The Hindu Business Line : The peculiar political paradigm

No thought would have entered the minds of those well-meaning and noble souls that within a couple of decades of the country gaining Independence thanks to their toil and sweat, democracy itself would come to stand for government of the political class, by the political class and for the political class, with its nest-feathering proclivities downplaying the nation’s overall interest, says B. S. RAGHAVAN.

Word spinners in India’s tourism industry have done a magnificent job of coining the most apposite slogan to depict the nation’s distinctive allure: Incredible India. Yes, India is in every way incredible, not the least in the political paradigm that it has specially designed for itself in the course of the last 60 years after Independence.

The Constitution-makers, most of whom were soaked in, and sold on, imported facades of democratic institutions could not have imagined that age-old attributes taken for granted in a democratic polity will, in the Indian context, take on utterly fanciful forms both in their application and operation.

No thought would have entered the minds of those well-meaning and noble souls that within a couple of decades of the country gaining Independence thanks to their toil, tears, sweat and blood, the levers of power and authority would pass on to some sort of political weirdos, and democracy itself would come to stand for government of the political class, by the political class and for the political class, with its nest-feathering proclivities downplaying the nation’s overall interest.

Fair and free elections, gone through in an orderly manner, are the first step to installing governments of the people’s choice. One has heard of Armed Forces booting out elected governments and taking over the country.

The situation in India is ironically opposite: Here, the Armed Forces guard the polling booths to boot out riggers and rowdies and let the voters make their choice. In India, the deployment of large numbers of Armed Forces takes place, not to snuff out democracy, but as its willing anchor and pillar, to assist the Election Commission in the smooth conduct of elections to State Assemblies and Parliament.

Quantum leap

Party symbols are again India’s gift to electoral politics. India’s Constitution-makers, in a quantum leap of faith in the native wisdom of the country’s illiterate masses numbering 80 per cent of the population at the time of Independence, incorporated adult franchise as the basis of elections. Some 40 years down the road, Rajiv Gandhi, in another act of breath-taking boldness, brought down the voting age from 21 to 18, when illiteracy was still prevalent to the extent of 50 per cent. Display of allotted symbols on the ballot boxes, and now electronic voting machines, serve as the only means of helping the large numbers of illiterate voters to identify the parties/candidates.

The list of permitted symbols is quite bewildering in its variety (hand, elephant, lion, cock, lotus, two leaves, clock, bicycle, bus, ladder, hurricane lamp, spectacles, telephone, plough, battery torch, umbrella, ears of corn and sickle, hammer, sickle and star, bow and arrow, rising sun, sun without rays, a lady farmer carrying paddy on her head and more) So far so good. But, who could have thought that canvassing of votes itself would draw heavily on, not policies and programmes of parties/candidates, but the characteristics of the objects allotted as symbols?

For instance, the candidate with the cat as the symbol fighting a candidate with mouse as the symbol will entice the voters somewhat on these lines with folded arms and an ear-to-ear ingratiating grimace: “Voters Almighty, you notice I am the cat before which the mouse scurries to its hole in the wall. The cat is clean and hygienic and the mouse is ugly and dirty. So vote for me, the cat!” His rival would declaim equally assertively: “Oh, walking Gods on earth, I am the mouse that will roar and the cat will be nowhere in the picture. The mouse is sharp and smart, and the cat is lazy and dozing. So, vote for me, the mouse!” Candidates invariably parade the live versions of their symbols to add a touch of drama.

In no other democracy are there so many with criminal antecedents and so many charged with heinous offences by courts of law entering the legislatures with such abandon. It was hoped that making the candidates declare their past record in this respect, and their movable and immovable property with a view to appraising whether they in any way excite the suspicion of acquisition of assets being disproportionate to known sources of income will help voters to separate the chaff from wheat. But no: Vote-banks and caste affinities rub out any stigma attached to criminal background and astronomical assets, while the staying away of discerning voters from the polls makes sure that such unsavoury elements have easy passage into the country’s political sanctum sanctorum.

Dark shadow

There are two arguments glibly parroted by the powers-that-be for putting up persons facing criminal trials as candidates or for inclusion in Cabinets: One is that they are all innocent and the cases are all false cooked up by political enemies. By this token, there need be no investigation or trials at all, and no expenses incurred on them, in view of the certificates of pristine purity given to themselves by the delinquents!

The other is that, even assuming that law must unfortunately take its course, the accused are all innocent until they are proved guilty.

No consideration is given to the fact that the moment the Court, after proper judicial application of mind to the evidence led up to that stage, frames charges against the persons concerned, a dark shadow falls on them, and it is wise not to let them have access to affairs of state, and certainly not to its coffers and resources.

Elsewhere, a coalition may, at the most comprise two or three parties. India has the unique distinction of forming Governments with 20-24 parties, some with single-digit representation in the legislature.

These ‘alliances’ have the miraculous stamina of lasting out the full term as well by adopting some novel techniques. First, the provisions of the Constitution giving the Prime Minister/Chief Ministers the power to choose his Ministers are given the go-by, and the parties forming the so-called coalition assume the prerogative of foisting on the heads of government their own Ministerial nominees, without the PM/CMs having the right to refuse.

Second, the Indian political paradigm has hit upon the ingenious device of the ‘common minimum programme (CMP)’ hammered together by all the constituents. This is a genuine high water mark in the evolution of political thought, and is an eminently replicable way of harmonising viewpoints and even ideologies which look irreconcilable at first sight. Every time a dispute arises, all that the constituents need to do is to wave the CMP before the disputant, and all is well!

Third, a new delightful masterstroke — propping up an alliance/coalition by giving it support from the outside without being part of it — is taking shape which holds great promise of further development. The Parties supporting the coalition or alliance from the outside have the best of both worlds: They make the most of their enjoyment of power without responsibility, keeping under their thumb the government they support; at the same time, they are also unfettered in the exercise of their freedom to merrily go about publicly lambasting to their hearts’ content the policies and programmes of the government while still outwardly pledging their support to it, and forswearing any intention of destabilising it!

Finally, the paradigm has done away with any obligation on the part of the Ministers to look upon the interests of the nation as a whole. Each Central Minister, for instance, moves about only in his constituency, or at the most, the State he hails from, and rarely steps out of it to places in other States to understand and address their concerns.

One reason for their avoiding visits to States other than their own is that most Ministers are not nowadays at ease with English (or Hindi, in the case of Union Ministers from the Southern States), and are uncomfortable in strange surroundings where English (or Hindi) is the only effective means of communication. However, the rotation among States effected by reshuffles ensures that all States at one time or another will come under the care of one or the other Minister!

Thus lumbers on the brand of democracy peculiar to India and the wonder of wonders is that the country is none the worse for it!