CE designate SY Quraishi said that non voting should be an embarrassment.He said that the health of the electoral roll shows the health of democracy. quraishi wants the work of issuing photo-ID cards to be expedited. Pappu campaign in Delhi worked well, he said.
This article titled "Non-voting should be an embarrassment, says new CEC, S Y Qureshi" was published in The Times of India on July 29th 2010.
After four years in the Election Commission, CEC-designate SY Quraishi has a clear idea of the priorities and concerns that he would like to address over the next two years.
Notwithstanding repeated attempts by various political parties and some civil society groups, Quraishi swears by Electronic Voting Machines and sees no reason why they should be done away with. But he is open to evolving additional checks to reduce chances of their abuse. He is also happy with the effectiveness of the model code of conduct and would not like it to be codified.
Quraishi is happy with the electoral reforms carried out by the government but would like that the others are also dealt with. He also thanks the Supreme Court for guarding neutrality of EC and insulating it from political pressure.
"I have no new wheel to invent," Quraishi said, speaking to TOI, a day after the formal announcement of his appointment as CEC. What tops is his list is voter education, something that he has been closely involved with in the EC for the past two years. He even got a separate division that works for larger participation of people. "I often say that the health of the electoral roll shows the health of democracy. If feasible, I would like to see the day when a citizen's charter is prepared which says that if any citizen is missing from the electoral roll we should fine ourselves Rs 100 a day for not putting someone on it," he says.
In the next few months, he plans a national consultation on voter participation.
Quraishi would also like to see that the work of issuing photo-ID cards is expedited. "There is no other service in the country that comes to your doorstep," he says.
The CEC-designate is also passionate about working to improve the voter turnout in urban areas. His intervention in Delhi and Jharkhand saw significant increase in the turnout. "People who do not vote are the biggest critics. While scheduling an election in a big city we have to see that it is not on a Monday, otherwise people take it as an extended weekend," he says.
Thankfully, he says, the `Pappu' campaign in Delhi worked well. Also, roping in cricket captain MS Dhoni in Jharkhand saw increase in voting from 51% to 58%. "We want to see that non-voting, instead of a fashion statement, becomes a source of embarrassment," he says.
The expenditure by candidates during elections is another headache and Quraishi wants to set up an expenditure monitoring division that will be manned by Indian Revenue Service officers. "We will staff it properly and give it more teeth," he says.
Another issue he is concerned about is paid news which, he says, is detrimental to democracy. "The phenomenon is not limited to elections. But we would like to appeal to media houses to be more vigilant," he says.
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
A democracy can’t have a fixed ideology
Sanjiv Agarwal's article titled "A democracy can’t have a fixed ideology" was published in The Economic Times on 16th July 2010.
Excerpts:
The largest multi-party democracy in the world cannot have a fixed ideology of the state. That is the view taken by founding fathers of the Indian Constitution. There were debates in the constituent assembly on whether the word ‘socialist’ should be included in the preamble.
...
Our founding fathers were great social democrats. They could not bind future generations to one ideology even if it was their own. What went wrong then? What was the need to put the socialist tag on India by later politicians? The question is open. How does it matter? Well, it does, because it is about our Constitution. We may become an Orwellian Animal Farm if we don’t care about it. The 42nd amendment provision that inserted the word socialist in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 was challenged in the Supreme Court. The court ruled that though it was an important question, it would be looked into as and when the situation demanded.
As the situation stands today, talking against socialism could be high treason and it takes only a despotic ruler to do the rest. History is proof of that. The present situation is that every political party in India swears by socialism before being allowed to register. That takes away space for ideas and opinions. Worst of all, it legitimises curbs on essential freedoms. For example, the fundamental right to property was eliminated in the 44th amendment of 1978. No one noticed because we were already a socialist country! The safety belt that saved us from being taken over by the state was lost. That is why it should matter.
Excerpts:
The largest multi-party democracy in the world cannot have a fixed ideology of the state. That is the view taken by founding fathers of the Indian Constitution. There were debates in the constituent assembly on whether the word ‘socialist’ should be included in the preamble.
...
Our founding fathers were great social democrats. They could not bind future generations to one ideology even if it was their own. What went wrong then? What was the need to put the socialist tag on India by later politicians? The question is open. How does it matter? Well, it does, because it is about our Constitution. We may become an Orwellian Animal Farm if we don’t care about it. The 42nd amendment provision that inserted the word socialist in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 was challenged in the Supreme Court. The court ruled that though it was an important question, it would be looked into as and when the situation demanded.
As the situation stands today, talking against socialism could be high treason and it takes only a despotic ruler to do the rest. History is proof of that. The present situation is that every political party in India swears by socialism before being allowed to register. That takes away space for ideas and opinions. Worst of all, it legitimises curbs on essential freedoms. For example, the fundamental right to property was eliminated in the 44th amendment of 1978. No one noticed because we were already a socialist country! The safety belt that saved us from being taken over by the state was lost. That is why it should matter.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Opportunity Lost
Mayawati, the controversial queen of the Dalits, is in the news for all the wrong reasons ever since her crowning in 2007. Hers is the typical story of grit and determination to win against all odds. It is also the story of success of Indian democracy that opened the doors for an underclass woman to lead India's biggest state, Uttar Pradesh. Sadly, however, it is also the story of misusing public money for self-glorification and much ink has been spilt on that. Media and opposition parties have been crying hoarse over this politician, who champions causes of the poor, for her vulgar display of wealth - be it her lavish birthday parties, her diamond jewellery and real estate acquisitions or her statues and parks.
What her critics do not understand is that these outlandish acts are tactical moves on her part for the consumption of her Dalit supporters. For them, Mayawati's riches and power are symbols of collective Dalit power and wealth; her statues, Dalit entry into community space; and her birthday parties, their right to celebrations - all of which was forbidden for the underclass by the upper castes for centuries. So, while her critics find the sight of Mayawati getting a multi-million 1000 rupee note garland obscene, her underprivileged supporters get ecstatic by the same.
...
Three years into power and she has been too busy acquiring - so much so that she pays advance tax of rupees 140 million - to have found time for positive policy making. She says it's all gifted to her by her impoverished supporters! The queen moves with a convoy of 34 vehicles to the great inconvenience of people - and commoners are not even allowed to look at her grand march. She transfers and suspends high ranking officials who do not toe her line, or who are suspected of being close to Mulayam. She unabashedly and deliberately ambushes welfare schemes of the Central government for the fear of Congress regaining foothold in her Dalit fort. While 26,000 vacancies remain unfilled in the police force in UP, Mayawati bends rules to create a special force at a staggering cost of 90 million rupees to protect her statues. This at a time when the state has the highest number of atrocities against the Dalits, not to mention highest crime rates in India. The same day, she refuses to implement Right to Education under the pretext of lack of funds.
...
The problem with the Mayawati government is that indulgence in symbolism is all that is there on the cards. When a Dalit CM takes to the office for the fourth time in a state - this time with a clear mandate - it is strange to find her lacking a definite agenda for uplifting masses from the clutches of underdevelopment. But, like her previous stints as CM, this time too Mayawati has chosen to please her Dalit voters through symbolism and not through any structural changes for their socio-economic emancipation. Mayawati needs to understand that Dalits are no fools.
...
Mayawati has not only squandered away the goodwill reposed in her by the Dalits, but also a chance to rise above the identity politics and project herself as a visionary leader. Being a Dalit who came to power by forging an unlikely coalition with upper castes and Muslims, Mayawati was presented with a historic opportunity to move beyond the narrow caste considerations that had plagued the UP politics since the post-Mandal times and leverage this trust displayed in her by various segments of the society, to bridge social divides.
... ... ...
Dr. Ambedkar had an opportunity to write the Indian Constitution. He created history by introducing reservations as a way forward to make all Indians equal. Mayawati, on the other hand, misused all the opportunities that democracy offered her, by doing precious little for the underclass. She was the mother goddess to her people; their savior who was expected to liberate them from social and economic subjugation. In the end, she turned out to be just another mortal; just another rebel with all lost causes.
Read the full article by Semu Bhatt here in Southasia Online.
What her critics do not understand is that these outlandish acts are tactical moves on her part for the consumption of her Dalit supporters. For them, Mayawati's riches and power are symbols of collective Dalit power and wealth; her statues, Dalit entry into community space; and her birthday parties, their right to celebrations - all of which was forbidden for the underclass by the upper castes for centuries. So, while her critics find the sight of Mayawati getting a multi-million 1000 rupee note garland obscene, her underprivileged supporters get ecstatic by the same.
...
Three years into power and she has been too busy acquiring - so much so that she pays advance tax of rupees 140 million - to have found time for positive policy making. She says it's all gifted to her by her impoverished supporters! The queen moves with a convoy of 34 vehicles to the great inconvenience of people - and commoners are not even allowed to look at her grand march. She transfers and suspends high ranking officials who do not toe her line, or who are suspected of being close to Mulayam. She unabashedly and deliberately ambushes welfare schemes of the Central government for the fear of Congress regaining foothold in her Dalit fort. While 26,000 vacancies remain unfilled in the police force in UP, Mayawati bends rules to create a special force at a staggering cost of 90 million rupees to protect her statues. This at a time when the state has the highest number of atrocities against the Dalits, not to mention highest crime rates in India. The same day, she refuses to implement Right to Education under the pretext of lack of funds.
...
The problem with the Mayawati government is that indulgence in symbolism is all that is there on the cards. When a Dalit CM takes to the office for the fourth time in a state - this time with a clear mandate - it is strange to find her lacking a definite agenda for uplifting masses from the clutches of underdevelopment. But, like her previous stints as CM, this time too Mayawati has chosen to please her Dalit voters through symbolism and not through any structural changes for their socio-economic emancipation. Mayawati needs to understand that Dalits are no fools.
