Democracy is known to be a political cult practiced by reasoning, discussion and debate. As democracy is not only a government by the majority but also implies the right of the minority to convert the majority in its favor, freedom of thought and expression is so essential to democracy. Conflict between the ruling party and the opposition characterizes every democratic framework and scope for dissent is essential to correct errors, mistakes and blunders of the rulers. But it has to be remembered that successful functioning of a democracy needs not only scope for conflict and political change but also a spirit of cooperation. The government and its opposition together make the political establishment in a democracy as evident from the British term of " her majesty's loyal opposition". An ethos of respect for other people's view and keenness to search the kernels of truth in them are essential elements of democratic culture.
None can deny that since 1947, the Indian society has made significant progress in fulfilling the norms of freedom of expression and thought and in reflecting them in the choice of the governments formed at the Center and the states. Plurality of political parties,changes of governments through elections, the vibrant role played by the media and the civil society and political empowerment of the suppressed social groups bear witness to it ( Of course, the stark economic inequality and remnants of feudalism still constitute detracting factors).
Unfortunately, what has been said about the Indian polity is only one side of the coin. The other side shows that the Indian political structure is utterly deficient in respect of some vital requirements of democracy if we focus attention on the cooperation part rather than the conflict part of it. Democracy for its success, demands responsible politics instead of irresponsible scrambling and elbowing for power. Accepting the responsibility of policy pursued, matching words with action and strict avoidance of the course criticized by oneself are the cardinal principles of any civilized society in addition to tolerance of other people's stand and views even if they go against one. This is where our party system fails miserably.
In India, all parties out of power assume that it is only the responsibility of the party in power ( the major party in a coalition government) that has to ensure the well being of the nation. The opposition has no duty in creating public opinion for a just cause or socially desirable course of action. They need not cooperate with the government of the day in pursuing even a policy they know to be well conceived. Even in urgent national matters when the government may seek consensus, they are reluctant to express their opinion in such a way as to help policy formulation. This is illustrated by the indifferent response of the opposition led by the Congress when A.B.Bajpayee sought all party consensus regarding the steps to tackle the situation arising out of hijacking of an Indian plane by the Islamic terrorists who held the crew and the passengers hostage at Kandahar in the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. When Bajpayee conceded the demand of the hijackers on humanitarian consideration of saving innocent lives, the opposition seized the opportunity and criticized it as an act of cowardice.
Now, when Manmohan Singh is crying himself hoarse for a national consensus on reforms in order to find a way out of the present economic crisis, the opposition led by the BJP refuses to oblige him in the hope of grabbing power in the near future capitalizing on his failures.
Historically, the tradition of irresponsible behavior of the political opposition in the form of wanton criticism of the government policy, profession of high sounding ( often, populist ) ideology and making of empty promises had its origin in the Nehruvian era when the Congress party had the monopoly of power at the Center and the states; and owing to dim prospect of political change, the opposition had no need of implementing what they promised. Unfortunately, the tradition once built up , continued even when the Indian democracy had begun to assert itself through political changes both at the Center and the states.
When the Congress lost power at the Center during the mid 1980s, they themselves fell victim to the irresponsibility syndrome. Had they cooperated with their arch enemy, V.P.Singh in finding a solution of the Mandir-Masjid dispute, the vexed national problem could possibly be tackled in a much better way. V.P.Singh himself managed to forget his crusade against corruption which had brought him to power and instead concentrated on caste based politics to beat the BJP's ideal of cultural nationalism( Hindutva).
When the Congress came back to power under the leadership of Narasimha Rao, it initiated the process of economic liberalization which in spite of its adverse distributive impact, had restored India's balance of payment equilibrium and economic stability to a significant extent. The rightist parties including the BJP were actually in favor of this economic policy; but chose to join the political chorus against it albeit in a subdued note. The leftists led by the CPI(M) were naturally critical of this 'surrender' to the multinationals and the American lobby. Strangely, when after the next general election a non-BJP and non-Congress( curiously, supported by the Congress) government was formed under their initiative, the Left did not appear to have much grouse against its alleged pro-liberalization stance.
When the NDA led by the BJP assumed power at the Center, they not only continued the liberal economic policy once criticized by them but also made some moves to consolidate its gains. Unfortunately, the ideological heritage of political Hindutva worked as a drag on it.
