A few thought provoking articles against the Jan Lokpal Bill

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by Singh, Apr 18, 2011.

?

how many of you know support Jan Lok Pal know?

  1. Yes, support jan lok pal with such extra-oridnary power

    62.5%
  2. No, i do not support jan lok pal with such extra-oridnary power

    6.3%
  3. i want Jan Lok PaL but not with such an extra-oridnary power

    25.0%
  4. No existing laws are enough,but proper implementations is important

    6.3%
  1. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    Of the few, by the few


    Pratap Bhanu Mehta

    Sometimes a sense of unbridled virtue can also subvert democracy. The agitation by civil society activists over the Jan Lokpal Bill is a reminder of this uncomfortable truth. There is a great deal of justified consternation over corruption. The obduracy of the political leadership is testing the patience of citizens. But the movement behind the Jan Lokpal Bill is crossing the lines of reasonableness. It is premised on an institutional imagination that is at best naïve; at worst subversive of representative democracy.
    The morality of fasting unto death for a political cause in a constitutional democracy has always been a tricky issue. There is something deeply coercive about fasting unto death. When it is tied to an unparalleled moral eminence, as it is in the case of Anna Hazare, it amounts to blackmail. There may be circumstances, where the tyranny of government is so oppressive, or the moral cause at stake so vital that some such method of protest is called for. But in a functioning constitutional democracy, not having one’s preferred institutional solution to a problem accepted, does not constitute a sufficient reason for the exercise of such coercive moral power. This is not the place to debate when a fast-unto-death is appropriate. But B.R. Ambedkar was surely right, in one of his greatest speeches, to warn that recourse to such methods was opening up a democracy to the “grammar of anarchy”.

    Corruption is a challenge. And public agitation is required to shame government. But it is possible to maintain, in reasonable good faith, that the Jan Lokpal Bill is not necessarily the best, or the only solution to the corruption challenge. We should not turn a complex institutional question into a simplistic moral imperative. Many of the people in the movement for the Jan Lokpal Bill have set examples of sacrifice and integrity that lesser mortals can scarcely hope to emulate. But it is the high vantage point of virtue that has occluded from view certain uncomfortable truths about institutions.

    The various drafts of the Jan Lokpal Bill are, very frankly, an institutional nightmare. To be fair, the bill is a work in progress. But the general premises that underlie the various drafts border on being daft. They amount to an unparalleled concentration of power in one institution that will literally be able to summon any institution and command any kind of police, judicial and investigative power. Power, divided in a democracy, can often be alibi for evading responsibility. But it is also a guarantee that the system is not at the mercy of a few good men. Having concentrated immense power, it then displays extraordinary faith in the virtue of those who will wield this power. Why do we think this institution will be incorruptible? The answer seems to be that the selection mechanism will somehow ensure a superior quality of guardians. Why? Because the selection committee, in addition to the usual virtuous judges, will have, as one draft very reassuringly put it, two of the “most recent Magsaysay Award Winners”. Then there is no sense of jurisdiction and limits. It is not going to look at corruption only. It can even look into “wasteful” expenditure. They can, potentially usurp all policy prerogatives of democratic governments. So many accountability institutions, in the name of accountability, are not distinguishing between policy issues and corruption. They are perpetuating the myth that government can function without any discretionary judgment.

    But the demand is premised on an idea that non-elected institutions that do not involve politicians are somehow the only ones that can be trusted. This assumption is false. Institutions of all kinds have succeeded and failed. But the premise of so much accountability discourse is not just contempt of politicians, but contempt of representative democracy. This contempt is reflected in two ways. There are several mechanisms of accountability in place. They have not worked as well as they should; vested interests have subverted them. But interestingly, despite those interests, governments are being called to account. Most of us are as aghast as any of the agitators about the evasions of government. But it does not follow that creating a draconian new institution that diminishes everything from the Prime Minister’s Office to the Supreme Court is a solution. The net result of a “Lokpal” will be to weaken the authority of even other well-functioning institutions. No agitation focuses on sensible, manageable reform of representative institutions; all agitative energies are premised on bypassing them. Perhaps some version of a Lokpal is desirable. But reasonable people can disagree over this matter. To many of us, this proposal seems like the way we approached educational reform: if BA is not good quality, introduce MA; since MA does not work, have MPhil; since we can’t trust our PhDs, have a further NET exam, endlessly deferring to new institutions at the top of the food chain without attending to basics. We should, as citizens, not be subject to the moral coercion of a fast-unto-death on this issue.

