the presiding deities, which do not stop during the course of their journey. The Indian cultural context, huge public participation and the unstoppable nature of the ceremony make ‘Jaggernaut’ a rather ideal description of the Indian general elections. As the world’s largest public participation in electing representatives, this represents a massive endorsement of the democratic process. However, I believe there are several aspects to the process that can be improved on as well.
At the outset, let me point out that I am proud of the fact that India chose the path of direct democracy to elect its government, post-independence. Given the many different models of administration that former colonies chose after the British empire was dismantled, the Indian choice was by no means a done deal. What’s more, over the course of subsequent decades, several of these countries, that had initially come into being as democracies, devolved into various forms of autocratic rule. Despite the various developmental challenges that India has faced in the decades after it became free nation, the country’s citizens remained committed to a system of universal adult franchise. This is not only a commendable outcome, it stands as an example to many other nations that face similar issues. Having said that, every system has room for improvement with time. As new generations of Indian citizens emerge, the democratic process – especially the elections – should also evolve to reflect even higher standards in probity and representing the will of the people. As a mature and modern nation, I believe it is time for India to begin to look at the finer details of how political power is established in the nation. The fact that some of the most established democracies in the world have elected presidents of questionable quality, or been bogged down in endless manipulative arguments over the result of well publicized referendums, should not concern India. Mediocrity elsewhere is not a reason to settle for anything less than the highest manifestation of democracy, in both letter and spirit, in India.
Candidates who represent the entire cross section of the population
There is a very fundamental difference between the presidential and parliamentary models of democracy. Electing a single individual as President, who then has the freedom to create a cabinet of ministers or secretaries, offers one set of benefits. For instance, in this model, those who assist the elected leader do not themselves have to have been successful in a public poll. In the presidential model, therefore, the administration is free to select from the best available technocrats and other experts within the citizenry, to execute the various powers of government. However, in a democracy as diverse as India, this could easily result in a skewed system that entrenches vested interests into the system of governance. Limiting the intake of lawmakers and administrators from within the pool of those elected directly by the people does ensure a somewhat more direct impact of the voter’s will. However, by direct consequence, the entire system also becomes limited by the quality of its elected political class.
In the parliamentary system, therefore, two of the biggest challenges for a system to be as close to ideal as possible, are the quality of the elected and whether they represent the entire electorate is represented adequately. In the Indian context, there are some key limitations in this regard, when it comes to ground reality. One of the central limitations of Democracy, around the world, is the highly developed methods of propaganda that have been used to create consensus, for more than a century now. Leading intellectuals and thinkers, such as Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman, gave undue credibility to the thought process that the ‘unwashed masses’ needed to be manipulated into what was ‘good for them’. In my opinion, this is a terrible assessment of the common person and fundamentally compromises democracy. Within the Indian context, an approach to the selection of candidates, which was based on the demography of a particular constituency, has taken root. As a rule, Indian political parties chose candidates on the basis of whether they are from the community that is in the majority in a particular constituency. Superficially, this might seem to ensure that the various diverse communities in India get their due representation. In practice, of course, society is far more fundamentally divided between the ‘elite’ and the ‘ordinary’. Regardless of the identity that the candidate claims to represent, the truth is that self-interests are far more fundamentally divided on the basis of economics, rather than ethnicity, religion or any such marker of identity.
One of the key reforms that Indian democracy needs to make is in countering this tokenism in representation and activating more issue based support. In all honesty, this is not an evolution that requires legislation or the participation of the political class in any way. This change will only come about with the rise of a more evolved and mature approach from within the ordinary citizenry and electorate. To an extent, this is becoming obvious on social media and other platforms that empower people. However, the continued rise of these aware and engaged attitudes is critical. For one thing, such platforms are also being used to reinforce previous positions. For another, this evolution in approach will take time and is going to take the participation of all Indians. I believe that there is a new generation that will seize the moment and ensure that issue based politics takes over from the identity driven, but this struggle is on and one cannot be complacent about it.
Breaking the nexus of politics and criminality
Another very basic challenge that the democratic process faces around the world is the undue influence of vested interests and centers of power that manipulate it. To me, whether this is the influence of certain banking, pharmaceutical and energy lobbies in many ‘first world’ democracies, or that of a local commodity mafia in a remote Indian community, the effect is the same. Such influences distort democracy and, much worse, empower the unscrupulous and ruthless. In fact, in terms of the violence and exploitation that more base criminals can perpetuate, the life of the ordinary person is affected more directly in the Indian context. While the impact of criminal mega-corporations is far more universal, at least they inherently require a more vibrant economy to exploit. This often results in, at least, a better living standard for the ordinary person. In the Indian context, the criminality involved is far more obviously exploitative of the ordinary person, limiting the expansion of every human prosperity index metric, far more directly.
In this context I was disappointed by the ruling issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in September 2018. In response to a petition filed by a sitting representative of the ruling party, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the august court ruled against directly disqualifying candidates because of criminal charges being framed against them in a criminal case. The Bench then passed on the initiative for action to the Parliament. I strongly believe that this was a tremendous missed opportunity. While I can understand that several complex factors – such as motivated accusations and manipulated investigations – can undermine good intentions in such an initiative, I also believe that the considerable experience and intellect of the bench could have been better used. Even if the Honourable Justices did not consider themselves adequately informed, surely they could have initiated the setting up of an expert panel that could develop a solution over time? After all, this was the approach used to ‘reform’ a body as relatively unimportant as the Board of Cricket Control in India. In the recent past the Honourable Court has also seen it fit to issue decrees about several traditional practices that, I believe, they understand inadequately. This is what particularly drives my disappointment about the move to urge the legislature to frame a law to ensure the decriminalization of politics. In essence, this is asking a compromised body to police itself. Such a move only consolidates the opportunity to abuse power.
In my opinion, addressing this issue is of very crucial concern to Indian democracy. It will take some years after the criminal elements in politics have been negated, before the effects of such a move are even felt in the health of the nation. This, therefore, makes the need to move on the issue even more pressing and immediate. I honestly believe that looking the other way or being evasive about this issue is no less than a dereliction of duty.
Democracy is the electorate, not the elected
Abraham Lincoln’s famous quote about democracy being of, for and by the people, has stood the test of time with good reason. The very reason why democracies around the world have developed one or another means to manipulate their electorate is because power centers form even in a democracy, and they are then reluctant to allow their interests to be challenged. However, we must always remember that any manipulative influence requires our active participation or surrender to become a force in our lives. Every aspect of the quality of human resources in our elected legislature is within our control, in a democracy.
I have great faith in the emerging young generation of India. I believe that one of the greatest benefits of the ‘demographic dividend’ of the rising population of youth, in India, will be the reversal of these manipulations and compromises in democracy. The challenges are considerable, but the solutions are obvious as well.
