Opinion Why parties should listen to people
One of the email responses to the column came from an 80-year-old reader,Amritlal Bhatia,who has taught ethics and worked in rural development for many years.
On the day that the Indian Parliament celebrated 60 years of its existence (May 13),I did some loud-thinking in this column (Lok Sabha,Rajya Sabha,Acharya Sabha) by presenting an idea for democratic reform. Indias democratic system,I wrote,needs to be strengthened by creating a new Constitutionally sanctified council,which may be called the Acharya Sabha (Guidance Council) advising a suitably empowered President,and indirectly advising Parliament,the executive and the judiciary. The present system of democratic governance sorely lacks guidance from learned individuals of eminence and moral character. Such guidance can come from social leaders who have no political affiliationsand hence,sadly,cannot get elected to either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha in the prevailing systembut who nonetheless have the potential to show the right path to the nation with their knowledge,experience and wisdom.
One of the email responses to the column came from an 80-year-old reader,Amritlal Bhatia,who has taught ethics and worked in rural development for many years. Dear Mr Kulkarni,your own party (BJP) requires an Acharya Sabha to enable it to play some semblance of the role as an effective alternative to the Congress. Today there are tens of thousands of Bhatias across the country who feel that the BJP should emerge as an effective alternative,but are disappointed that it isnt showing enough signs of resurgence at a time when UPA-II is rapidly losing popularity. Only when the BJPs current self-corrective efforts reach the tipping pointthat is,when it replaces popular disappointment with popular hopecan it become a strong contender for replacing UPA-II with NDA-II.
In Internet parlance,I regard Bhatias voice as representing the Wisdom of the Crowd. A lot of distributed wisdom resides in our society. The repositories of such wisdom and values are not always eminent and well-known personalities. Ordinary citizens,who are patriots,serve the society with compassion and commitment,try to live their lives ethically,and have gained wisdom through experience and reflection,also can offer useful guidance to politicians. Indeed,the Internet has provided them a powerful platform to communicate their views widely. But is our largely insular political community listening?
As I had mentioned in my last column,a critical weakness in our democracy is the conspicuous disconnect between demos (population) and cracy (not only the machinery of governance but also the machinery of political parties). By and large,political leaders do not adequately listen to the peoples voices,especially the critical voices of wise and independent-minded persons in society. The undesirably high element of competition among political parties,and the correspondingly low level of cooperation and consensus based on genuine mutual dialogue among them,has led to a situation that makes most leaders,including those with vision and wisdom,spend most of their energies in trying to win and retain power.
As a result,expedient compulsions of polemical politics often prevail over the ideals and long-term goals professed by various parties. An integral approach to issues and problems before the nation quickly yields to narrow electoral considerations. The resulting herd mentality and the preponderance of allegations and counter-allegations are all too evident in the proceedings of our Parliament and state legislatures.
In a system that puts a premium on power as an end in itself,rather than as a means to collectively attain lofty ends,inter-party competition routinely engenders intra-party competition among leading members of the same organisation. Of course,dynastic parties quell this problem by quelling inner-party democracy itself. Therefore,the leaders of such parties are even less inclined than others to listen to the sagacious voices of eminent or ordinary members of society. They demand and encourage sycophancy. Sagacity,however,can never befriend sycophancy. Wise men are not yes-men.
Its become obvious today that our democratic system can be reformed only by first reforming our political parties. To a greater or lesser degree,their structure,culture and overall functioning are incompatible with the ideals of democracy. Honest introspection has become a rarity. Even intra-party communicationso essential for leaders to stay in touch with foot soldiers,who have their ear to the groundis often a mere formality. Leaders who pay lip service to it often end up making huge mistakes at the hustings.
We cannot have much hope of self-reform from parties that do not respect inner-party democracy. However,even those parties,such the BJP,for whom internal democracy is an article of faith,must begin to give due importance to the suggestions,criticism and advice coming from the people. When wise persons with no axe to grind express disappointment over the happenings in any party,alarm bells must ring in the minds of its leaders.
Indeed,the very dynamics of the relationship between the people and political parties needs to be recast at a time when the Internet age is creating an explosive demand for transparency,accountability and participative democracy. There is an urgent need for political parties to adopt more and more institutional and informal ways to listen to the voices of their mastersthe people. Our democracy will become more vibrant,and our nations progress will stand on a stronger and more sustainable footing,when our political system begins to heed the free,frank and fearless views of the Citizen-Philosophers or Gurus in our society.
sudheenkulkarni@gmail.com
Share
