DYNAMICS OF DEMOCRACY AND CORRUPTION
Chandra Mohan Bhandari
One of the features of a modern democratic set up is its inherent contradiction. Like the
necessity of thesis and antithesis acting simultaneously it relies upon opposing trends to propel it. To keep a vast social network together, in a meaningful co-existence and in a more-or-less harmonious mode of existence, is a challenging but manageable task, if that kind of challenge is understood and acknowledged by the people at the helm of affairs supposedly responsible for managing the show. The present day democratic systems originated as a ‘working formula’ to keep different groups and trends together in some sort of a lose binding. The basic notion of a democratic working is certainly not new and in one form or another it has been present in several traditions. However, the present democratic set up in practice has some added elements and clearly defined rules which is being used to run the affairs of several countries, societies and institutions. Even monarchs in several cases incorporated some such elements into their scheme of governance that could introduce a degree of transparency and fair play. In India we are familiar with the oft quoted example of ‘Ram Rajya’ which is quoted to indicate a regime where even a monarch could be sensitive to the aspirations of people and where blatant use or misuse of power was avoided.
Planned and well thought of style of working in the present day democracies can partly be traced in the laying down of the American Constitution. During the last decades of the eighteenth century following the war of independence there developed a political vacuum and the emergent nation required some kind of ‘social engineering’ to guide it through the mess. One of the usually practiced solutions to the problem of bringing together more than a dozen warring states under one umbrella was use of force. In this particular case it would have meant use of force by the bigger states against the smaller, leading finally to a few large states at constant war with each other. That has historically been a norm and the easiest thing to do. However, that did not happen. What happened was an experiment in ‘social engineering’ designed to bring the warring nations together without resort to violence. Moreover, this act of bringing several units together was to be managed without each of them losing its identity. To seek a lasting solution the first lesson in democracy was learnt by the men at the helm of affairs by initiating an extensive dialogue between individuals, between group of intellectuals and within the states as also between them. In this connection a larger cross section of people were brought into the discussion through articles published in various magazines. Almost a hundred articles written in this context finally gave way to the present American constitution and immediately after the birth of the new nation it was put to test. We know it now that the experiment was reasonably successful and has lasted for a considerable time with more-or-less good results. This was the first clear cut experiment on social engineering on record and on such a vast scale. One of the salient features of this constitution was its emphasis on checks and balances between different constituent units required to run the state: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
Another important feature of the scheme was to take into account some elements from human psychology. There were many examples where law makers all over the world have been devising methods and means to bring out the good in human nature, and to discourage what was otherwise. The notion of ‘reward and punishment’ has been the corner stone of law making in all societies which was based on the same principle. The intention behind this was clear - to encourage positive tendencies and to discourage the negative. In doing so many a times the idealism in man was addressed to. This kind of appeal to idealism has its own advantages and limitations. Appealing to idealism in man is to a certain extent productive, but pushed too far it loses its impact and validity. American constitution makers were wise enough to understand this and took this into account in their scheme of things. It was not always fruitful to appeal to the idealism which should be used only occasionally. The selfish nature of man could also be used to yield positive result provided there are incorporated into the scheme various checks and balances. If a person knows that his hard work, dedication and innovation would help him more than it would do to the rest of people he would feel encouraged. We may call it selfishness, but that is how human mind has been working and will most likely work in future as well. This human potential can be tapped for the good of the society provided its abuse could be kept under check. The mechanism of checks and balances includes within it another important feature which needs to be mentioned explicitly and clearly. It is the incorporation of ‘Feedback Loops’. Feedback means a part of the output is re-introduced into the input for necessary corrections. This is an important factor in the success or failure in the implementation of any theory.
In a sense feedback makes a system to evolve gradually and obtains the capacity to adjust the working to changing circumstances. In the presence of feedback the system does not remain rigid and inflexible, as it keeps adjusting to new situations.
It would be interesting to compare the two features of checks and balances and human psychology and compare them with the situation elsewhere. Consider for example the basic philosophy as implicit in Marxist doctrine which emphasizes on a more equitable distribution of wealth. As an ideal it was extremely sound and appealing. When put to implementation in some cases it could not work that well as desired. The socialist model is closer to the ideal as compared with the American model. A theoretically sound model put into practice failed, and it would be of interest to know- why. If it did not work the reason is not difficult to search, the non-inclusion of human psychology, and missing feedback loops.