    But the claim that the “people” are not represented by elected representatives, but are represented by their self-appointed guardians is disturbing. In a democracy, one ought to freely express views. But anyone who claims to be the “authentic” voice of the people is treading on very thin ice indeed. It is a form of Jacobinism that is intoxicated with its own certainties about the people. It is not willing to subject itself to an accountability, least of all to the only mechanism we know of designating representatives: elections. The demand that a Jan Lokpal Bill be drafted jointly by the government and a self-appointed committee of public virtue is absurd. Most of us sharply disagree with elected government on matters even more important than corruption. But no matter how cogent our arguments, it does not give us the right to say that our virtue entitles us to dictate policy to a representative process.

    In an age of cynicism, Anna Hazare is a colossus of idealism. His sacrifices should cause all of us to introspect. It should be in the service of self-transformation, not a vilification of political processes. Virtue has an impatience with processes and institutions that needs to be checked. It is a dangerous illusion to pedal that badly designed new institutions will be a magic wand to remove corruption. All they will do is promote wishful thinking and distract from the myriads of prosaic decisions that will be required to get a better politics.

    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/of-the-few-by-the-few/772773/0
     
  2.  
  3. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    The Hazare hazard


    Social activist Anna Hazare wants an equal number of self-proclaimed civil society activists to be part of an official committee drafting a new Lok Pal Bill. “There should be as many representatives of government as there are of the people” is his submission. Hello? What is a government in a democracy if not an extension of the will of the people? Can self-appointed do-gooders, however well meaning, usurp the role of “representatives of the people” without due process of election? Mr Hazare is a good man. Unfortunately, he is “fasting unto death” for a wrong cause. The idea of a Lok Pal, an anti-corruption ombudsman, based on a Scandinavian model, was a bad one when it was first mooted in the mid-1960s and remains a bad one 40-odd years later. The creation of the institution of a Lok Ayukta at the state level has not helped reduce corruption in state governments, so a new Lok Pal at the national level is unlikely to do a better job at the central government level. The recent experience with the nomination of the Central Vigilance Commissioner shows that it is individuals rather than institutions that matter and there is no guarantee that a Lok Pal will necessarily inspire confidence and be effective. No one will deny that the problem of corruption in high places needs to be dealt with. There is no better way of doing this than strengthening existing institutions of democracy, including the legislature, the judiciary, the executive and even the media. Greater transparency in the functioning of these institutions will reduce corruption in public life. No Lok Pal can do what members of the four estates of the nation cannot and will not do.

    It is a pity that despite the obvious shortcomings of this idea, it has been floated repeatedly. Bills have been repeatedly tabled in Parliament and successive governments, comprising almost all political parties in India today, have repeatedly spoken in favour of it, without doing anything about it. Somebody must call a spade a spade. The Lok Pal Bill should be buried, not kept alive by a threat of a fast unto death, even by a well-intentioned person like Mr Hazare.

