More than often, the Indian political class has thumped its own back, in celebration of a democratic franchise it has safeguarded for its citizens through thick and thin. Or so it claims.
A recent visit to Singapore for me, took place at extremely interesting times, when the small city-state emphatically showed the power of 'free and fair' public voting rights. While the news of Arab states,continuously in a state of upheaval kept filtering in, the local channels were filled with a strong message the people of Singapore had given in the recently concluded elections. The message, was ironically the same that blood was being splattered for in Arab nations, and one that the US president had spread to see himself elected. The message of Change.
In Singapore, and as much elsewhere, the 2011 General Election results must be looked at with greater detail. The election which jolted the ruling party out of sleep after 30 years of unabated success, also saw the foreign minister as well as other senior political figures being voted out. The message of the voters was loud and clear. The names don't count, work does. A logic that misses both the Indian voters and the politicians alike.
The Arab uprising, much a concern for oil hunting US too was a call for a change from oppresive regimes to establishment of citizen centric policies. Though even the most hardened politicians wouls not observe any pattern to these demands of change, yet what the common man across the globe connects of these is fantastical. The power of a single voice.
Exhibited quite recently in the form of Anna Hazare, using Gandhian tactics to coerce the Government into relooking at the Lokpal Bill, a utopian tool intended to curb corruption, this voice has now been given wings by popular social media platforms. The spread of information and understanding of macro situations by a common man are leaving little room for any Indian politician to continue his game of 'Change will Come'. The world wants to see if it 'has come' or not.
Indian democracy, arguably came to India when it was little too young. With a history, in which it continued to revel, rich with kings, dictators and aristocracy, the Indian democracy has known little of how to leverage on fundamentals of public franchise. The empathizers of Indian progress highlight the difficulty of the nightmares of partition, subsequent wars, and natural calamities ,insufficiencies to claim refuge against allegations of non-performance. However, the reality of their lack of vision is not in what they havent achieved but social evils they have ingrained which discourage meritocracy and others from performing.
What remains to be seen is how if ever, do the Indian politicians end up controlling the public sentiment, if they were to face an equally vocal and consistent dissent against the way Indian politics is run.
I heard a very interesting debate on a news channel yesterday. While democracy gives you the right to protest and agitate and make your voice heard, it must be within the limitations of a democracy. In a democracy if an agitation challenges the supremacy of the parliament, and demands that the common man will form the laws instead of the parliament, it is leading to a paradox.
ReplyDeleteWhile this is currently the most sentimental and hot topics everywhere in India (esp. after the Ramdev incident) I find a very high noise to signal ratio in the debates/discussions/speeches etc. Somehow I find that both the politicians and masses at large share a common problem: short-sightedness.