...
Mayawati has not only squandered away the goodwill reposed in her by the Dalits, but also a chance to rise above the identity politics and project herself as a visionary leader. Being a Dalit who came to power by forging an unlikely coalition with upper castes and Muslims, Mayawati was presented with a historic opportunity to move beyond the narrow caste considerations that had plagued the UP politics since the post-Mandal times and leverage this trust displayed in her by various segments of the society, to bridge social divides.
... ... ...
Dr. Ambedkar had an opportunity to write the Indian Constitution. He created history by introducing reservations as a way forward to make all Indians equal. Mayawati, on the other hand, misused all the opportunities that democracy offered her, by doing precious little for the underclass. She was the mother goddess to her people; their savior who was expected to liberate them from social and economic subjugation. In the end, she turned out to be just another mortal; just another rebel with all lost causes.
Read the full article by Semu Bhatt here in Southasia Online.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Decriminalising homosexuality: Recognition of dissent and diversity
Political front has surprised everyone with their reactions to the HC’s ruling of section 377. While laws need to stem from moral values, moral values do not necessarily become laws, writes Barun Mitra of the Liberty Institute.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling decriminalising section 377 has not only sanctioned strange bedfellows to come out in to the open, but also has brought together people who are hardly expected to share a political bed at all.
The communists, hardly the epitome of tolerance, seem to be the only one among the political class, along with many commentators in the media, to have welcomed this verdict.
On the other hand, following the judgement many leaders of different religions – Christians, Hindus, Muslims - find themselves united in expressing their disapproval. Among many others who normally prefer to wear their secular credentials on their sleeves, some seem to have suddenly discovered their affinity to tradition and culture and come out strongly against this judgment; others have discovered that ambiguity and silence is the better part of valour. They share the bed, but are not sure how to proceed, without assessing the social and political calculus of tilting one way or the other.
Amid such an anti-climax, it is clearly not easy to keep one’s head in place; yet, one must try to distinguish between the ethical values and legal implications of this judgment. While laws need to stem from moral values, moral values do not necessarily become laws. One way to look at this is that while the law provides the floor, the basic framework for individual behaviour in a society, moral values represent the high ceiling, which one should aspire to, but which is well beyond the legal norm.
In that context, the Delhi High Court's ruling to decriminalise homosexual behaviour among consenting adults is a very welcome and long awaited step forward.
However, that does not necessarily make me endorse that behaviour. Just as I will endorse the right of smokers, drinkers, drug users or prostitutes to exercise the freedom of their choices, at the same time I would not endorse many of those behaviours. While we as human beings have the right to be free to make those choices, these are what make us humans; yet, some of those choices that are not seen to be conducive to supporting life itself, should not be endorsed. One should have the right to end one’s life if one so decides, and others need to recognise that decision, but that is not the same thing as to say that one has to then endorse suicides.
As Voltaire is famously (but there is doubt about its historical authenticity!) supposed to have said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."
...
Read the full article here.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling decriminalising section 377 has not only sanctioned strange bedfellows to come out in to the open, but also has brought together people who are hardly expected to share a political bed at all.
The communists, hardly the epitome of tolerance, seem to be the only one among the political class, along with many commentators in the media, to have welcomed this verdict.
On the other hand, following the judgement many leaders of different religions – Christians, Hindus, Muslims - find themselves united in expressing their disapproval. Among many others who normally prefer to wear their secular credentials on their sleeves, some seem to have suddenly discovered their affinity to tradition and culture and come out strongly against this judgment; others have discovered that ambiguity and silence is the better part of valour. They share the bed, but are not sure how to proceed, without assessing the social and political calculus of tilting one way or the other.
Amid such an anti-climax, it is clearly not easy to keep one’s head in place; yet, one must try to distinguish between the ethical values and legal implications of this judgment. While laws need to stem from moral values, moral values do not necessarily become laws. One way to look at this is that while the law provides the floor, the basic framework for individual behaviour in a society, moral values represent the high ceiling, which one should aspire to, but which is well beyond the legal norm.
In that context, the Delhi High Court's ruling to decriminalise homosexual behaviour among consenting adults is a very welcome and long awaited step forward.
However, that does not necessarily make me endorse that behaviour. Just as I will endorse the right of smokers, drinkers, drug users or prostitutes to exercise the freedom of their choices, at the same time I would not endorse many of those behaviours. While we as human beings have the right to be free to make those choices, these are what make us humans; yet, some of those choices that are not seen to be conducive to supporting life itself, should not be endorsed. One should have the right to end one’s life if one so decides, and others need to recognise that decision, but that is not the same thing as to say that one has to then endorse suicides.
As Voltaire is famously (but there is doubt about its historical authenticity!) supposed to have said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."
...
Read the full article here.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
June 13, 2009, Enduring Democracy Limited Government
Liberty Institute In partnership with Friedrich Naumann–Stiftung für die Freiheit
Cordially invite you to the
Julian L. Simon Memorial Lecture
on
Enduring Democracy and Limited Government
The unbreakable partnership
by
Dr Tom G. Palmer
Atlas Economic Research Foundation, USA
Cordially invite you to the
Julian L. Simon Memorial Lecture
on
Enduring Democracy and Limited Government
The unbreakable partnership
by
Dr Tom G. Palmer
Atlas Economic Research Foundation, USA
Venue: Conference Hall, ASSOCHAM House, 47 Prithviraj Road, New Delhi 110011
Date: 13 June 2009
Programme:
6 pm – Registration
6.30 pm – Welcome
6.40 pm – Talk by Dr Tom Palmer
7.20 pm – Comments and questions
8.00 pm – Refreshments
RSVP
Liberty Institute Tel. 011-28031309 Email: libertyinstitute@gmail.com Web sites: www.InDefenceofLiberty.org , http://www.empoweringindia.org/
Date: 13 June 2009
Programme:
6 pm – Registration
6.30 pm – Welcome
6.40 pm – Talk by Dr Tom Palmer
7.20 pm – Comments and questions
8.00 pm – Refreshments
RSVP
Liberty Institute Tel. 011-28031309 Email: libertyinstitute@gmail.com Web sites: www.InDefenceofLiberty.org , http://www.empoweringindia.org/
Friedrich Naumann - Stiftung für die Freiheit
Tel: 011-26863846
Web site: www.southasia.fnst.org
________________________________________________________________________
Tel: 011-26863846
Web site: www.southasia.fnst.org
________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Tom G. Palmer is Vice President for International Programs at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, General Director of the Atlas Global Initiative for Free Trade, Peace, and Prosperity, and a Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Previously he was Vice President for International Programs at the Cato Institute and Director of the Center for Promotion of Human Rights. He is the author of Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice, which was just published this month. Dr. Palmer has long been active in the freedom movement and was very active in the late 1980s and the early 1990s in the spread of classical liberal ideas in the Soviet bloc states and their successors.
He continues to be active throughout the region through his work with InLiberty.ru, the Global Initiative’s Russian-language program, and with the Institute’s European programs. He also established and supervises the Global Initiative’s programs in Arabic, Persian, Kurdish, Azerbaijani, Portuguese, Chinese, French, Behasa Melayu/Indonesia, Africa (in a several languages), and he is working to establish new programs to promote classical liberal ideas in Urdu, Hindi, and Vietnamese. He was an H. B. Earhart Fellow at Hertford College, Oxford University, and a vice president of the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University. He frequently lectures in Europe, North America, Eurasia, Africa, Latin America, China, and the Middle East — from England to Iraq to China to Kyrgyzstan to Ghana and many other countries — on political science, public choice, civil society, and the moral, legal, and historical foundations of individual rights.
He has published contributions in books published by Princeton University Press, Routledge, Cambridge University Press, and other publishers, and has published articles and reviews on politics and morality in scholarly journals such as the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Ethics, Critical Review, and Constitutional Political Economy, as well as in publications such as Slate, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Die Welt, and The Spectator of London. He received his B.A. in liberal arts from St. Johns College in Annapolis, Maryland, his M.A. in philosophy from The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., and his Ph.D. in politics from Oxford University.
________________________________________________________________________
"The ultimate resource is people - especially skilled, spirited, and hopeful young people - who will exert their wills and imaginations for their own benefit, and so, inevitably, for the benefit of us all." -- Julian L. Simon________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Julian L. Simon (1932 – 1998) was an economist and demographer based at the University of Maryland at College Park, just outside Washington DC. He had a special interest in natural resource and environmental issues. He eloquently showed that, contrary to popular perception, all natural resources have become more abundant with economic development, and the only resource that has become dearer is human labour, although our numbers have grown at an unprecedented rate over the past few centuries.
Prof. Simon had published over two dozen books, mostly on population, environment and developmental issues. His most famous book is The Ultimate Resource (1980), which was completely revised and updated in 1997.
Prof. Simon passed away in 1998. He was instrumental in encouraging us establish Liberty Institute as an independent think tank. His last visit to India was in 1997, when he participated in the Institute’s Freedom Workshop. We instituted the memorial lecture to keep alive this spirit of Simon in questioning conventional wisdom and bringing facts to light on a variety of environmental and development issues.
