Who needs checks 038; balances?

But he was not at all convinced. 8220;Then what is the point of a majority? In democracy, majority is everything,8221; was his straightforward logic. The argument that constitutional institutions and democratic ones like the media were meant to have their own respective, sacrosanct roles, irrespective of who held the parliamentary majority, and by how much, was lost on him. I tried to tell him that in case a general tried to subvert democracy in future, the elected government would need a strong, independent judiciary and credible, free and courageous media. Again, he was not convinced. He packed his bench with loyalists. He treated the media so badly, they sometimes remembered the Zia years with nostalgia. And sure enough, when Musharraf8217;s jack-boots came calling, the media celebrated, and the courts refused to give him any support or succour.

I do not know if Nawaz Sharif would ever have reflected on that conversation, either when locked up in Musharraf8217;s jail or in exile now. But given the fact that democracy was still new in Pakistan, that its institutions were still firming up and that a constitutional democratic temper was yet to develop, you could understand his impatience.

This was only compounded by the fact that Pakistan is still a largely feudal winner-takes-all society. If I lose, you put me and my family in jail, burn my house take away my cattle. When I win, it must be my turn to get even. So who has the time for all these constitutional niceties? Or 8220;interference8221;.

Reading this story, do you wonder if we, in India, can continue to be so sanctimonious when it comes to preaching tolerance of institutions and liberal values to the newer democracies in our neighbourhood? Several developments over the past year have underlined an increasing impatience of the political class with three of our most hallowed institutions, whose freedom and strength are vital to us, irrespective of who is in power. The judiciary, the Election Commission and the president are all apolitical, non-partisan institutions that provide solidity, credibility and stability to our democracy. The three, with media on the side, also provide institutional strength when there is a weak government and a check on authoritarian tendencies if there is one with a brute majority. So why this rising anger with all of these? And why so much angry dismissal and confrontationist posturing from what was usually the most liberal section of our politicians?

The stern manner in which the leaders of the Left warned the Election Commission on Thursday to desist from acting against any of its MPs facing action for holding offices of profit was almost reminiscent of Musharraf gravely telling India to 8220;lay off8221; as he announced his policy about-turn on the Taliban after 9/11. Except, then you could afford to laugh at him. But now, if leaders of the Left, who pack more grey matter than any other political party and I say that with sincerity, not sarcasm, were to more or less tell our own Election Commission to lay off, it is a cause for greater concern. Imagine, if a similar warning had been made by Narendra Modi. All hell would have broken loose, including demands for Article 356 and cries of fascism. Here the leaders of our venerable Left are first telling the government they control to give the president a bloody nose by returning the office of profit bill to him, more or less in the same form, and also warning the EC to cease and desist, lest it be caught in a game of partisan politics.

This is an extremely dangerous and risky approach. And it is not merely because this president is not a politician. Never was, and never will be. Do those who advocate presenting him an arrogant fait accompli understand the implications if he, rather than go along and subject himself to humiliation as he did with Buta Singh in Bihar, decides to listen to his conscience, and walk away, leaving it probably for a lesser person to put his rubber stamp, a dhobi mark on what is, arguably, one of the most self-serving pieces of legislation passed by our political class? It is also important to remember that the only other time a president returned a bill was also where it involved personal gain for our MPs. Venkataraman had refused the bill seeking to raise MPs8217; perks.

Experience shows that such confrontations are always costly. They engender more attrition than the confrontationists bargain for. Rajiv Gandhi took on Zail Singh, a president whose claims to moral authority were perhaps not as naturally acceptable as the current incumbent8217;s. But even given that, and even though Rajiv had 413 MPs, his confrontation with the president damaged him. Sonia Gandhi8217;s Congress, which has 143 MPs in this Parliament, should not be allowed to confront a president who8217;s not only politically neutral but who commands a degree of popular appreciation almost unprecedented in this republic8217;s history.

There are other dangers as well, particularly when you see the whole sequence of events. Modi and his VHP supporters had viciously attacked J.M. Lyngdoh8217;s Election Commission in Gujarat. Remember how Modi mockingly addressed him as 8220;John Michael8221; underlining his Christian background. The implicit insinuation was, he was therefore anti-Hindu. Then in Bihar last year, this EC faced the same challenge from Lalu. K.J. Rao was demonised and there were open insinuations that the EC was casteist. Now there is a suggestion that it8217;s inclined towards the BJP.

It is tougher to impute motives to the higher judiciary. But if there is one thing that has made the political class unite on a non-partisan basis, it is the use of legislative power to render the judiciary impotent. The Maharashtra government showed the way with the bill to stop demolitions of illegal, largely mafia-built properties in Ulhasnagar. Then the BJP, Congress and the Left got together in a rare show of unity to first amend the Constitution to get around a Supreme Court judgment on reservations, and then to legalise massive land grab and municipal law violation in the Capital. True enough, it has often declared amnesty schemes for its tax-dodgers, but never has Parliament enacted a law to legalise law-breaking on so brazen a scale and with such unanimity. The backdrop was an open defiance of court orders by politicians of the Congress and the BJP in Delhi. And, fearful of being left behind, some of the Left8217;s loud mouths took the lead in attacking the judiciary for continuing to ask questions even after that shameful bill had been passed. One can only hope now the judiciary does not get intimidated and puts the bill to firm scrutiny for its legality, and also extracts from the executive the kind of guarantees it did while clearing Chidambaram8217;s VDIS, with many qualifications including one that makes a repeat of such amnesty nearly impossible in future.

The line that stands out most starkly in this confusion is something Urban Affairs Minister Jaipal Reddy said. And because we all know him for his democratic commitment, I know he will regret it when he reflects on it. If 90 people are in violation of a law, he said, then something must be wrong with that law. Now, if a majority of government officials or politicians are corrupt, or if a majority of people dodge taxes, is it time to simply dump those laws, because they must be faulty?

From Modi to Lalu, from Madan Lal Khurana and V.K. Malhotra to Jaipal Reddy and Prakash Karat, you see the same growing impatience with non-partisan institutions. Of the EC8217;s 8220;partisan8221; intransigence, of the president8217;s 8220;overzealous8221; activism and of the judiciary8217;s irritating 8220;interference8221;. True, India is not Pakistan, but if so many of our politicians across party lines show this impatience with their institutions, it is time to get concerned. It is also time for these institutions to fight back and play the role they are expected to.

sgexpressindia.com