The irresponsible behavior of the political parties to achieve partisan gain at the cost of their adversaries reached an abysmal point when the coalition governments began to be formed at the Center and in the states. Now, not only the opposition but also the junior partners indulged in irresponsible acts taking credit for the governments' achievements but blaming the major partner for faults and failures. The outside supporters also took an obstructionist posture to bully the government and assert their own importance. The UPA-II at the Center illustrates the worst form of political opportunism, hurting the government from within and resulting in policy paralysis. Perhaps the minor partners enjoy the situation as this shows their relative strength in the ruling combine. Failure of the Manmohan Singh government to sign the Teesta Water treaty with Bangladesh and subsequent embarrassment caused to it, illustrates this point.
The states are also suffering from the same irresponsibility syndrome. In West Bengal, for example, the Congress continues as a minor partner of the Mamata Banerjee Government even as it goes on criticizing it. The Trinamool which toppled the Left by promising paribartan i.e. total change in policy, chooses to continue the alleged financial profligacy of its adversary, strictly avoiding any attempt for resource mobilization in the form of taxation. On the contrary, it likes to follow the same track of populism blaming the Center for all ills as did the erstwhile rulers. That the new rulers in West Bengal are repeating the so called 'mistakes' and 'misdeeds' of their bete noire is evident even to the man in the street. Only superficial changes in unimportant matters are in sight. Added to this refusal to move, is the tendency to regard all critics and opponents as enemies.
It is well known that political opportunism has given birth to regionalism, communalism, caste based vote bank politics and many other vile tactics encouraging centrifugal tendencies. Now, the irresponsibility syndrome is leading to a grave problem of schizophrenic governance. All new initiatives are shelved because one or the other partner in the coalition government is objecting to it only to brighten its own image following the path of populism. It is amusing ( perhaps also distressing) to find partners of the UPA-II government bringing out processions and shouting slogans against its policy, throwing city traffic out of gear.
When economic slowdown and crisis are threatening the country and the government is shackled in its move to take bold steps to tackle the situation, the opposition is gleefully waiting to grab any opportunity to destabilize the ruling establishment without caring for the dreadful possibility of destabilizing the nation itself in the process. It has been totally forgotten by all those who matter, that while conflict may be necessary to amend a wrong policy, it is consensus and cooperation that are extremely important at the hour of national crisis. At least, the opponents of any proposed policy or initiative have the moral responsibility of spelling out a realistic alternative for public review. Otherwise, criticism of the government for its own sake will lead us to nowhere or to the worst possible situation.
The honorable political leaders of our country may humbly be reminded of the famous "prisoners' dilemma" of the game theory where self maximizing strategic behavior of the players lead to the low gain situation for all of them.
None can deny that since 1947, the Indian society has made significant progress in fulfilling the norms of freedom of expression and thought and in reflecting them in the choice of the governments formed at the Center and the states. Plurality of political parties,changes of governments through elections, the vibrant role played by the media and the civil society and political empowerment of the suppressed social groups bear witness to it ( Of course, the stark economic inequality and remnants of feudalism still constitute detracting factors).
Unfortunately, what has been said about the Indian polity is only one side of the coin. The other side shows that the Indian political structure is utterly deficient in respect of some vital requirements of democracy if we focus attention on the cooperation part rather than the conflict part of it. Democracy for its success, demands responsible politics instead of irresponsible scrambling and elbowing for power. Accepting the responsibility of policy pursued, matching words with action and strict avoidance of the course criticized by oneself are the cardinal principles of any civilized society in addition to tolerance of other people's stand and views even if they go against one. This is where our party system fails miserably.
In India, all parties out of power assume that it is only the responsibility of the party in power ( the major party in a coalition government) that has to ensure the well being of the nation. The opposition has no duty in creating public opinion for a just cause or socially desirable course of action. They need not cooperate with the government of the day in pursuing even a policy they know to be well conceived. Even in urgent national matters when the government may seek consensus, they are reluctant to express their opinion in such a way as to help policy formulation. This is illustrated by the indifferent response of the opposition led by the Congress when A.B.Bajpayee sought all party consensus regarding the steps to tackle the situation arising out of hijacking of an Indian plane by the Islamic terrorists who held the crew and the passengers hostage at Kandahar in the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. When Bajpayee conceded the demand of the hijackers on humanitarian consideration of saving innocent lives, the opposition seized the opportunity and criticized it as an act of cowardice.
Now, when Manmohan Singh is crying himself hoarse for a national consensus on reforms in order to find a way out of the present economic crisis, the opposition led by the BJP refuses to oblige him in the hope of grabbing power in the near future capitalizing on his failures.