The inaugural lecture was delivered by eminent economist Deepak Lal, James S. Coleman Professor of International Development Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, on “The New Cultural Imperialism: The greens and economic development” in 2000. The next speaker in 2002, was Leon Louw, Executive Director of the Free Market Foundation, and the Good Law Project in Johannesburg, South Africa. His topic was “The Miracle of Poverty”. Prof. C. S. Prakash of Tuskegee University, USA, delivered the third lecture in this series in 2003, when he spoke on “Agricultural Productivity: Role of Modern Technologies”. Prof. Ken Schoolland of Hawaii Pacific University in Honolulu, delivered the lecture in January 2005. The title of his talk was “Courage, Fear and Immigration: The significance of welcoming newcomers in a free economy”. In 2006, Prof. Max Singer of BESA Institute of Bar Ilan University in Israel, spoke on “Humanity in the next hundred years”.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Legislators must represent constituents and conscience, not party bosses
Indian democracy can either be grass-roots-representative or politically stable, but not both. The reason is that the individual legislator is legally powerless in front of the party “high command”. All decisions of party leaders are just rubber-stamped by Parliament. Any dissent, and the legislator is threatened with removal, writes Harsh Gupta in The Mint.
Indian democracy has a unique problem: Its government can either be grass-roots-representative or politically stable, but not both. The reason is that the individual legislator is legally powerless in front of the party “high command”, making the executive unaccountable. And if regional parties rise to increase accountability, stability suffers. One of the biggest culprits is the anti-defection law.
After winning a huge majority in the 1984 general election, Rajiv Gandhi passed the 52nd amendment to the Constitution in 1985. This made legislators liable to be suspended if they did not always vote according to their party whip—unless one-third of a party’s bench defected and formed a new party. This was done ostensibly to prevent them from opportunistically changing parties. Since this still did not prevent wholesale defections, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government outlawed this entirely through the 91st amendment in 2003.
So if there is any reform which a majority of the Opposition and a small but significant minority of the ruling party support, it still cannot go through despite having an overall majority in the House. For instance, many members of both the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the NDA were sympathetic to insurance reform during the previous government’s tenure—but the party bosses were undecided.
Therefore, the executive is neither checked nor pushed by the legislature once the government is formed—defeating the concept of separation of powers. All decisions of party leaders are just rubber-stamped by Parliament. Any dissent, and the legislator is threatened with removal—that is, his entire constituency might go unrepresented.
The executive is not checked by the legislature, defeating the concept of separation of powers
Yet the British parliamentary system, on which Indian democracy is explicitly modelled, allows intra-party dissent. Tony Blair took the support of some Tories for the Iraq war, over opposition from his own party members. The American system has even had legislature controlled by a different party than the executive, besides many intra-party differences—“green” Republicans and “gun” Democrats are not hard to find.
In India, too, there were open debates within the Congress during Jawaharlal Nehru’s time, on issues such as Hindu personal law and land reforms. But party power soon became concentrated: Dissenting party leaders left the Congress, eventually leading to a proliferation of regional parties. Anti-defection laws only strengthened this trend after the 52nd amendment: Instead of one or two legislators leaving, an entire army would defect.
…
Some argue that dissent on policy votes, but not party defection, should be legal. It sounds reasonable, but what if a deeply unpopular prime minister cannot be voted out by his own party members, thanks to anti-defection provisions, yet is not able to pass any law because of now legalized dissent? Moreover, there is nothing undemocratic if legislators change party affiliation mid-way—they may simply be representing a changing grass-roots reality. Nonetheless, even a law that bans only defection, but not dissent, would still be a huge improvement over the status quo—and it is the need of the hour.
At the end of the day, allowing legislators to speak for themselves adds the right checks to our parliamentary democracy. These checks may slow decisions, but they also prevent many rash decisions and back-room dealings. The legislator must be allowed to represent his constituents and conscience, not his party bosses.
Read the full article here.
Indian democracy has a unique problem: Its government can either be grass-roots-representative or politically stable, but not both. The reason is that the individual legislator is legally powerless in front of the party “high command”, making the executive unaccountable. And if regional parties rise to increase accountability, stability suffers. One of the biggest culprits is the anti-defection law.
After winning a huge majority in the 1984 general election, Rajiv Gandhi passed the 52nd amendment to the Constitution in 1985. This made legislators liable to be suspended if they did not always vote according to their party whip—unless one-third of a party’s bench defected and formed a new party. This was done ostensibly to prevent them from opportunistically changing parties. Since this still did not prevent wholesale defections, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government outlawed this entirely through the 91st amendment in 2003.
So if there is any reform which a majority of the Opposition and a small but significant minority of the ruling party support, it still cannot go through despite having an overall majority in the House. For instance, many members of both the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the NDA were sympathetic to insurance reform during the previous government’s tenure—but the party bosses were undecided.
Therefore, the executive is neither checked nor pushed by the legislature once the government is formed—defeating the concept of separation of powers. All decisions of party leaders are just rubber-stamped by Parliament. Any dissent, and the legislator is threatened with removal—that is, his entire constituency might go unrepresented.
The executive is not checked by the legislature, defeating the concept of separation of powers
Yet the British parliamentary system, on which Indian democracy is explicitly modelled, allows intra-party dissent. Tony Blair took the support of some Tories for the Iraq war, over opposition from his own party members. The American system has even had legislature controlled by a different party than the executive, besides many intra-party differences—“green” Republicans and “gun” Democrats are not hard to find.
In India, too, there were open debates within the Congress during Jawaharlal Nehru’s time, on issues such as Hindu personal law and land reforms. But party power soon became concentrated: Dissenting party leaders left the Congress, eventually leading to a proliferation of regional parties. Anti-defection laws only strengthened this trend after the 52nd amendment: Instead of one or two legislators leaving, an entire army would defect.
…
Some argue that dissent on policy votes, but not party defection, should be legal. It sounds reasonable, but what if a deeply unpopular prime minister cannot be voted out by his own party members, thanks to anti-defection provisions, yet is not able to pass any law because of now legalized dissent? Moreover, there is nothing undemocratic if legislators change party affiliation mid-way—they may simply be representing a changing grass-roots reality. Nonetheless, even a law that bans only defection, but not dissent, would still be a huge improvement over the status quo—and it is the need of the hour.
At the end of the day, allowing legislators to speak for themselves adds the right checks to our parliamentary democracy. These checks may slow decisions, but they also prevent many rash decisions and back-room dealings. The legislator must be allowed to represent his constituents and conscience, not his party bosses.
Read the full article here.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Incapability of the government to implement policies
The Centre has overriding powers to legislate on concurrent subjects and override almost any state legislation. Electricity is just one example, where both the Centre and the states have concurrent powers but centralising power will not improve effective implementation, writes SL Rao in the Deccan Herald.
The government’s inability to plan and implement any programme efficiently in India is an attribute common to all our administrative services at the Centre and states. Other institutions including independent regulatory commissions, self-regulating bodies like ICAI, educational and health service institutions and judiciary must share the blame.
The constitution has earmarked some activities purely to State governments or concurrently with the Centre. But the Centre has overriding powers to legislate on concurrent subjects and override almost any state legislation. Electricity is just one example, where both the Centre and the states have concurrent powers but centralising power will not improve effective implementation. State governments have politicised power tariffs and energy is priced below costs to farmers and others, in most of the states. Government and industry pay more, diverting resources from other social welfare programmes and infrastructure, while eroding competitiveness of the industry. If the Centre alone had the responsibility for electricity, it would be directly exposed to these pressures as are the states today.
The Centre uses incentives and overcomes legislative impediments to get states to act in socially desirable ways. The Accelerated Power Reform and Development Programme of the Centre provide substantial incentives to states pursuing power reforms. The ‘ultra mega power projects programme’ has enabled the Centre overcome state veto rights on new generation. Coal nationalisation was subverted by sanctioning captive coal mines to large electricity developers who can use surplus coal for merchant power plant operations.
The Central government is ineffective in implementing its own policies. Though electricity generation was opened to private and foreign investments in 1991, only Dhabhol by Enron fructified. It was mired in controversy caused by corruption and gold plating of costs. Transmission was opened to private investment in 1998 but Power Grid Corporation, the central government monopoly in interstate transmission, blocked the private entry for over seven years. The Centre could not give effect to its own legislation. State governments went along with the creation of electricity regulatory commissions, but have interfered in their working by packing them with pliant government officials.
The Electricity Act 2003 was to optimise power utilisation by mandating open access, captive generation, recognising trading, markets and power exchanges. It was to overcome the limitations on the sector’s growth and profitability imposed by the veto power of a state on new generators and their ability to sell to others than the state government distribution monopoly. Open access was the vital means to enable these. The Centre passively allowed the regulatory commissions and state governments to prevent open access. The states want to protect and protract their monopoly over the electricity sold in their boundaries. Some states (for example Karnataka) have used ambiguous provisions in the Act to prevent open access, preventing generating companies from selling electricity to customers in other states.
…
Electricity is merely one example of incapability of governments at all levels to implement polices. This occurs in every sphere of government activity. Long delays in planning and implementing infrastructure projects, inadequate thrust on education and its quality at all levels, inadequate health services for the poor, neglect of agriculture, inability to prepare and respond to security threats despite repeated incidents, the instances of poor administration permeate every sphere of government activity.
…
Read the full article here.
The government’s inability to plan and implement any programme efficiently in India is an attribute common to all our administrative services at the Centre and states. Other institutions including independent regulatory commissions, self-regulating bodies like ICAI, educational and health service institutions and judiciary must share the blame.
The constitution has earmarked some activities purely to State governments or concurrently with the Centre. But the Centre has overriding powers to legislate on concurrent subjects and override almost any state legislation. Electricity is just one example, where both the Centre and the states have concurrent powers but centralising power will not improve effective implementation. State governments have politicised power tariffs and energy is priced below costs to farmers and others, in most of the states. Government and industry pay more, diverting resources from other social welfare programmes and infrastructure, while eroding competitiveness of the industry. If the Centre alone had the responsibility for electricity, it would be directly exposed to these pressures as are the states today.
