Another R-Day. And another display of military might. The show, doubtless, is only on the streets of the Capital for in distant Kashmir or the Maoisit dens or obvious terror outposts, where it could be put to better use, Bharat’s showcased strength is a sorry zilch. But R-day is not just about such showpieces, polished for the occasion and then left to gather dust. The birth of the Republic on 26 Jan 1950 meant democracy had dawned. Let’s ignore the irony of military might or (might-have-been) getting mixed up with democracy on the same occasion. Now having seen the military and cultural exhibits that boast of our prowess, what does the Parliamentary parade, that we have been witness to for years, say of our democracy?
Will we be wrong to conclude that the democracy that dawned with much fanfare 61 years ago is in the twilight, if it has not already set? Unrelenting champions of democracy will caution us on two counts: First, the behaviour of Parliamentarians and the conduct of the Parliament proceedings should not be allowed to disillusion us about the very concept of Parliamentary democracy, which is foolproof. And two, the ‘There Is No Alternative’ (TINA) factor, that causes such havoc in elections is also the greatest argument in favour of the Parliamentary system.
Let’s concede the second point, despite the former. But does that address our core sorepoint about the P system, which is that it is just a sham and has totally failed to deliver to the larger masses? On the contrary, can it be denied that it has only empowered a chosen lot, of mediocre intellect but unbounded greed, a parasitical tribe that keeps changing shades and stripes just to remain in shape? Is not the system so malleable that it can be easily moulded and manipulated by moneybags as well as powermongers to thwart public will which it is supposed to foster? Really, this was bound to happen, and is happening, because such a fundamentally faulty system can only produce this result.
There have been several critiques of the Parliamentary system ever since it was launched and all through its evolution. Our own experience bears testimony to many of those arguments against the idea of rule by the majority of People’s reps with no regard to their abilities or recourse for the will or wellness of the people they represent. And apart from TINA there seems to be no other virtue in its favour. I quote below a string of stirring statements, nay, sermons, from one such source, a person who played a major part in the history of the last century. Now, that’s an understatement, but just remember, profound thoughts can pass through the head of anyone, whatever his/her calling, character or credentials.
‘A year of such quiet observation from within Parliament was sufficient to transform and destroy my former convictions as to the character of this parliamentary institution’
‘The intellectual level of the debate was abysmally low …A turbulent mass of people, all gesticulating and bawling against one another, with a pathetic old man shaking his bell and making frantic efforts to call the House to a sense of dignity, by friendly appeals, exhortations and grave warnings’
‘The aspect that made the most striking impression and made me reflect seriously was the manifest lack of any individual responsibility in the representative body. Parliament passes some act or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody can be called to account. Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of a definite person?’
‘Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders of a parliamentary government for any kind of action which originated in the wishes of the whole multitude of members and was carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it his business to entreat and coax them so that they will grant him their generous consent? If he does not succeed, shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration?
‘Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered?
‘Having thus degraded oneself to the level of a political jobber, will a member not feel the itch to ‘play politics’, seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account? Indeed, no responsibility remains in this parliamentary assembly of empty talkers’
‘The devastating influence of the parliamentary system is that this institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into politics. Confronted by such a phenomenon, a man with real qualities of leadership and talent will refrain … If someone were to say ‘Gentlemen, I dont know what we are talking about’, such outspoken honesty would not be understood and he would be deemed an honourable ass, rather a spoiler of the game. Here honesty is taken as an index of stupidity. A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for a bevy of footling cacklers. Such a system that demands capacity for bargaining and huckstering will appeal only to small minds and will attract them accordingly’
‘There is a better chance of seeing a camel pass through the eye of a needle than of seeing a really great man ‘discovered’ through an election. So here five hundred persons of less than modest intellectual qualities pass judgement on the most important problems affecting the nation. Measures of momentous importance for the future existence of the State are framed and discussed in an atmosphere more suited to the card-table. Indeed, the latter is a fitting occupation for those gentlemen!’
It is, therefore, not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well-informed members. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of non-entities who are dependent on others for their views and who can be all the more easily led. And by this method alone is it possible for the wire-puller, who exercises the real control, to remain hidden in the dark, so that personally he can never be brought to account?’
Aah, how true and trenchant those words ring in the country’s current context! Now who could be the author of such a damning indictment of the parliamentary system? No, I am not saying, not at least for a week or two. But that need not stop you from guessing, for this is a democracy. So send in your responses. But, mind you, no prizes or doles for guessing right. I am not running a State Government.
e-mail the writer at [email protected]