Historically, the tradition of irresponsible behavior of the political opposition in the form of wanton criticism of the government policy, profession of high sounding ( often, populist ) ideology and making of empty promises had its origin in the Nehruvian era when the Congress party had the monopoly of power at the Center and the states; and owing to dim prospect of political change, the opposition had no need of implementing what they promised. Unfortunately, the tradition once built up , continued even when the Indian democracy had begun to assert itself through political changes both at the Center and the states.
When the Congress lost power at the Center during the mid 1980s, they themselves fell victim to the irresponsibility syndrome. Had they cooperated with their arch enemy, V.P.Singh in finding a solution of the Mandir-Masjid dispute, the vexed national problem could possibly be tackled in a much better way. V.P.Singh himself managed to forget his crusade against corruption which had brought him to power and instead concentrated on caste based politics to beat the BJP's ideal of cultural nationalism( Hindutva).
When the Congress came back to power under the leadership of Narasimha Rao, it initiated the process of economic liberalization which in spite of its adverse distributive impact, had restored India's balance of payment equilibrium and economic stability to a significant extent. The rightist parties including the BJP were actually in favor of this economic policy; but chose to join the political chorus against it albeit in a subdued note. The leftists led by the CPI(M) were naturally critical of this 'surrender' to the multinationals and the American lobby. Strangely, when after the next general election a non-BJP and non-Congress( curiously, supported by the Congress) government was formed under their initiative, the Left did not appear to have much grouse against its alleged pro-liberalization stance.
When the NDA led by the BJP assumed power at the Center, they not only continued the liberal economic policy once criticized by them but also made some moves to consolidate its gains. Unfortunately, the ideological heritage of political Hindutva worked as a drag on it.
The irresponsible behavior of the political parties to achieve partisan gain at the cost of their adversaries reached an abysmal point when the coalition governments began to be formed at the Center and in the states. Now, not only the opposition but also the junior partners indulged in irresponsible acts taking credit for the governments' achievements but blaming the major partner for faults and failures. The outside supporters also took an obstructionist posture to bully the government and assert their own importance. The UPA-II at the Center illustrates the worst form of political opportunism, hurting the government from within and resulting in policy paralysis. Perhaps the minor partners enjoy the situation as this shows their relative strength in the ruling combine. Failure of the Manmohan Singh government to sign the Teesta Water treaty with Bangladesh and subsequent embarrassment caused to it, illustrates this point.
The states are also suffering from the same irresponsibility syndrome. In West Bengal, for example, the Congress continues as a minor partner of the Mamata Banerjee Government even as it goes on criticizing it. The Trinamool which toppled the Left by promising paribartan i.e. total change in policy, chooses to continue the alleged financial profligacy of its adversary, strictly avoiding any attempt for resource mobilization in the form of taxation. On the contrary, it likes to follow the same track of populism blaming the Center for all ills as did the erstwhile rulers. That the new rulers in West Bengal are repeating the so called 'mistakes' and 'misdeeds' of their bete noire is evident even to the man in the street. Only superficial changes in unimportant matters are in sight. Added to this refusal to move, is the tendency to regard all critics and opponents as enemies.
It is well known that political opportunism has given birth to regionalism, communalism, caste based vote bank politics and many other vile tactics encouraging centrifugal tendencies. Now, the irresponsibility syndrome is leading to a grave problem of schizophrenic governance. All new initiatives are shelved because one or the other partner in the coalition government is objecting to it only to brighten its own image following the path of populism. It is amusing ( perhaps also distressing) to find partners of the UPA-II government bringing out processions and shouting slogans against its policy, throwing city traffic out of gear.
When economic slowdown and crisis are threatening the country and the government is shackled in its move to take bold steps to tackle the situation, the opposition is gleefully waiting to grab any opportunity to destabilize the ruling establishment without caring for the dreadful possibility of destabilizing the nation itself in the process. It has been totally forgotten by all those who matter, that while conflict may be necessary to amend a wrong policy, it is consensus and cooperation that are extremely important at the hour of national crisis. At least, the opponents of any proposed policy or initiative have the moral responsibility of spelling out a realistic alternative for public review. Otherwise, criticism of the government for its own sake will lead us to nowhere or to the worst possible situation.
The honorable political leaders of our country may humbly be reminded of the famous "prisoners' dilemma" of the game theory where self maximizing strategic behavior of the players lead to the low gain situation for all of them.