The Centre uses incentives and overcomes legislative impediments to get states to act in socially desirable ways. The Accelerated Power Reform and Development Programme of the Centre provide substantial incentives to states pursuing power reforms. The ‘ultra mega power projects programme’ has enabled the Centre overcome state veto rights on new generation. Coal nationalisation was subverted by sanctioning captive coal mines to large electricity developers who can use surplus coal for merchant power plant operations.
The Central government is ineffective in implementing its own policies. Though electricity generation was opened to private and foreign investments in 1991, only Dhabhol by Enron fructified. It was mired in controversy caused by corruption and gold plating of costs. Transmission was opened to private investment in 1998 but Power Grid Corporation, the central government monopoly in interstate transmission, blocked the private entry for over seven years. The Centre could not give effect to its own legislation. State governments went along with the creation of electricity regulatory commissions, but have interfered in their working by packing them with pliant government officials.
The Electricity Act 2003 was to optimise power utilisation by mandating open access, captive generation, recognising trading, markets and power exchanges. It was to overcome the limitations on the sector’s growth and profitability imposed by the veto power of a state on new generators and their ability to sell to others than the state government distribution monopoly. Open access was the vital means to enable these. The Centre passively allowed the regulatory commissions and state governments to prevent open access. The states want to protect and protract their monopoly over the electricity sold in their boundaries. Some states (for example Karnataka) have used ambiguous provisions in the Act to prevent open access, preventing generating companies from selling electricity to customers in other states.
…
Electricity is merely one example of incapability of governments at all levels to implement polices. This occurs in every sphere of government activity. Long delays in planning and implementing infrastructure projects, inadequate thrust on education and its quality at all levels, inadequate health services for the poor, neglect of agriculture, inability to prepare and respond to security threats despite repeated incidents, the instances of poor administration permeate every sphere of government activity.
…
Read the full article here.
Making sense of verdict 2009
Making sense of the intent behind the election results is a tricky exercise. In some senses, what we are seeing is a ripening of identity politics into a more complex, fractured and mature phenomenon. There are signs that while identity politics continues to flourish, there seems to be an evolution in how it comes into play, writes Santosh Desai in the Times of India.
As I argued last week in this column, making sense of the intent behind the election results is a tricky exercise. For elections in India are the only occasion when we understand the full import of what it means to be a country with over a billion people, for here everyone above 18 gets to participate.
In almost no other instance when we draw generalized conclusions are we compressing so much diversity into singularity. In this election, over 400 million people exercised their franchise; in effect we are trying to find something common across such a staggering number of data points. Attempts to find simple unifying explanations are thus fraught with danger; perhaps a more useful way of looking at a complex phenomenon like elections in India is to identify some broad themes which emerge from the outcome without necessarily explaining exactly why we saw the outcome we did. Even these are open to challenge in some cases and nuance in most.
In some senses, what we are seeing is a ripening of identity politics into a more complex, fractured and mature phenomenon. There are signs that while identity politics continues to flourish, there seems to be an evolution in how it comes into play. The success of regional players who have carved out constituencies based on identity affiliations and have so far practised a patronage-based system and direct rewards has led to the gradual increase in the number of such players. Regionalization has bred more regionalization, and this fracturing of the electoral base has cut into the vote share of the historically stronger regional parties.
We have seen this factor at play in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh & Tamil Nadu, where the Shiv Sena, TDP and AIADMK have respectively lost seats on this account. The fragmentation of the vote base also means that the national parties seem to look more attractive, in relative terms. As vote share of regional parties gets distributed among a larger number of claimants, national parties stand to gain even if their vote share remains static.
The other emerging dimension of the evolution of identity politics is the recognition of the role played by governance. The delivery of some governance creates a demand for more and leads to an acknowledgement of the need for development to be broad-based and inclusive rather than focused on specific communities and groups.
Sops to identity clusters do not necessarily create widespread development and it appears that there might be some recognition of this. Nitish Kumar’s remarkable success points to the limits of Lalu Yadav’s stated belief that development does not win elections. However, this is by no means a negation of the power of identity; Mayawati may have lost seats but her vote share has increased. Writing her brand of politics off would be an act of wilful short-sightedness.
It would appear that continuity, more than stability, might have been the more important consideration in these elections. This is linked to the fact that all of India has begun to see some signs, however small, of progress. In the absence of a clear alternative, continuing with the existing regime becomes a default option. This is clearly by no means a defining theme but does contribute to the overall trend. Given this, parties need to communicate the appearance of an ability to govern, something the Congress might have done better this time thanks to the slant of their campaign and the collective personae of their leaders.
There is no reason to believe that national parties have regained favour with the voters, but it does seem that the Congress has been more successful in regaining its Centrist space to a certain extent this time around. This was probably due to the combined effect of being seen as relatively stronger as against the regional parties for reasons outlined above as well as its attempts to deliver on its promise of inclusive growth. The focus on rural India in its last five years created an aura of intention even if effect was not fully delivered.
Eventually, election campaigns get decoded as residues of stories; most of us, especially the uncommitted voters, don’t remember precise details or choose on the basis of specific issues as much as on a general sense of appropriateness. The Congress story seemed to have its heart in the right place, with the combination of actions, people, sounds it emitted with the structural forces on the ground multiplying the impact of this slant towards the party.
The return of any Centrist force is a significant development; it remains to be seen if this is indeed a trend or merely a local aberration. But it does seem as if the growing fragmentation of the polity and the attendant issues of the lack of a national perspective might not be quite the inexorable forces they seemed. That might well be the best news we have heard from these elections.
Read the original article here.
As I argued last week in this column, making sense of the intent behind the election results is a tricky exercise. For elections in India are the only occasion when we understand the full import of what it means to be a country with over a billion people, for here everyone above 18 gets to participate.
In almost no other instance when we draw generalized conclusions are we compressing so much diversity into singularity. In this election, over 400 million people exercised their franchise; in effect we are trying to find something common across such a staggering number of data points. Attempts to find simple unifying explanations are thus fraught with danger; perhaps a more useful way of looking at a complex phenomenon like elections in India is to identify some broad themes which emerge from the outcome without necessarily explaining exactly why we saw the outcome we did. Even these are open to challenge in some cases and nuance in most.
In some senses, what we are seeing is a ripening of identity politics into a more complex, fractured and mature phenomenon. There are signs that while identity politics continues to flourish, there seems to be an evolution in how it comes into play. The success of regional players who have carved out constituencies based on identity affiliations and have so far practised a patronage-based system and direct rewards has led to the gradual increase in the number of such players. Regionalization has bred more regionalization, and this fracturing of the electoral base has cut into the vote share of the historically stronger regional parties.
We have seen this factor at play in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh & Tamil Nadu, where the Shiv Sena, TDP and AIADMK have respectively lost seats on this account. The fragmentation of the vote base also means that the national parties seem to look more attractive, in relative terms. As vote share of regional parties gets distributed among a larger number of claimants, national parties stand to gain even if their vote share remains static.
The other emerging dimension of the evolution of identity politics is the recognition of the role played by governance. The delivery of some governance creates a demand for more and leads to an acknowledgement of the need for development to be broad-based and inclusive rather than focused on specific communities and groups.
Sops to identity clusters do not necessarily create widespread development and it appears that there might be some recognition of this. Nitish Kumar’s remarkable success points to the limits of Lalu Yadav’s stated belief that development does not win elections. However, this is by no means a negation of the power of identity; Mayawati may have lost seats but her vote share has increased. Writing her brand of politics off would be an act of wilful short-sightedness.
It would appear that continuity, more than stability, might have been the more important consideration in these elections. This is linked to the fact that all of India has begun to see some signs, however small, of progress. In the absence of a clear alternative, continuing with the existing regime becomes a default option. This is clearly by no means a defining theme but does contribute to the overall trend. Given this, parties need to communicate the appearance of an ability to govern, something the Congress might have done better this time thanks to the slant of their campaign and the collective personae of their leaders.
There is no reason to believe that national parties have regained favour with the voters, but it does seem that the Congress has been more successful in regaining its Centrist space to a certain extent this time around. This was probably due to the combined effect of being seen as relatively stronger as against the regional parties for reasons outlined above as well as its attempts to deliver on its promise of inclusive growth. The focus on rural India in its last five years created an aura of intention even if effect was not fully delivered.
Eventually, election campaigns get decoded as residues of stories; most of us, especially the uncommitted voters, don’t remember precise details or choose on the basis of specific issues as much as on a general sense of appropriateness. The Congress story seemed to have its heart in the right place, with the combination of actions, people, sounds it emitted with the structural forces on the ground multiplying the impact of this slant towards the party.
The return of any Centrist force is a significant development; it remains to be seen if this is indeed a trend or merely a local aberration. But it does seem as if the growing fragmentation of the polity and the attendant issues of the lack of a national perspective might not be quite the inexorable forces they seemed. That might well be the best news we have heard from these elections.
Read the original article here.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Govt plans a slum free India in the next 5-year term
Over 15 lakh houses are under construction for the urban poor and there is a need to focus on urban housing programmes for the slum dwellers, reports the Indian Express.
The UPA government unveiled its plan for introducing Rajiv Awas Yojana for slum dwellers under JNNURM on the lines of Indira Awas Yojana for rural poor.
