What is the real ‘-cracy’

I write this after hearing what Pranab Mukherjee said in his speech on the floors of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha before forwarding the sense of the House in favour of Sri Anna Hazare’s demands over the Jan Lokpal Bill. He made one important remark where he stressed the difference between ‘mobocracy’ and democracy on strict structural and procedural grounds. A parallel and seemingly contradictory picture arises when you hear the arguments of civil society activists of India Against Corruption stressing again and again on the sovereignty and supremacy of the popular sentiments over the wish of a few elected representatives comprising the political brass.

Whatever little I could argue on the basis of my limited exposure to the issue concerned , there is no doubt that this agitation clearly stands as a watershed in the post independence scenario in the political history of our country because of two main reasons.

Firstly, it did not have the face of a political movement, as the striving never emphasized a change of regime like it was the case of J. P. movement of 1974. Taking up a very perennial cause affecting the entire spectrum of Indian society, irrespective of caste , class, or geographical demarcations, the movement was able to draw the attention of a very large section of people as was evident from the news reports during the past few months and more specifically during the past few days.

Secondly , deriving its strength from bringing people to become more aware of a very infecting and deep rooted sickness that has been crippling the ethos, functioning and spirit of a vibrant and still evolving politico-economic reality of our country, the movement simultaneously put a question before the people as to how should they acknowledge the democratic reality of our nation- are we a ‘representative’ democracy or can we strengthen ourselves more by functioning through a mechanism closer and closer to referendum.

It is not that corruption is something people need to be made aware about. Nor is it the fact that this is the first time that the nation has witnessed such a widespread agitation on a national issue. The debate gets critical because this time the popular will interfered with the normal proceedings of the legislation making process and ultimately the wisdom of the rulers had to some extent reach a compromise and not put forward a blatant denial of the voice of the masses, as it was trying to do so initially arguing in favour of keeping the dignity of democratic institutions sacrosanct. This was again acknowledged by Mr. Pranab Mukherjee , when he pointed out that in a dynamic and functional political system such exceptions are welcome and more so needed in order to reduce friction and reach common consensus.

When India entered into her first general elections , the democratic experiment in our country was looked at with suspicion and contempt by many critics abroad, but it was the political will of the then leadership and their faith in the democratic institutions that they succeeded in surprising the world with the success of the same and it is this heritage that has kept us going even in the face of many ups and downs in the past six decades . Many a times our political institutions have faced strong criticism on structural and functional issues, our Constitution has been many a times debated over, amended and in the wake of all this churning and changes occurring we have stood witness to the strength of the same,

But , if we closely ponder, in the midst of celebrations happening over many parts of the country on the success of the civil society endeavours, we are really facing a very subtle and critical question. It is no doubt that we are evolving on the path of democratic functioning, but are we really empowering ourselves to become what I call a ‘capable’ democracy. It is here that we must think beyond the numbers pulled towards a cause and stress more on the qualitative aspects. The post independence communal genocide happened during the times when we had a stalwart as Gandhi to guide us. The very force that could unite us into a non violent struggle against the foreign rule failed to save the day when tested against a different but very much a thriving context. Those were common people , men of a shared past, shared pain, striving and oppression who, on being provoked on communal grounds, became ready like savages to kill , rape , torture and burn their fellow countrymen . Similar depressing examples are present in the post independence era as well.

We must not forget that although on one side the acceptance of popular will indeed implies the success of a democratic set up , there is also a need to remember that due care must be taken in shaping this ‘popular’ voice because I for one thing strongly believe that crowd can have consensus but not necessarily with a conscience. It is of utmost import to infuse conscience before one tries to generate consensus because as much as we are trying to bridge the gap between the ruler and the ruled , due care must be taken that success of democratic functioning depends on harmonizing the various competiting influences and bringing them together to agree to a certain extent for a common cause and push forward for the same as one nation .

As is rightly said,

Chaman mein har tarah ke rang-o-buu se baat banti hai,

Hum hi hum hain to kya hum hain, tum hi tum ho to kya tum ho….