Why Politicians Hate Civil Society
- Unelected activists stealing Parliament's right to make laws, undercutting role of parliamentarians
- Demands like an all-powerful Lokpal directly impact political-bureaucratic class and the status quo
- Rigid deadlines, fasts unto death to press home issues are akin to holding government to ransom
- Streetcorner populism of activists runs counter to both the demands of realpolitik and tenets of democracy
***
Sparring Points
Besides Lokpal Bill, politicians have sparred with civil society on four key pieces of legislation
- RTI Act: Various arms of government first block it, now place conditions designed to strangle transparency
- Right to Food: The Planning Commission differs with activists on what percentage of poor should be covered
- Land Acquisition Bill: Many opinions even within govt, from ceding the role to industry or not. Activists want to go beyond compensation, against coercive displacement.
- Communal Violence Bill: Saffron parties allege new 'discriminatory' bill, drafted by NAC, is being rammed down their throats.
***
A few days in June have never looked so different from a few days in April. Two months ago, when the crowds had begun to swell at Jantar Mantar in support of a fasting Anna Hazare, the mood of the citizens was upbeat, the media unquestioning and a scared government anxiously monitoring upcoming elections in five states. As the din over corruption grew, the Congress finally acceded to the demand of setting up a joint drafting committee including civil society representatives and government nominees for the proposed Lokpal Bill. The exercise was to lead to the formation of a body that would address corruption in high places.
|
Between April and June, the summer had seen a distinct shift in the balance of power between government and civil society. First, there was the smear campaign against the father-son duo of Shanti and Prashant Bhushan. When that failed, 'civil society' itself was sought to be divided. Soon enough, it ceased to be a battle between civil society and the government and became a struggle between a few members who called themselves civil society and virtually the entire political class. Opposition parties like the BJP and the Left felt that democracy and the supremacy of Parliament was being subverted by a few unelected "anarchists". Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari took the argument further to say, "Under the Westminster system of democracy, it is the right of the government to propose legislation and the sovereign right of Parliament to agree or dispose. So if anybody is under the misconception that they will be able to impose their will over the collective sovereign, then they are living in an illusion. Consultation does not mean the power to veto." Tewari also made it clear that the UPA government had been, and will be, accommodating. "The National Advisory Council (NAC) was an attempt at constructive engagement. But can we give in to anarchists masquerading as civil society? We need to make a sharp distinction between anarchists and civil society."
|
But it isn't civil society per se as much as the proposed Lokpal Bill that has invoked the wrath of the politicians across the board. This is perhaps because it will make elected representatives and the bureaucracy accountable should they indulge in corrupt acts. And the disagreement with civil society on the exact contours of the bill is what has forged a consensus between sworn enemies and the Left and the Right. No one is supportive of the tough clauses that the civil society representatives want included and the manner in which they want to dictate terms while drafting the bill. Neither do the politicians like the idea of presuming their entire class to be corrupt.
Stead Fast Anna Hazare supporters at Rajghat
Says D. Raja of the CPI, "Painting all politicians with the same brush is not good for democracy and can lead to anarchy, which in turn breeds fascism." Raja's concern stems from the basic premise of Hazare's movement that all politicians are corrupt. He also feels the coercive tactics of the group in forcing itself on the government and drafting the Lokpal Bill do not augur well for democracy. "It's the government's job to draft a bill and present it to Parliament and it is here that the bill should be debated and discussed. What is this civil society which is co-drafting the bill with the government? What is its sanctity?" Raja urges civil society groups to be a little cautious in their approach and advises the government to "consult political parties first before introducing a legislation".
|
Union home minister P. Chidambaram, in an extensive interview to Doordarshan, said, "I support civil society speaking up, raising its voice. But I do not support elected representatives yielding their obligations and responsibilities to civil society representatives. Let's remember that the foundation of this country is parliamentary democracy."
But why has civil society mobilised itself now on the corruption issue? Explains political sociologist D.L. Sheth: "There are moments when a more generic voice takes root and allows civil society to mobilise itself like now." Going by Sheth's observation, the efforts of Anna Hazare and even Ramdev could qualify as movements where effective mobilisation took place to rouse the state from slumber. The recent spate of mega scams only amplified this systemic apathy. Money that could have been better spent on education, food and health was pocketed by a handful of people in power—corruption that was assiduously brought to light by a vigilant media chronicling their actions. "When people begin to see the government being treated as a jagir by those who they elected," says Sheth, "they resent it. Legislative and bureaucratic power can become defunct if not countervailed by civil society."
And it was the UPA government itself which had opened its doors to civil society and gave it the legitimacy previous governments had not. This it did in the first term of UPA by setting up the NAC, which has since been poring over tens of thousands of important legislations (see graphics). Activists like Medha Patkar and Sandeep Pandey say the creation of the NAC was a good sign in that it brought in sections of people who had fought at the grassroots level for people-friendly policies into the mainstream where they are in a position to act as pressure groups. So even as some politicians blame the government for outsourcing its work of drafting legislations to the NAC, activists welcomed its creation. Says Medha Patkar, "The NAC is only a drafting committee, not a passing committee. Moreover, issues like corruption require a perseverance that political parties don't have. Ultimately, Parliament has to pass legislations."