"The scheme for affordable housing through partnership and the scheme for interest subsidy for urban housing would be dovetailed into the Rajiv Awas Yojana which would extend support under JNNURM to states that are willing to assign property rights to people living in slum areas," President Pratibha Patil said while addressing Parliament.
"My government's effort would be to create a slum free India in five years through Rajiv Awas Yojana," she said.
Maintaining that infrastructure development under the flagship programme of JNNURM would continue, she said the government would continue to focus on infrastructure, basic services and governance reform and increase support to cities to upgrade public transport.
Over 15 lakh houses are under construction for the urban poor and there is a need to focus on urban housing programmes for the slum dwellers, she said.
"The JNNURM with approval of projects of nearly 50,000 crore in the last four years is reshaping our cities and has been widely welcomed," Patil said.
The government would take steps within the next 100 days to facilitate a voluntary technical corps of professionals in all urban areas through JNNURM to support the development activities.
Read the original article here.
The UPA government unveiled its plan for introducing Rajiv Awas Yojana for slum dwellers under JNNURM on the lines of Indira Awas Yojana for rural poor.
"The scheme for affordable housing through partnership and the scheme for interest subsidy for urban housing would be dovetailed into the Rajiv Awas Yojana which would extend support under JNNURM to states that are willing to assign property rights to people living in slum areas," President Pratibha Patil said while addressing Parliament.
"My government's effort would be to create a slum free India in five years through Rajiv Awas Yojana," she said.
Maintaining that infrastructure development under the flagship programme of JNNURM would continue, she said the government would continue to focus on infrastructure, basic services and governance reform and increase support to cities to upgrade public transport.
Over 15 lakh houses are under construction for the urban poor and there is a need to focus on urban housing programmes for the slum dwellers, she said.
"The JNNURM with approval of projects of nearly 50,000 crore in the last four years is reshaping our cities and has been widely welcomed," Patil said.
The government would take steps within the next 100 days to facilitate a voluntary technical corps of professionals in all urban areas through JNNURM to support the development activities.
Read the original article here.
Meira Kumar is India’s first woman Speaker
3 Jun 2009
As soon as the Lok Sabha session began, Sonia Gandhi proposed Meira Kumar as the Speaker of the new House. Not originally her party's choice, Kumar found strong support from the Congress leadership on two counts – a woman, she carries a rich dalit legacy, reports Times of India.
Congress candidate Meira Kumar was elected Speaker of the 15 th Lok Sabha unanimously on Wednesday.
As soon as the Lok Sabha session began, Sonia, according to the agenda, proposed Kumar as the Speaker of the new House. Her name was seconded by Leader of Opposition L K Advani and other political leaders. Both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Advani then accompanied her to the Speaker's chair completing the formality.
With every side deciding to endorse her candidature, her election to the top post was a unanimous affair.
...
Kumar, who was part of the delegation visiting the secretary general, later termed her ascent to the Speaker's chair as a historic moment. "It is both historic and overwhelming," she told reporters. A five-time MP, she resigned as minister for water resources after Congress backed her for Speaker.
Not originally her party's choice, Kumar found strong support from the Congress leadership on two counts - a woman, she carries a rich dalit legacy.
Precisely for this reason, the BJP was reluctant to oppose her. For its part, the Opposition party moved a notch up in the game of identity politics by proposing a tribal – Karia Munda – for the deputy Speaker's post.
After Congress scored on the empowerment quotient naming Dalit woman leader Meira Kumar as UPA's nominee for the Speaker's post, BJP played the tribal card by selecting its veteran MP from Jharkhand Karia Munda as its candidate for Deputy Speaker.
BJP's central parliamentary board took the decision at a meeting after the government's proposal that the deputy Speaker's post be offered to the main Opposition.
Seventy two-year-old Munda was a minister in the Morarji Desai government and later in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee ministry. When asked whether Munda's candidature was aimed at winning tribal support for the party, BJP leader Jaitley said, "It is true that Munda belongs to the ST community, but along with that he has vast legislative experience and this decision was made considering his seniority."
Read the original article here.
As soon as the Lok Sabha session began, Sonia Gandhi proposed Meira Kumar as the Speaker of the new House. Not originally her party's choice, Kumar found strong support from the Congress leadership on two counts – a woman, she carries a rich dalit legacy, reports Times of India.
Congress candidate Meira Kumar was elected Speaker of the 15 th Lok Sabha unanimously on Wednesday.
As soon as the Lok Sabha session began, Sonia, according to the agenda, proposed Kumar as the Speaker of the new House. Her name was seconded by Leader of Opposition L K Advani and other political leaders. Both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Advani then accompanied her to the Speaker's chair completing the formality.
With every side deciding to endorse her candidature, her election to the top post was a unanimous affair.
...
Kumar, who was part of the delegation visiting the secretary general, later termed her ascent to the Speaker's chair as a historic moment. "It is both historic and overwhelming," she told reporters. A five-time MP, she resigned as minister for water resources after Congress backed her for Speaker.
Not originally her party's choice, Kumar found strong support from the Congress leadership on two counts - a woman, she carries a rich dalit legacy.
Precisely for this reason, the BJP was reluctant to oppose her. For its part, the Opposition party moved a notch up in the game of identity politics by proposing a tribal – Karia Munda – for the deputy Speaker's post.
After Congress scored on the empowerment quotient naming Dalit woman leader Meira Kumar as UPA's nominee for the Speaker's post, BJP played the tribal card by selecting its veteran MP from Jharkhand Karia Munda as its candidate for Deputy Speaker.
BJP's central parliamentary board took the decision at a meeting after the government's proposal that the deputy Speaker's post be offered to the main Opposition.
Seventy two-year-old Munda was a minister in the Morarji Desai government and later in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee ministry. When asked whether Munda's candidature was aimed at winning tribal support for the party, BJP leader Jaitley said, "It is true that Munda belongs to the ST community, but along with that he has vast legislative experience and this decision was made considering his seniority."
Read the original article here.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Highest number of women MPs in the 15th Lok Sabha
A record 59 women MPs have been elected to the new Lok Sabha – the highest since independence, and 17 of them are less than 40 years-old, reports The Hindu.
A record 59 women MPs have been elected to the new Lok Sabha – the highest since independence, and 17 of them are less than 40 years-old.
According to PRS Legislative Research, an organisation that aims to strengthen legislative debate, among the 59 women MPs in the 15th Lok Sabha, a majority - 23 - are from the Congress. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has 13 women members.
Uttar Pradesh has the maximum number of 13 women MPs to represent the most populous state. It is followed by West Bengal with seven. … In all, 556 women had contested the 2009 general elections, of which 59 were elected.
The lowest percentage of women representations was in the sixth Lok Sabha (1977-80) when there were only 3.8 percent women MPs.
The first Lok Sabha (1952-57) had 4.4 percent women MPs. In the 13th Lok Sabha (1999-2004), the figure was 9.2 percent, the research group said.
The research group said that women representatives in the age group of 40 to 60 has gone down. Now, less than 57 percent of women fall in this category as compared to over 73 percent in 2004. But this time, women over 60 make a 13.80 percent, while it was a mere 9.8 percent in the 14th Lok Sabha.
According the PRS, the total percentage of MPs this time in the age group of 41-55 years has been the second lowest in the last 14 sessions with only 43 percent members belonging to the age group.
Read the original article here.
A record 59 women MPs have been elected to the new Lok Sabha – the highest since independence, and 17 of them are less than 40 years-old.
According to PRS Legislative Research, an organisation that aims to strengthen legislative debate, among the 59 women MPs in the 15th Lok Sabha, a majority - 23 - are from the Congress. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has 13 women members.
Uttar Pradesh has the maximum number of 13 women MPs to represent the most populous state. It is followed by West Bengal with seven. … In all, 556 women had contested the 2009 general elections, of which 59 were elected.
The lowest percentage of women representations was in the sixth Lok Sabha (1977-80) when there were only 3.8 percent women MPs.
The first Lok Sabha (1952-57) had 4.4 percent women MPs. In the 13th Lok Sabha (1999-2004), the figure was 9.2 percent, the research group said.
The research group said that women representatives in the age group of 40 to 60 has gone down. Now, less than 57 percent of women fall in this category as compared to over 73 percent in 2004. But this time, women over 60 make a 13.80 percent, while it was a mere 9.8 percent in the 14th Lok Sabha.
According the PRS, the total percentage of MPs this time in the age group of 41-55 years has been the second lowest in the last 14 sessions with only 43 percent members belonging to the age group.
Read the original article here.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Calculating assets of politicians is difficult
Calculating the wealth of our politicians is far from easy. Firstly, it’s virtually impossible to collect information for all the 8,070 candidates who contested this Lok Sabha election, reports The Mint.
Calculating the wealth of our politicians is far from easy. Firstly, it’s virtually impossible to collect information for all the 8,070 candidates who contested this Lok Sabha election.
When Empowering India, an online initiative of New Delhi’s Liberty Institute, tried to compile this data, the organization found that there were about 470 candidates whose affidavits were not yet available on the various election offices’ websites.
Another 400 or so candidates had filed affidavits that were illegible or incomplete. Some of these didn’t declare any assets at all.
Check the "Assets Arithmetic"
But even if you leave out these 800+ affidavits, before calculating the average assets of our politicians, one thing is clear: Our politicians’ wealth points only one way—up.
Read the full story here.
Calculating the wealth of our politicians is far from easy. Firstly, it’s virtually impossible to collect information for all the 8,070 candidates who contested this Lok Sabha election.
When Empowering India, an online initiative of New Delhi’s Liberty Institute, tried to compile this data, the organization found that there were about 470 candidates whose affidavits were not yet available on the various election offices’ websites.