    It is tragic that an assortment of non-accountable activists, publicity-seeking busybodies and an assortment of do-gooders have all managed to push the gentle Mr Hazare into going on a fast unto death. No government in a democracy can approve of such blackmail. Merely because Mahatma Gandhi used a fast unto death as a means of exerting pressure on an alien, colonial government does not mean that in a democracy such tactics can be tolerated, much less eulogised. The situation in which the government finds itself is partly of the ruling party’s own making. By elevating the status of non-government organisations (NGOs) that are not accountable to anyone, and by not activating its own cadres on development and other issues of public concern, the Congress party has given a larger-than-life role to NGO leaders. Nothing should be done, even in the name of fighting corruption, that can weaken the Indian state and the office of the head of government, who is the embodiment of national sovereignty and answerable only to Parliament. If necessary, Mr Hazare should be force-fed and hospitalised, but not allowed to browbeat an elected government of the people.

    http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/the-hazare-hazard-/431045/
     
  4. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    Spare Us the Gandhian Halo


    In their zest for Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement, people forgot to find out what he really stands for

    On a Headlines Today programme, the channel head, an enthusiastic Rahul Kanwal, is talking to Anna Hazare, Kiran Bedi and Arvind Kejriwal (a former IRS officer who is now a prominent civil society activist). As he begins discussing ‘Ab iske aage kya’ (What now after this?), he turns to Anna Hazare, and asks in Hindi, “You say that those who are corrupt should be hanged, is that not against Gandhian principles?” Anna answers, again in Hindi, “That is why I have said that, today, in many things, along with Gandhi we have to look towards Shivaji. [Unclear] Patel committed a mistake, and Shivaji had the man’s hands cut off. This policy of Chhatrapati, in many ways, we have to think about. Hundred per cent non-violence is not possible. Sometimes, even this has to be done, and that is why I have been saying that these people should be hanged…” Kiran Bedi interjects, “Anna is not taking away due process… he is going by the due process, the point is [that] economic offences today in our country are bailable, [are punished] by fines, minimum imprisonment; [there’s] no recovery of property, it is a joke.”

    This is a perfect example of how the Anna Hazare movement has been operating for a while. There is little confusion about what Anna Hazare means: when he says “hang them”, he means “hang them”; when he says “cut their hands off”, he means “cut their hands off”. Kiran Bedi did interject to put a palatable spin on these words, but what she said was clearly not what Anna meant. The accompanying profile in this issue clearly shows these words are in keeping with his past. As a result of Anna’s reformist zeal, the people of his native village Ralegan Siddhi have witnessed the public flogging of those who dare to drink, a ban on all intoxicants, and restrictions on cable TV. It does not take much to see how closely this resembles the ideals of the Taliban, especially if you factor in the idea of a few hands being chopped off. Which is why it is no surprise that the sympathy he has long displayed for the Hindu Right has culminated in his endorsement of Narendra Modi.

    The real surprise is that supporters of this movement see what they want to see in the man, belying all the evidence that exists. Consider those who have gathered under his banner. Among the people who shared the dais at Jantar Mantar were Medha Patkar of the Narmada Bachao Andolan and Ram Madhav of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Supporters of the movement range from Arvind Kejriwal to Baba Ramdev. Add to this Swami Agnivesh and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar.

    This diversity would have been acceptable if the movement was only about the Lokpal Bill. In this context, the movement would have only served to broaden the consultative aspect of the drafting of a bill. Given that the Government has already created a body called the National Advisory Council (NAC) that drafts policy, monitors government programmes and exercises almost veto powers over significant aspects of governance, the process of naming people from civil society to help draft the Lokpal Bill is hardly of consequence. The NAC is already a body filled with people who have no accountability to the electorate, but it actually exercises power over how the current Government functions.

    In fact, such a focus on the Bill misses a larger point. From the very beginning, as another accompanying piece shows, the actual Bill has been a sideshow. For a large number, the Bill has become just a symbol, a precursor to the messianic hopes of cleaning up the system. In Hazare, supporters of the movement spot a figure similar to Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) who could spearhead a movement against corruption that might eject the Congress from power once again. This is an aim that is shared by not just the Hindu Right, but those who have turned out in such visible support of Anna Hazare. This ranges from the TV anchors who see TRP benefits to those of the middle-class who see this as an opportunity to effect change without entering an electoral process that they see as vitiated. In some ways, the hope is again for a movement much like JP’s that placed an assorted group of socialists and Jan Sanghis in power at the end of the Emergency. The movement had no coherence, the Government that it placed in power was a farce, and its downfall did nothing for the battle against corruption.