Having described these aspects pertaining to a democratic set up it must be realised that there could not be a simple formula applicable to all societies at all times. Even though all human beings are essentially same, there are differences based on geography, culture and tradition. The psychological set up depends upon these factors and differs from place to place and from time to time. The governance of a people requires an innate understanding of all these factors. Once you have that understanding the next thing is to find a working formula for handling the matters of governance. In addition the required psychological features and also the required necessary feedback loops must form an intricate network. On implementation the theory may fail to work or may not work to satisfaction even though all relevant aspects have been taken care of. From time to time based on the feedback one has to keep analysing the situation and make necessary amendments. A system that is designed to evolve with time is likely to survive.
Indian Context
When India gained independence there were innumerable problems to deal with. The Hindu-Muslim divide culminating in partition and the situation arising thereof was one important aspect, to rule a nation of so many diverse lifestyles and languages was another. Then there was the need to take a traditional society into the age of modernity through democratic means and this too was certainly a difficult proposition. To accept secular ideals in spite of the trauma of partition was also something to be handled delicately. The men and women who were responsible for the governance of the nation at the time of independence did reasonably well to throw their weight on a democratic, secular social-political set up. Carrying the nation forward from that point was a daunting task which required imagination, strong will power and vision. The vision appeared reasonably on sound track, the motive was sound but the feedback loops were either missing or rendered ineffective. To some extent this kind of set up was being experimented with elsewhere too, such as in Soviet Union. The situation of course was similar, but the method adopted was different, the plan of implementation was also quite different yet the one thing that both lacked was feedback network. My personal view is that the Soviet experiment failed primarily due to missing feedback loops, a deficiency which no nation could afford to do. The result was before us to see. A non-democratic set up has to live with this risk all the time. Let us talk of the Indian experiment.
The Indian experiment did not completely fail, it faultered. In a democratic set up there are built-in mechanisms which take care of effective feedback loops, the periodic elections which gave people the option to change the governing bodies. A democratic set up may be the best way to rule a vast population as diverse as that of ours, yet it is never free from faults. It can be abused and it was abused extensively by the men at the helm of affairs especially the second and third generation politicians. ‘Power corrupts’, goes the saying, and our second generation politicians wanted to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. They certainly proved it beyond doubt.
The Abuses
Any system of governance has its own strengths and weaknesses. The same is true of democracy or to be more precise any particular brand of democracy. To put all democracies under one umbrella may be suitable for broad classification purpose but within that domain there are extremely diverse patterns of working. Indian democracy is unique just as India is unique. Perhaps nowhere in the world the diversity is so vivid and explicit as in this land. With around sixteen major languages and two dozen dialects, it is no less diverse than entire Europe. European nations have their languages as their primary sources of identity. Just on the basis of language we have sixteen or so identities. Culture and tradition may differ even within a language group. Almost all world religions are present here and in significant numbers. Then there are cast based differences which have further been the cause of concern especially in times of difficulty.
The struggle for power in a democratic system can definitely take undemocratic forms. Democratic system gives you a lot of room to manouver and manipulate, but it also assumes a certain level of responsibility from the individual who is the primary constituent of the system. Individual and his vote gives him a unique power to exercise although one in innumerable many may lose its identity. This unique identity of an individual is easily brought under pressure, or can be bought. It can be under pressure on the basis of language, religion or cast. It can be purchased especially when a vast population is living below the poverty line (wherever it is drawn). Use of force in not allowing a certain under priviledged group to cast vote is another kind of abuse prevalent in this democratic system of ours. However, these problems did not make their appearance in a day or an year. It took two to three decades to manifest, and when they did they had already taken deep roots.
The first two decades after independence were crucial for two reasons:
[1] The first two decades formed the defining period of Indian democracy. Many among the neighbouring nations too promised such a democratic system and their experiments too were under test. In some countries the experiment failed outright with military taking charge of governance. Off and on the elections were held but that was merely in name, the primary source of power being military. One thing about Indian experiment was that it did not bring a complete collapse of democratic order. There were a number of reasons for this the details of which cannot be discussed here. One of the reasons was the presence of a figure like Gandhi during the days of independence movement. Gandhi’s presence could not ensure the end of violence but it did create an atmosphere where certain ethical and moral values were acceptable. In its absence it could have faced a relatively greater risk of being caught in a power game. There were other leaders of some substance who were influenced by Gandhi but not necessarily in agreement in all aspects, they too had their impact on the shape of things to come.