This breed of activists is now finding itself at odds with other members of the civil society. It is not that they do not want a strong anti-corruption mechanism, but they are not comfortable with the methods employed by Hazare's team. "We support everything Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan have done so far," a member of the National Campaign for the People's Right to Information (NCPRI) told Outlook. "But we also detect a certain intolerance for contrary views and at times they do end up trivialising some of the positions that we have taken on the draft bill."
The State Speaks Police action at Bhatta-Parsaul villages
An amalgamation of many opinions which came together to create the Right to Information Act between 1996 and 2004, the NCPRI today cannot see eye to eye with Hazare's team. Its convenor for several years, Shekhar Singh, recalls, "We went through several processes. It is a myth to believe that a law can be drafted with 1,00,000 people. When we worked on the RTI Act, we made a draft and then met people. If we got a negative feedback, we would reflect and redraft it. But the idea was to incorporate greater diversity and take the most prominent voices coming in."
|
Eventually, as Sheth says, civil society has its own legitimacy and accountability and this it draws from the causes it espouses. Nobody will embrace a cause that doesn't sound credible. For now, corruption and the move against it is credible, for it has the ringing endorsement of thousands of Indians.
| ALSO IN THIS STORY |
LOKPAL BIL It was the NAC that brought 'moral' citizenry on board |
OPINION Just what is civil society? A hazy label that leaves us none the wiser. |
RSS After seeing a popular figure to ride on in Baba Ramdev, the RSS is looking at ways to quietly dismount |
RSS The RSS begins to regain iron control over the BJP |
RAMDEV'S EMPIRE Ramdev's Rs 1,100-cr empire raises its own set of controversies |
 OPINION Intolerance is ingrained in the Congress as well as the Opposition |
AUTHORS: SAIKAT DATTA | ANURADHA RAMAN
PEOPLE: ANNA HAZARE | ARVIND KEJRIWAL
TAGS: LOKAYUKTA & LOKPAL | CORRUPTION | LAW | NAC-NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL |GOVERNMENT-GOVERNANCE-GOVERNMENT POLICIES ETC | CONSTITUTION | PARLIAMENT | MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT | PROTESTS | LAND | FOOD: POLICY-PRICES-PDS-SECURITY ETC | COMMUNAL-COMMUNALISM | RTI | CIVIL SOCIETY
SECTION: NATIONAL
SUBSECTION: COVER STORIES
Translate
JUN 11, 2011 08:00 PM 9 | So now it's Congress, the elected party? LOLOLOLOL, Guys, remember how they were defending the gun toting Maoists not too long ago? |
JUN 11, 2011 05:45 PM 8 | "The reason of Colossal Government's getting scared of as short-man as Anna Hazare is that it knows that even a Spoonful of Curd can Curdle the Ocean of Milk." |
JUN 11, 2011 05:26 PM 7 | What have this so called "Parliamentary system" done to our nation for the last 6 decades? -- 700 million still under poverty!! and a bunch of corrupt politicians!! We all know how much bribe money most MPs, MLAs and ministers make. Why should we tolerate this system? There are NO holy cows!!! If parliamentary system did not work for India,.... then heck... change it!!!! India is unique, our problems are unique, hence our solutions must be unique, we can't be aping the systems of Europe or USA (where literacy is 100% and population is well educated). We need to get rid of the pretentions of being a "liberal" democracy(where "intellectuals" can call for the break up of the nation in seminars and Maoists and jihadis can butcher us without any hindrance) and become a "conservative" democracy with capital punishment for corruption (if our constitution doesn't allow that, then CHANGE IT)!!!! Is the constitution faxed from heaven?? |
JUN 11, 2011 04:14 PM 6 | The CIVIL SOCIETY is not usurping the power of Legislature. It is only expressing the desire of the people to have a specific type of LAW. The law has to be passed by legislators in the Parliament after due process of law. The claim that making law is the right of legislators is also not fully correct. LAWS are drafted and passed by the EXICUTIVE part of legislative comprising of the PM and the CABINET. The legislators of the opposition party like Mr SITARAM YECHURY does not have the right to even introduce any BILL in the parliament and opposing a GOVT SPONSORED BILL is useless as WIP issued by the ruling party ensures that same is passed- NUCLEAR BILL was a recent example. The Parliament will become truely democratic when any LEGISLATOR is allowed to introduce BILLs and all others are allowed to vote supporting/ opposing it with out Party WIPS. |
JUN 11, 2011 03:43 PM 5 | Agreed that Hammurabi, in his ancient wisdom, spelled out harsh/ draconian laws. |
PERMALINK
LIKE (1)
DISLIKE (0)
REPORT ABUSE| Post a Comment |
Posts