    Fifteen years separate JP’s movement that kicked off in 1974 from VP Singh’s Jan Morcha in 1989 that brought the National Front to power. Unsurprisingly, that was another government that quickly descended into a farce. Perhaps, it is our fate as a nation that every 15 to 20 years, the middle-class will forget the farce played out by a previous generation and repeat it in its own time. Yet, the fact remains that even JP and VP Singh had to turn to the Indian electoral system for vindication, and in the end they failed because the cause they stood for was not well articulated and lacked a coherence that is necessary for a government to run effectively.

    Even in their eventual failure, JP’s movement and VP Singh’s fight against corruption attracted a far wider base of people than those who were in attendance at Jantar Mantar for Hazare’s fast. So far, there is too much hype from Bollywood and the social media in this cause, and too little on the ground to back it up. But the revulsion against corruption reflected in this movement does have an echo in the country. As the 2G and a host of other scams have unfolded, it has been easy to get disgusted by how the Government and those accused have reacted. Denial and arrogance have been mixed in equal measure. Even those who played no part in the actual scam, such as the current Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal, have evoked revulsion by the sophistry they’ve brought to the defence of the Prime Minister and UPA Government. For many, this has been reason to take refuge in the very agitation Hazare promises.

    But if we look at what the 2G scam shows, it is that the system has a certain resilience that asserts itself. Despite the Government working actively to cover up what happened, the coming together of a Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) who ordered the initial probe, investigating agencies that defied opposition in taking action by tapping Niira Radia’s phone (and persisting even when Ratan Tata or Mukesh Ambani were on the line), whistleblowers who made the scam public, men like Prashant Bhushan who took the case to the Judiciary, and sections of the media that risked running stories on the scam, all pulling in the same direction have ensured that such a scam cannot be wished away. It will not blow over. It is actually a sign that the system can work—it has to be helped along where possible, and in such a context, an adequate Lokpal Bill can be one more measure.

    In such an environment, the need to buck the system, to insist that a way outside electoral politics is the only way, is disastrous. The authoritarian nature of the Anna movement, which has still to show that it enjoys mass support of any sort, is already obvious. It ranges from small things—such as Anupam Kher, a vociferous supporter of Hazare whose own record on Gujarat as chief of the Censor Board was at the very least questionable (impeding the release of several documentaries related to the riots), absurdly telling my co-panelist, Supreme Court lawyer Meenakshi Lekhi, while discussing this very issue on Times Now, that her body language was not celebratory enough—to much larger issues such as the insistence of this movement that only its own version of the Bill must be passed, and that Parliament should have no say on the Bill once the drafting committee has done its work. This is absurd, but it signals what lies ahead.

    It is why we need to focus on the figure of Anna Hazare. The Gandhian stamp is one way to acquire public prestige in this country. The aura of a Gandhian association has long served public figures well. Part of JP’s appeal was his prominent role in the pre-1947 Quit India Movement. Of course, he was a man who well deserved his stature and it is strange having to mention him in the context of Hazare, but then the amnesia of the current generation of protestors is to blame. Vinobha Bhave, a Gandhian only in letter, was again able to attract considerable public support.

