Everyman146;s justice

Here8217;s a thought for 2007: Sometimes a positive expression of collective solidarity can give us reason to reflect on the vulnerability of our democratic system

Correcting the wrongs. This year may well be remembered for the public and political expression of this sentiment. If people lit candles and held vigils to seek 8216;justice for Jessica8217; the government spoke of justice for the marginalised minorities. They referred to existing imbalances in the present system and sought to correct them by extending reservations and other forms of affirmative action to the OBCs and Muslims. The issues were thus quite disparate but the moral language was quintessentially the same. Both wanted to set things right.

It is not often that people and politicians speak the same language, so is there reason to celebrate? Can we now say that out democracy has become stronger and deeper? There is no doubt that civic activism is desirable but even as we raise our glasses to toast this past year it may well be necessary to remember that civic activism also signals the weakness of our institutions. In a democracy people8217;s voices need to be heard and counted but when they take on an urgency where every crime appears to spell the death knell to the system, it points to the fragility of our democratic institutions.

Writing on crime and punishment, the great philosopher Hegel pointed out that in ancient societies even small crimes, such as petty theft, met with strong punishment. Limbs were hacked off and people were even put to death. This was because every crime seemed to pose a threat to the survival of the system. However, in modern, and may we add constitutional democracies, relatively bigger crimes receive smaller punishment. Not because the society approves of such crimes but because these crimes no longer pose a similar threat to society. When institutions are strong and functioning effectively actions of an individual, whatever be his crime, do not appear threatening. Hence, when a single crime, however despicable it might be, becomes a rallying point for the people such that the legitimacy of the system rests upon correcting this one wrong, then, surely, all is not well with the system.

If a positive expression of collective solidarity gives us reason to reflect on the vulnerability of our democratic system, do the actions of the government allay our anxieties about the direction in which our democracy is heading? The debate on the efficacy of reservations is far from settled and young doctors are still protesting against the decisions of the government. The universities are steadily confronting the difficulties of implementing the 8216;unfunded mandate8217; of extending reservations from the coming academic year. But even if these challenges are met successfully, we may still have cause for concern.

The founding figures were committed to making our democracy inclusive. Whatever be the merits of the path they chose, they were clear that justice implied fairness. Above all, they recognised that the absence of a group may indicate a subtle form of discrimination but all forms of differences and disparities are not a consequence of past discrimination. This distinction has unfortunately been set aside by the present dispensation.

The present government may be well intentioned in its desire to ensure that the benefits of development go to all communities; we may even applaud its aim to correct prevailing inequities, but can we extend the same sentiment to the path it has chosen to realise that goal? In wanting to correct these wrongs, the government has invoked the principle of proportionate justice as the basis of pursuing equality, but consider the implications of ensuring that groups are represented in every sphere of social and political life in proportion to their size in the population. Indeed would such attempts at proportionate justice be feasible or even desirable? What if we find that women are inadequately represented in the armed forces, would we, or should we, go about correcting this by pro-active measures? What if we find that women are over-represented in the field of education, would we ask for affirmative action to remedy this imbalance?

Compassion towards fellow human beings and sympathy for those who are less privileged can be found in almost all societies. This trait is not unique to democratic or liberal states. Systems of charity and caring for others were institutionalised in ancient religious and non-democratic societies. The mere desire to ameliorate the conditions of the worse-off is therefore not a sufficient mark of the deepening of democracy.

Story continues below this ad

As we move into the next year and celebrate all that we may have accomplished, we may well remember that there are wrongs that still need to be corrected.

The writer is professor, Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, JNU, New Delhi