[2] An abuse of democratic set up was making its presence felt on a scale not anticipated earlier. There were still leaders of some standing and vision but they too started making compromises to stay in power. They were liberal, secular and above cast considerations but to win elections they gave freedom to their party members to take the easiest route to victory.
They too probably did not anticipate its long range consequences as not many precedents were available to follow.
There were fallouts of this kind of newly developing power game to stay in power by the political parties. They preyed upon sentiments of people: religious, cast-based or otherwise. Some political parties played upon the sentiments of minority groups, others on that of the majority. During the first two decades after independence there was almost no opposition worth the name and the governments could have taken measures to ensure social and economic justice to a large extent. Here the leadership failed as the matters of winning elections and staying in power were more prominent than anything else including the nation.
Corruption pervades Life
It was the time when there was almost absolute freedom to do the things as per convenience.
The political class and the bureaucracy virtually ransacked the nation and its coffers, played with peoples’ sentiments in different ragas and tunes and amassed wealth which was unthinkable few decades back. One of the ways to stay in power was to start the game of granting reservations in jobs. The concept of reservation in jobs had its origin in the notion of social justice. It was some sort of a short term and limited range treatment of a problem which had its roots in tradition. It was like putting a patient on glucose for short term to give him a helping hand. Given right kind of treatment the malady would have been cured in a matter of time. Instead it created new problems by creating classes within classes.
Take for example the case of scheduled tribes. Now you may see several members of this community taking up high posts among politicians and bureaucrats, and elsewhere too. This is quite fair, but there is a totally false impression being projected. The impression being given is that this policy would in due course cure most of the problems faced by the tribes. Whether it is ST or scheduled casts or OBC and even a large number in the upper class, a vast population is living in abject poverty. What is being done to improve their lives. Why there is so much of turbulence in their lives, why they become easy prey of left or right extremism. Take an example. In Orissa, especially in Koraput, there are tribes living a life of unspeakable poverty even in this twenty first century. Whose responsibility are these unfortunate people. The forests which were their only survival kits are now depleted and forest officers too have done their best to exploit them according to their choice.
There was nothing wrong in the notion of reservation but it was essentially meant to be symbolic. It was not a cure for the malady of social injustice or poverty or illiteracy, it was primarily a gesture. Consider any group of reservation related casts, scheduled tribes for example. Some of the families which were better of initially could take the advantage, the vast majority is where it was. Nothing has changed for the whole class as such. The same is true elsewhere such as for scheduled casts and backward casts. It created a myth in peoples’ minds that unless reservation policy is implemented the situation is not likely to improve. This suited the leaders in these social groups as they and their near and dears ones were the beneficiaries. This has led to a snowballing effect. Consider the recent agitation by Gujjars followed by Jats.
In future this is likely to take many more dimensions. Where will it lead to ? Will it be a society where in all aspects of life all matters will be decided by the cast factors, not by other factors more meaningful and relevent.
The fly is now out of the bottle. The problem is to take it back to the bottle. That will not be easy.
When we talk of corruption the only thing in mind is taking money or material worth some money. One must look at a wider meaning of the term. Playing with peoples’ sentiments such as religious or cast based is also a corrupt practice as it was being done to stay in power. Money matters are easy to judge, who ill judge these matters.
Soft on Corruption
We have now with us a unique model of democracy unlike anywhere else in the world.
We have a democratic set up in the sense that regular elections are held, and more or less fairly. You are ensured that there will be no booth capturing, and that the counting of votes will be fair. This is another matter that to ensure fairness to some degree almost one million security personnel are pressed into service. The fair play ends here. To buy votes by distributing cycles, blankets or TV sets is quite acceptable provided you take sufficient care. To play on religious ( both majority oriented and minority oriented) or cast sentiments is justified if done with a little care.
Cast has become all important factor and the trend is on the increase. If you belong to a cast with substantial numbers then you will be treated gently, otherwise not.
The problems like increasing population and need to control it are kept under carpet. Our political class does not even mention it. Some of our politicians are opposed to it and have publicly stated that population is not a problem, instead it is a human resource. What a great vision. Shall we be proud of such visionaries amongst us.
Corruption has been at the helm of many of our national level and local level problems. We talk of corruption when it is of the order of billions of rupees. If I need a passport I have to pay the person who is making enquiries. If I have to buy a ticket under ‘tatkal’ the website of railways will start working only after all seats are sold out. What kind of democratic model we are evolving. The model allows everything to be negotiable. Here almost everything is on sale, including the nation. Very soon this may be one of our major exporting items.