    Those who argue that Gandhi has no relevance in today’s India need to focus not on the principles he espoused, but the methods he invented. The moral authority of the fast in the Indian context goes back to Gandhi, but this is not true of anyone who fasts. Hazare’s pretence to Gandhian values is a large part of his appeal. But Gandhi’s opposition to communal divides and violence are central to any Gandhian position. Hazare is no Gandhian, and if you forget appearances and concentrate on substance, adding enforced vasectomy to the list of requirements necessary for residence in his native village, Sanjay Gandhi is the only Gandhi who comes to mind in this context. The varied set of people who have come under his banner should have known this, but people have invested little or no time in studying Hazare’s past. So many are so caught up in the illusion of change, that they have been willing to forgo the truth about the man.

    http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/voices/spare-us-the-gandhian-halo
     
  5. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    Against Jan Lok Pal and the politics of hunger strikes


    Tackling corruption requires economic reforms and a popular re-engagement with electoral politics

    The idea of a Jan Lok Pal is flawed and profoundly misunderstands the causes and solutions of corruption in India. It seeks to create another chunk of government, more processes and rules, to solve a problem that, in part, exists because of too many chunks of government, too many processes and rules. [See Pratap Bhanu Mehta's column and this editorial in the Business-Standard]

    If the Jan Lok Pal presides over the same system that has has corrupted civil servants, politicians, anti-corruption watchdogs, judges, media, civil society groups and ordinary citizens, why should we expect that the ombudsman will be incorruptible? Because the person is handpicked by unelected, unaccountable ‘civil society’ members? Those who propose that Nobel laureates (of Indian origin, not even of Indian citizenship) and Ramon Magsaysay Award winners should be among those who pick the Great Ombudsman of India—who is both policeman and judge—insult the hundreds of millions of ordinary Indian voters who regularly exercise their right to franchise. For they are demanding that the Scandinavian grandees in the Nobel Committee and the Filipino members of the Magsaysay foundation should have an indirect role in selecting an all-powerful Indian official. [See this post at Reality Check India]

    The argument that people should be involved in drafting legislation is fine, even if it misses the point that the government is not a foreign entity but a representative of the people. It is entirely other thing to demand that the legislation drafted by an self-appointed, unaccountable and unrepresentative set of people be passed at the threat of blackmail. If we must have representatives of the people involved in lawmaking, we are better off if they are the elected ones, however flawed, as opposed to self-appointed ones, whatever prizes the latter might have won.

    The Jan Lok Pal will become another logjammed, politicised and ultimately corrupt institution, for the passionate masses who demand new institutions have a poor record of protecting existing ones. Where were the holders of candles, wearers of Gandhi topis and hunger strikers when the offices of the Chief Election Commissioner, the Central Vigilance Commissioner and even the President of the Republic were handed out to persons with dubious credentials? If you didn’t come out to protest the perversion of these institutions why are you somehow more likely to turn up to protest when a dubious person is sought to be made the Jan Lok Pal?

    But this is us. Given this reality, the solution for corruption and malgovernance should be one that does not rely the notoriously apathetic middle classes to come out on the streets. The solution is to take away the powers of discretion, the powers of rent-seeking from the government and restore it back to the people. This is the idea of economic freedom. Societies with greater economic freedom have lower corruption. We have long argued that we are in this mess because we have been denied Reforms 2.0.
    How can we have Reforms 2.0 if “those politicians” are unwilling to implement them? The answer is simple: by voting. Economic reforms are not on anyone’s political agenda because those who are most likely to benefit from them do not vote, and do not vote strategically. At this point, it is usual to hear loud protests about how voting doesn’t work, most often by those who do note vote. This flies in the face of empirical evidence—when hundreds of millions of people turn up to vote. If it were not working for them, why would they be voting? They might not be demanding Reform 2.0, but something else, and are getting what they want. Instead of ephemeral displays of outrage—what happened to those post 26/11 candle-light vigils?—it is engagement in the electoral process that is necessary. There are some innovative ideas—like that of voters associations—that can be attempted.

    There are no better words than those of B R Ambedkar on the place of satyagraha in India after Constitution came into force on 26th January 1950:

    “…we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.” [B R Ambedkar/Constituent Assembly]
    In my view civil disobedience in general and hunger strikes in particular must be used in the most exceptional circumstances where constitutional methods are unavailable or denied, and only till the time constitutional methods remain unavailable or denied.