Another 400 or so candidates had filed affidavits that were illegible or incomplete. Some of these didn’t declare any assets at all.
Check the "Assets Arithmetic"
But even if you leave out these 800+ affidavits, before calculating the average assets of our politicians, one thing is clear: Our politicians’ wealth points only one way—up.
Read the full story here.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Have Your Say
Dear Readers,
This is a space for all kinds of comments and suggestions. You can pen down, rather key down, your thoughts on democracy or Empowering India or any queries here and we will reply back to you.
Thanks,
Making Democracy Meaningful!
Team EmpoweringIndia.org
This is a space for all kinds of comments and suggestions. You can pen down, rather key down, your thoughts on democracy or Empowering India or any queries here and we will reply back to you.
Thanks,
Making Democracy Meaningful!
Team EmpoweringIndia.org
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The example set by India’s greatest political party has been followed by many lesser ones too, who have treated their parties as family firms. The “greatest enemy of the Congress” is “Itself”, writes Ramchandra Guha in The Telegraph.
Inspiring Bhakti
Growing up as an only child, with a sick mother and a father frequently abroad or in jail, Indira Gandhi did not allow herself to easily trust anybody. Least of all, the Congress Old Guard. Thus, the very men who had helped make her prime minister were the men she broke away from, soon after assuming the top job in Indian politics. In 1969, Indira Gandhi divided the Congress. The faction that stayed with her was soon recognized as the real Congress, especially after it won an authoritative victory in the general elections of 1971, riding to power on the backs of the slogan of “Garibi Hatao”.
To retain control over party and government, Indira Gandhi adopted four different strategies. First, she built a core of loyal advisers outside the Congress. She increasingly took her counsel not from her fellow cabinet ministers but from civil servants and technocrats in the prime minister’s office, which was headed by her fellow Allahabadi, PN Haksar. Second, she disbanded the old, decentralized structure of the Congress — where district and state units had substantial autonomy — and placed individuals who were personally loyal to her at the head of Pradesh Congress committees. Third, at Haksar’s inspiration, she floated the idea of the ‘committed’ civil servant and the ‘committed’ judge, so that key positions in the bureaucracy and the judiciary were also now occupied by individuals known to be loyal and subservient to the prime minister. Fourth, at election time she appealed directly to the voters, asking them to place their trust in her as an individual rather than in her party or its programme.
The dangers of Indira Gandhi’s brand of politics had been anticipated by the chief draughtsman of the Indian Constitution, BR Ambedkar. In his final speech to the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar warned his compatriots against an unthinking submission to charismatic authority. He quoted John Stuart Mill, who had cautioned citizens not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions”. This warning was even more pertinent here than in England, for, as Ambedkar observed, “in India, Bhakti, or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be the road to the salvation of a soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”
From the time she split the Congress in 1969, Indira Gandhi worked systematically to dismantle the institutions and procedures of constitutional democracy. This she did by privileging loyalty over competence — in her party, in her council of ministers, in the legislative and judicial branches of government. Ministers, Congressmen, bureaucrats, judges, and in time even ordinary citizens — all were encouraged to lay their liberties at the feet of this Great Woman, the submission conveyed in the slogan, “Indira is India, India is Indira”.
...
When Sanjay died in an air crash in 1980, Indira Gandhi immediately drafted her other son into the Congress. When she was herself killed in October 1984, this son, Rajiv, was sworn in as prime minister. One of his first acts was to bring his old schoolfriends into politics. Like his mother, he could not bring himself to trust his own partymen...
Jawaharlal Nehru did not hope or desire that his daughter should succeed him as prime minister — a fact that is not as widely known as it should be. On the other hand, Indira Gandhi worked to make first Sanjay and then Rajiv her political successor. Sonia Gandhi has followed her mother-in-law scrupulously in this respect, for she has likewise ensured that her own son would head the party, and, perhaps in time, the government. The example set by India’s greatest political party has been followed by many lesser ones. Had Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi not acted in this fashion, perhaps Bal Thackeray, Parkash Singh Badal, M. Karunanidhi and Mulayam Singh Yadav would not so brazenly have treated their own political parties as family firms.
The novelist, Gore Vidal, once remarked of his adopted homeland, Italy, that it combined the worst features of socialism with the worst features of capitalism. The Republic of India goes one step further — it adds, to the worst features of socialism and of capitalism, the worst features of feudalism...
…
A Spanish journalist recently asked me what I thought the “greatest enemy of the Congress” was. I answered, immediately and instinctively, “Itself”.
Read the full story here.
Inspiring Bhakti
Growing up as an only child, with a sick mother and a father frequently abroad or in jail, Indira Gandhi did not allow herself to easily trust anybody. Least of all, the Congress Old Guard. Thus, the very men who had helped make her prime minister were the men she broke away from, soon after assuming the top job in Indian politics. In 1969, Indira Gandhi divided the Congress. The faction that stayed with her was soon recognized as the real Congress, especially after it won an authoritative victory in the general elections of 1971, riding to power on the backs of the slogan of “Garibi Hatao”.
To retain control over party and government, Indira Gandhi adopted four different strategies. First, she built a core of loyal advisers outside the Congress. She increasingly took her counsel not from her fellow cabinet ministers but from civil servants and technocrats in the prime minister’s office, which was headed by her fellow Allahabadi, PN Haksar. Second, she disbanded the old, decentralized structure of the Congress — where district and state units had substantial autonomy — and placed individuals who were personally loyal to her at the head of Pradesh Congress committees. Third, at Haksar’s inspiration, she floated the idea of the ‘committed’ civil servant and the ‘committed’ judge, so that key positions in the bureaucracy and the judiciary were also now occupied by individuals known to be loyal and subservient to the prime minister. Fourth, at election time she appealed directly to the voters, asking them to place their trust in her as an individual rather than in her party or its programme.
The dangers of Indira Gandhi’s brand of politics had been anticipated by the chief draughtsman of the Indian Constitution, BR Ambedkar. In his final speech to the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar warned his compatriots against an unthinking submission to charismatic authority. He quoted John Stuart Mill, who had cautioned citizens not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions”. This warning was even more pertinent here than in England, for, as Ambedkar observed, “in India, Bhakti, or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be the road to the salvation of a soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”
From the time she split the Congress in 1969, Indira Gandhi worked systematically to dismantle the institutions and procedures of constitutional democracy. This she did by privileging loyalty over competence — in her party, in her council of ministers, in the legislative and judicial branches of government. Ministers, Congressmen, bureaucrats, judges, and in time even ordinary citizens — all were encouraged to lay their liberties at the feet of this Great Woman, the submission conveyed in the slogan, “Indira is India, India is Indira”.
...
When Sanjay died in an air crash in 1980, Indira Gandhi immediately drafted her other son into the Congress. When she was herself killed in October 1984, this son, Rajiv, was sworn in as prime minister. One of his first acts was to bring his old schoolfriends into politics. Like his mother, he could not bring himself to trust his own partymen...
Jawaharlal Nehru did not hope or desire that his daughter should succeed him as prime minister — a fact that is not as widely known as it should be. On the other hand, Indira Gandhi worked to make first Sanjay and then Rajiv her political successor. Sonia Gandhi has followed her mother-in-law scrupulously in this respect, for she has likewise ensured that her own son would head the party, and, perhaps in time, the government. The example set by India’s greatest political party has been followed by many lesser ones. Had Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi not acted in this fashion, perhaps Bal Thackeray, Parkash Singh Badal, M. Karunanidhi and Mulayam Singh Yadav would not so brazenly have treated their own political parties as family firms.
The novelist, Gore Vidal, once remarked of his adopted homeland, Italy, that it combined the worst features of socialism with the worst features of capitalism. The Republic of India goes one step further — it adds, to the worst features of socialism and of capitalism, the worst features of feudalism...
…
A Spanish journalist recently asked me what I thought the “greatest enemy of the Congress” was. I answered, immediately and instinctively, “Itself”.
Read the full story here.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Mayawati and the Middle class
Seetha has written the article below on her blog 'Beyond Labels'.
I am petrified at the thought of J Jayalalitha becoming Prime Minister. I am also petrified at the thought of Lalu Yadav becoming Prime Minister because of the way he ruined Bihar. And I am petrified at the thought of Mayawati as Prime Minister too.
I am getting a bit tired of all criticism of the idea of Mayawati as Prime Minister being attributed to urban English-speaking middle class snobbery and a class prejudice. I have seen several commentators take this line in recent months, the latest being Suryakant Waghmore in today's Indian Express.
I am quoting from his article (to which I have provided a link) only because I have it in front of me, but the points that he makes have been made by several others.
First he says "while the English speaking middle class largely opposes Mayawati because of her caste, they do not express this by hurling caste abuses. They try to respond (not react) through English politeness and thus create a new English speaking middle class caste-culture.
"This, surely, runs contrary to a truly liberal attitude that would have celebrated Mayawati's great success and recognised what she has done as a single Dalit woman without any family legacy, in a highly patriarchal and hostile environment."
Now this is patently ridiculous. I have a sneaking admiration for Mayawati for where she has taken the BSP. I am sure that she could not have done this if it were not for Kanshi Ram's patronage, but I concede that she could have wasted that patronage but did not. I fully agree with Waghmore that "Mayawati and BSP's growth represents the deepening of democracy in India."