    Some contend that the system isn’t working, or has been so perverted by the incumbent government, that it is necessary to resort to public agitation. This is a dubious argument. Constitutional democracy is an enlightened way to make policy by reconciling—to the extent possible—the diverse interests, opinions and levels of political empowerments of a diverse population. Any other way amounts to coercion in one form or the other.

    If we are to allow that hunger strikes and street protests do better than constitutional methods, then how would you decide issues where there are sharp differences? If two Gandhians go on hunger strikes asking for polar opposites, do we settle the issue by seeing who gives up first? What if competing groups escalate the agitation to violence against each other? Should we condone civil war?

    The working of those constitutional mechanisms can and must be improved. By us. The anti-defection law must go. India doesn’t have a comprehensive law governing political parties. It needs one. Police reforms have been stalled for decades. There is a substantial reform agenda that must be pursued. By us.

    However, the inability to implement these reforms is no excuse for resorting to civil disobedience or, as it happens in other countries, calling in a dictatorship of the proletariat, the military or the priesthood.

    The Jan Lok Pal bill is not a solution to the problem of corruption. It risks making matters worse. Hunger strikes are not the right means to promote a policy agenda in a constitutional democracy like ours. The promoters and supporters of Jan Lok Pal and the public agitation to achieve it are profoundly misguided. Their popularity stems from having struck a vein of middle class outrage against the UPA government’s misdeeds. That doesn’t mean that the solutions they offer are right.

    The Acorn opposes Jan Lok Pal and the politics of hunger strikes as much as it opposes corruption and misgovernance.

    http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2011/04/08/against-jan-lok-pal-and-the-politics-of-hunger-strikes/
     
  6. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,159
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Thanks Singh for sharing these articles. All these days I was debating in my mind. Now I am firm and resolute on this issue.

    I'd rather have a dead Anna Hazare than a dead democracy.

    For those passionate about this so called movement, please do not hesitate to bombard me. All your counter-questions are already answered in the above articles.
     
  7. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,159
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Should civil society be drafting laws?

    Should civil society be drafting laws?

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  8. prahladh

    prahladh Respected Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Universal Citizen
    If not civil disobedience then how to get the necessary reforms in Police? vote the ruling party out after 4 years!
     
  9. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,159
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Sir, true there are flaws in the current system and sometimes one has to wait for the current and allegedly corrupt government to finish its term, but as I said, your question is already answered. Simply replace 'economic reforms' with 'police reforms' or whatsoever you may please.

     
  10. prahladh

    prahladh Respected Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Universal Citizen
    waiting for current govt to complete its term while it sucks the life out is like dragging my butt naked on tar road during summer.

    Voting on reforms is great. is it a suggestion or a work in progress. And how effective is when you can buy a vote for Rs.100 or liquor or a color T.V
     
  11. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,159
    Location:
    EST, USA
    The symptoms you mentions are very true. However, I do not agree that the solution is a 'selected' group of people who will participate in framing of bills and potentially laws. The premise that buying votes for Rs. 100 or liquor or color TV may be true, but true to what extent? We do not know. I doubt if this can have any significant impact on the composition of the parliament given the massive size of the electorate. Sure, bribery is corruption and needs to be stopped. I still do not see how a 'selected' group of people will be better than an 'elected' group.
     
  12. Phenom

    Phenom Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    401
    There seems to be a concerted effort to discredit the Jan Lokpal bill and the movement behind it.

    There are too many vested interests that would like to see this bill remain dormant.

    IMO, I would rather have the Jan lokpal Bill become a law and face all the problems that arise from it, rather than mainting the status quo.
     
  13. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,159
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Don't get me wrong. I do not want to maintain status quo. We are all united against corruption. However, I will always discredit any effort that gives power in the hands of a 'selected' group of people.

    Summary:
    • Problem: Corruption - we all agree.
    • Solution: Selected body of persons participating in drafting bills and laws - not all agree.
     