But look beyond that. What else is Mayawati known for? Personal aggrandisement and corruption. Has she done anything for Dalits or for the state in each of her tenures? Or even the current tenure, when the BSP has a complete majority? Apart from building statues and monstrous memorials, that is? Waghmore comments on English speaking middle class obsession with her statues. But why shouldn't that be subject to criticism? Is that a measure of development of the state or the uplift of Dalits? When, in 2007, Mayawati came to power on the basis of a new social coalition, eschewing the upper caste hatred that had marked the BSP's politics till then, many expected that this would be a sobering influence on her and that she would behave in a more responsible way, focussing on administration and good governance. Two years on, can anyone testify that she has done that? She appeared to be making some right moves in the beginning, especially on the economic front. But she quickly backtracked. The counter argument is that the Mulayam Singh was equally bad. Sure, but the thought of Mulayam Singh as Prime Minister will also frighten a lot of people. Sure no government has ever done anything for Dalit uplift. But does that mean Mayawati should not be criticised for doing nothing for the group she claims to work for?
Arguments like Waghmore's precludes the possibility of the urban middle class reacting to issues like corruption and personal aggrandisement. Despite my cynicism about its apathy, I think this is an unfair charge. The middle class was quite accepting of a Dalit as president and now as Chief Justice of India. If it was reacting purely on the basis of prejudice, then there would have been equally sharp reactions to these appointments.
I am an English speaking urban middle class Iyengar Brahmin. I am petrified at the thought of Mayawati as Prime Minister. But I am equally petrified at the thought of J Jayalalitha (who is not a Dalit but an English speaking urban middle class Iyengar Brahmin) becoming Prime Minister. Because Jayalalitha's regimes have also been marked by rampant corruption and a highly personalised style of functioning. Just like Mayawati.
I am petrified at the thought of Lalu Yadav becoming Prime Minister. Not because he is a Yadav or because of his rustic ways, but because of the way he ruined Bihar. I am more comfortable with the idea of Nitish Kumar as Prime Minister, even though he is a Kurmi and though he is an engineer by education, he is not an English speaking urban middle class person. I am petrified of Ram Vilas Paswan becoming Prime Minister one day not because he is a Dalit but because of stories about his corrupt ways. But I am also petrified of Kamal Nath, an English-speaking urban middle class person, becoming Prime Minister (never mind that he probably doesn't have those ambitions) again because of his reputation for corruption.
Behind such insinuations of the kind Waghmore makes is the belief that Mayawati should not be opposed or criticised just because she is a Dalit. This is carrying the politics of victimhood a bit too far.
~ Seetha
(Seetha is a journalist and a committed liberal.)
For the full story click here.
I am petrified at the thought of J Jayalalitha becoming Prime Minister. I am also petrified at the thought of Lalu Yadav becoming Prime Minister because of the way he ruined Bihar. And I am petrified at the thought of Mayawati as Prime Minister too.
I am getting a bit tired of all criticism of the idea of Mayawati as Prime Minister being attributed to urban English-speaking middle class snobbery and a class prejudice. I have seen several commentators take this line in recent months, the latest being Suryakant Waghmore in today's Indian Express.
I am quoting from his article (to which I have provided a link) only because I have it in front of me, but the points that he makes have been made by several others.
First he says "while the English speaking middle class largely opposes Mayawati because of her caste, they do not express this by hurling caste abuses. They try to respond (not react) through English politeness and thus create a new English speaking middle class caste-culture.
"This, surely, runs contrary to a truly liberal attitude that would have celebrated Mayawati's great success and recognised what she has done as a single Dalit woman without any family legacy, in a highly patriarchal and hostile environment."
Now this is patently ridiculous. I have a sneaking admiration for Mayawati for where she has taken the BSP. I am sure that she could not have done this if it were not for Kanshi Ram's patronage, but I concede that she could have wasted that patronage but did not. I fully agree with Waghmore that "Mayawati and BSP's growth represents the deepening of democracy in India."
But look beyond that. What else is Mayawati known for? Personal aggrandisement and corruption. Has she done anything for Dalits or for the state in each of her tenures? Or even the current tenure, when the BSP has a complete majority? Apart from building statues and monstrous memorials, that is? Waghmore comments on English speaking middle class obsession with her statues. But why shouldn't that be subject to criticism? Is that a measure of development of the state or the uplift of Dalits? When, in 2007, Mayawati came to power on the basis of a new social coalition, eschewing the upper caste hatred that had marked the BSP's politics till then, many expected that this would be a sobering influence on her and that she would behave in a more responsible way, focussing on administration and good governance. Two years on, can anyone testify that she has done that? She appeared to be making some right moves in the beginning, especially on the economic front. But she quickly backtracked. The counter argument is that the Mulayam Singh was equally bad. Sure, but the thought of Mulayam Singh as Prime Minister will also frighten a lot of people. Sure no government has ever done anything for Dalit uplift. But does that mean Mayawati should not be criticised for doing nothing for the group she claims to work for?
Arguments like Waghmore's precludes the possibility of the urban middle class reacting to issues like corruption and personal aggrandisement. Despite my cynicism about its apathy, I think this is an unfair charge. The middle class was quite accepting of a Dalit as president and now as Chief Justice of India. If it was reacting purely on the basis of prejudice, then there would have been equally sharp reactions to these appointments.
I am an English speaking urban middle class Iyengar Brahmin. I am petrified at the thought of Mayawati as Prime Minister. But I am equally petrified at the thought of J Jayalalitha (who is not a Dalit but an English speaking urban middle class Iyengar Brahmin) becoming Prime Minister. Because Jayalalitha's regimes have also been marked by rampant corruption and a highly personalised style of functioning. Just like Mayawati.
I am petrified at the thought of Lalu Yadav becoming Prime Minister. Not because he is a Yadav or because of his rustic ways, but because of the way he ruined Bihar. I am more comfortable with the idea of Nitish Kumar as Prime Minister, even though he is a Kurmi and though he is an engineer by education, he is not an English speaking urban middle class person. I am petrified of Ram Vilas Paswan becoming Prime Minister one day not because he is a Dalit but because of stories about his corrupt ways. But I am also petrified of Kamal Nath, an English-speaking urban middle class person, becoming Prime Minister (never mind that he probably doesn't have those ambitions) again because of his reputation for corruption.
Behind such insinuations of the kind Waghmore makes is the belief that Mayawati should not be opposed or criticised just because she is a Dalit. This is carrying the politics of victimhood a bit too far.
~ Seetha
(Seetha is a journalist and a committed liberal.)
For the full story click here.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Some thoughts on electoral reforms in India
Below is a piece mailed to us by a citizen - Mr Chudamani Ratnam. These are good, debatable points. We put it here for the open discussions, knowing that you would have lots to contribute. Take a look and do respond.
Electoral Reforms in India
It appears that there are some 700+ Mayors of towns in the USA. Some time ago, around 2006-7, at their annual conclave, under the Chairmanship of the Mayor of Seattle, they adopted a resolution to implement certain far reaching environmental protection measures. This was at a time when the US Federal Administration had a somewhat negative attitude towards such green policies. I e-mailed the Mayor of Seattle congratulating the mayors on their wisdom and went on to suggest that democracy in the USA would be better served if the Houses of Congress were abolished and the country governed by a President elected by the Mayors. Unfortunately I didn’t get a reply.
Leading on from such ideas it seems to me that elections in their present form in India should be abolished. People would only vote to elect their Panchayats, redefined to include municipal corporations, etc. These bodies would form an electoral college to elect the state assemblies. Candidates for the state assemblies need not be members of the Panchayat, but should be voters in that state. At the next higher level, the state assemblies would form another electoral college to elect the national assembly, i.e. Lok Sabha, not unlike the way the present Rajya Sabha is elected. The Lok Sabha would elect the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who need not be members of the Lok Sabha, again bearing some similarities to the US system.
It may be wishful thinking on my part but I can see some advantages over the present Indian system. To start with this proposal would be administratively much simpler and the deployment of thousands of paramilitary forces may not be needed. The criminal element would be hopefully eliminated beyond the panchayat stage and politics would be accessible to a better class of citizen. More sophisticated electoral processes such as the second transferable vote can be implemented at the electoral college stages. Lastly money may no longer be a factor in politics.
~ By Chudamani Ratnam
Electoral Reforms in India
It appears that there are some 700+ Mayors of towns in the USA. Some time ago, around 2006-7, at their annual conclave, under the Chairmanship of the Mayor of Seattle, they adopted a resolution to implement certain far reaching environmental protection measures. This was at a time when the US Federal Administration had a somewhat negative attitude towards such green policies. I e-mailed the Mayor of Seattle congratulating the mayors on their wisdom and went on to suggest that democracy in the USA would be better served if the Houses of Congress were abolished and the country governed by a President elected by the Mayors. Unfortunately I didn’t get a reply.
Leading on from such ideas it seems to me that elections in their present form in India should be abolished. People would only vote to elect their Panchayats, redefined to include municipal corporations, etc. These bodies would form an electoral college to elect the state assemblies. Candidates for the state assemblies need not be members of the Panchayat, but should be voters in that state. At the next higher level, the state assemblies would form another electoral college to elect the national assembly, i.e. Lok Sabha, not unlike the way the present Rajya Sabha is elected. The Lok Sabha would elect the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who need not be members of the Lok Sabha, again bearing some similarities to the US system.
It may be wishful thinking on my part but I can see some advantages over the present Indian system. To start with this proposal would be administratively much simpler and the deployment of thousands of paramilitary forces may not be needed. The criminal element would be hopefully eliminated beyond the panchayat stage and politics would be accessible to a better class of citizen. More sophisticated electoral processes such as the second transferable vote can be implemented at the electoral college stages. Lastly money may no longer be a factor in politics.