  14. amitkriit

    amitkriit Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,465
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Location:
    La La Land
    There is an old saying "Bhookhe pet hari bhajan na hoye" when the stomach is empty one can't pray

    Let us learn from the fate of USSR, if people do not get justice, the corrupt system deserves to be thrown down, even if that means national disintegration. I would rather like this country to be divided into thousand pieces than seeing hundreds thousands of people dieing of hunger and disease, while the corrupt people live like royals. Things have started to move in that direction already, if things don't change soon we will have to witness worse things, worse than Non-violent movements.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2011
  15. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,159
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Some of the proposals about the 'credentials' of the selected group of people have been the Nobel Prize and Ramon Magsaysay Award. Are we also contemplating including Man Booker Prize in this list?

    Surely Arundhati Roy would be delighted. Swami Agnivesh and Medha Patkar are already in the ranks, the very people who were hobnobbing with the Maoist backed PCPA in Singur. The politics of hunger strikes has now spread from East to West.
     
  16. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,159
    Location:
    EST, USA
    This is very true. Very similar was the philosophy of many early Naxalite leaders.

    Good example, but I will highlight another dimension if I may. USSR collapsed because the leaders were not elected by the people but by a select coterie called the CPSU. There is a way to throw down a corrupt system and that is by elections. Of course there are other ways to attempt it. One is by using hunger strikes (Mamata Banerjee, Anna Hazare) and the other is by using violence (Maoists).
     
  17. amitkriit

    amitkriit Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,465
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Location:
    La La Land
    I have repeated this problem again and again, all political parties are united against the "Anti-corruption" movement, for them politics is a business. Democracy is not a perfect system, let us not spread the notion that the "Democratic System" is so "Holy and perfect" that it cannot be challenged. If thats the case let us remove the "Freedom of expression" clause and all other Civil rights, and just keep one "Right to vote", because democratically elected government must not be challenged in any way.

    I would also like to challenge the theory that people in countries ruled by "One-party system" don't have any representation in the government. The coalition which rules over the country did not get my vote, in fact it did not get the majority of votes(more than 50% of all votes) in the elections, so this government doesn't represent the majority.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2011
  18. amitkriit

    amitkriit Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,465
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Location:
    La La Land
    Stats from 2009 elections:

    The average election turnout over all 5 phases was around 59.7%.

    UPA's share in the total votes: 37.22%
    NDA's share in total votes: 24.63%

    Technically speaking the current Central Government was voted into power by just 37.22% of all voters who chose to exercise their right, what about the rest 62.78%? This is a minority government.
     
  19. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,159
    Location:
    EST, USA
    'Freedom of Expression' does not equate 'Selecting people to participate in law making'. 'Freedom of Expression' is nothing more than 'Freedom of Expression'. This is the interpretation in letter and not in spirit, because when we include the spiritual part, the entire process moves from objectivity to subjectivity.

    Please come up with a solution. Let me give you an example:

    Let's say there are two candidates A and B in a constituency of 10 voters.
    • A gets 4 votes.
    • B gets 3 votes.
    • 3 do not vote at all
    .

    A wins.

    Now, how do you propose A represent his constituency?
    • By representing the 4 who voted for him?
    • By representing the 3 who voted for B?
    • By representing the 3 who did not vote?
     
  20. amitkriit

    amitkriit Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,465
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Location:
    La La Land
    Wrong, people who are there in the panel are just drafting the bill to be presented in front of our representatives. They are not going to make the law. I just wanted to present a fact that India is being ruled by a government which doesn't enjoy the support of majority of electorate, so this government doesn't really have the right to enforce any law over people of India. Why must I accept a government which received just 37.22% of all votes?
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2011
  21. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,159
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Drafting the bill is same as participation. Please explain why a selected group of people should draft a bill instead of an elected group? Are they more 'intelligent' than the others?
     

Share This Page