~ By Chudamani Ratnam
Crores poured for the General Elections 2009
Spending is zooming as it has become a ritual to bribe voters
- Overall estimated expense on election 2009: Rs 10,000-16,000 crore. Doesn't include non-cash "gifts", about 25% is cash bribes
- In a constituency with 4 candidates: Rs 1 crore approximate authorised expenditure. Rs 5-16 crore actual expenditure
- Cash bribes from candidates spent on liquor, repaying loans, daily expenses and other essentials that cannot wait—usually unproductive expenditure
- The average cash handout is expected to rise, according to a CMS survey, from Rs 100 per person in election 2004, to Rs 500 this year
- Election expenses likely to be about 0.2% of the GDP in 2009; not significant by itself, except that the entire sum is spent over just one month
Some describe it as the third stimulus package, after two official ones, for an economy that's hardly in the pink of health.
Others dismiss it as a national phenomenon. Either way, as India prepares to vote in a new government this May, the polls are also a once-in-a-five-year chance for many voters to make a quick buck. This year, election-related expenses—official and unofficial—are expected to zoom: From Rs 4,500 crore in 2004, to anything between Rs 10,000-16,000 crore.
And yes, urban as well as rural voters are expected to line up for illegal cash benefits and other freebies. Of this, 80 per cent is likely to be spe nt out of the pocket of individual candidates (the Election Commission limits their pre-poll expenses to Rs 25 lakh). "It's an under-estimation, but we believe that each successful candidate could spend Rs 5 crore in his or her constituency. It was half this figure in the previous national vote," says N. Bhaskara Rao, chairman of the Centre for Media Studies (CMS), an independent think-tank.
Add spending by minor candidates, and the numbers grow exponentially for each constituency.
There are 543 constituencies for the Lok Sabha, and a major one, with three or more candidates, could be worth Rs 5-16 crore in expenses. The estimates, made by CMS, are based on two surveys it conducted in 2007 and 2008 across income groups. "The spending—Rs 10,000 crore, which is the minimum we expect—is unimaginable. It's never happened at this scale before," says Rao.
What's worrying is that politicians don't bribe in the actual hope of winning. "I don't believe that Indian voters are electing the leader who pays them the most money, or selecting one who gives them more immediate gratification—a TV set, a sari or blankets," says Bhibhu Mohapatra, a Fellow with the India Development Foundation (IDF), a research outfit based in New Delhi.
Mohapatra thinks that pre-election bribes have more cynical underpinnings: "It has become a ritual, a habit, to bribe voters. A candidate cannot ensure his victory by giving a freebie or a cash 'reward'. But by not bribing at all, he ensures defeat in electoral sweepstakes," says Mohapatra. In its own study conducted in New Delhi prior to elections to the Delhi assembly last year, IDF found that almost all slum clusters and colonies were supplied with liquor and cash, in some places free food and snacks. In most clusters, the community elder was approached with the bribe.
Interestingly, the report says, "This was practised by at least three national parties in Delhi," implying that even candidates who don't expect to win use liquor "pouches" and cash—of Rs 500 per voter or thereabouts—only to ensure they stay in the running.
IDF's survey was conducted between October 18 and November 24, 2008; 3,000 households from the Below Poverty Line (BPL) and Above Poverty Line (APL) categories were interviewed for it."If Rs 25 lakh is the officially allowed limit, and Rs 5 crore is actually being spent, then the difference is what we call black or illegally generated income by politicians and parties," says Prof Arun Kumar of Jawaharlal Nehru University, who has written extensively on the black economy and authored a book on the subject. "To the extent that TV sets are given away and saris are bought for prospective women voters, we could see (the bribes) as a redistribution of that illegal wealth," he says.With that much money floating in the system, it wouldn't be misplaced to see larger benefits, or at least some cost-savings, for the voting public.
Unfortunately, the benefits of these bribes are too thinly spread out—not targeted at all, say economists—and ultimately, the sums are negligible compared with the size of the economy. They will not create any "stimulus" at all, avers Kumar. At Rs 10,000 crore, the electoral spending is about 0.2 per cent of the country's Rs 50 lakh crore GDP. "Hardly anything, it's basically a waste," he says. Happily, at least some proportion of the Rs 10,000-16,000 crore will go into purchasing and running services—the printers, transporters, counters, election watchers, messengers, guards, billboard painters—that will actually be useful for running the election itself.
Read the full article here.
Google empowering India!
India's 15th general election: tools for citizen empowerment
At Google, we believe information is fundamentally empowering. While all of our technologies demonstrate a commitment to this guiding principle, information is especially important when a society comes together to participate in democratic elections. Beginning ten days from today, more than 700 million eligible voters in India will over the course of four weeks have the opportunity to participate in the largest democratic event in human history — India's 15th general election.
Today, along with a wide range of partners, we are happy to announce the launch of the Google India Elections Centre - available in English and in Hindi. People from across India can use the centre to do the following:
- Confirm their voter registration status
- Discover their polling location
- View their constituency on a map
- Consume relevant election-related news, blogs, videos, and quotations
- Evaluate the status of development in their constituency across a range of indicators
- Learn about the background of their Member of Parliament and this year's candidates
With still more features to be added during the election, we hope the site will be an ongoing resource for analysis, governance, and democracy in India after the election.
This project would not have been possible without the shared vision of a broad coalition of partners: the Association for Democratic Reforms, HT Media Limited, Indicus Analytics, the Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy, the Liberty Institute, and PRS Legislative Services. These groups are the true champions of promoting a more transparent democracy, and we're privileged to be able to shine a light on their work on the occasion of India's 15th Lok Sabha polls. We're hopeful not only that the elections centre will further a culture that seeks access to information, but that it will also yield positive changes in voting patterns during the upcoming polls. Please visit the site, select your constituency, and get started! Spread the word about what you learn and, of course, don't forget to visit the polls.
Read the original blog here.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Rich MPs, poor people
Another election season is upon us. It’s a good idea to focus on more basic questions: Do political representatives make any difference, to the state they’re from, or to the castes they represent; how representative are our MLAs/MPs; does only money-power matter? Do representatives from poorer states tend to be relatively wealthier in comparison to their population, than those from richer states? Does being rich ensure electoral success or is it tied to the performance of the party? Using data from Empowering India initiative, Sunil Jain seeks some answers in his column in Business Standard.
Now that election season is upon us, we’ll be bombarded by all manner of analyses, pre-election surveys on voting behaviour, post-election analyses on whether people voted their caste or just cast their vote; and so on. Till then, it’s a good idea to focus on more basic questions: Do political representatives make any difference, to the state they’re from, or to the castes they represent (are OBCs in Bihar any better off after 15 years of Lalu-raj?); indeed, are our MLAs/MPs even representative in the true sense of the term; does only money-power matter?
As for whether our MPs/MLAs are representative of us, the answer is mostly a ‘no’. By and large, the poorer the state, the richer the MP/MLA. One way of rationalising this is to say that political leaders have always belonged to the aristocracy — one look at the education levels of our MPs/MLAs, however, makes it clear this is not the case here. That this should happen, though, is no surprise — the poorer a state, the higher the chances of it being badly governed, and so the greater the scope/need for MPs/MLAs to have the power to dispense favours. Visit the Liberty Institute’s website (http://www.empoweringindia.org/new/home.aspx) if you want a lot more data, to construct and run econometric models especially.
- Maharashtra has amongst the highest per capita incomes in India (if you leave out small states like Delhi) and, on average, its MPs declared assets of around Rs 110 lakh in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, ranging from Rs 64 lakh for the Shiv Sena to Rs 191 lakh for the Congress Party (Rs 65 lakh for Shiv Sena MLAs to Rs 133 lakh for Congress MLAs). Surprisingly, however, Andhra Pradesh, which has a 30 per cent lower per capita income, has MPs whose average assets are around 4.5 times as high at Rs 490 lakh (TDP MLAs in Andhra had an average asset-base of Rs 190 lakh and the figure was Rs 116 lakh for Congress MLAs); Punjab MPs are the richest (its per capita income is around a tenth lower but its MPs are around six times as wealthy with average assets of Rs 672 lakh).
- Gujarat MPs/MLAs are the paragon of virtue when it comes to their wealth (the state’s per capita is around 8 per cent lower than Maharashtra and its MPs have assets which are around 40 per cent lower). Poorer states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Madhya Pradesh are the real shocker. Bihar’s per capita income is a fifth that of Maharashtra, yet its MPs are just a tenth less wealthy (Rs 101 lakh for Bihar versus Rs 110 lakh for Maharashtra) — Bihar MLAs, however, have assets that average around Rs 20 lakh as compared to three-four times that for Maharashtra MLAs. UP, similarly, has a per capita income that’s a little over a third that of Maharashtra, but its MPs are a third wealthier. Madhya Pradesh has a per capita income that’s 40 per cent that of Maharashtra, but its MPs are just 14 per cent less wealthy.
Read the full story here:
Indefenceofliberty
Business Standard
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Civil Society Initiatives
Gone are the days when democracy and politics was only restricted to those chasing power, whose sole aim was to carry on the dirty business of robbing this country and its citizens. Awareness has spread like wild-fire. Somewhere the Mumbai terror attacks have produced passionate citizens who have come forward ‘to do something’. And this ‘something’ has finally left the confines of the thought or the living room conversations. This ‘something’ will pave the way for the change we all wait for.
Here is a list of a few of the growing number of citizens initiatives across the country whose objective is to encourage greater participation in the democratic process in various forms. With the tool of information technology and internet has greatly enriched and enhanced the range and scope of these initiatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
