Hazare's arm-twisting method of protest dangerous to democracy?
TNN | Aug 22, 2011, 06.50AM IST
======================================================
Anna Hazare's transformation from a "corrupt unelected tyrant" to "pure Gandhian" in Congress's political lexicon was swift and telling.
The "Confront Anna" political software uploaded by its spokesperson Manish Tiwari was quickly junked and home minister P Chidambaram signalled a restart of the party's interactive system with a more submissive computer programme. Resistance to Anna was expected. The fight against corruption was always met with stiff resistance, especially from those entrenched in power and reaping a good measure of the undeserving goodies at the cost of the people.
Resistance backfired because the termite of corruption has reached every branch of administration exasperating citizens, who remain frustrated in the absence of an effective redressal system. The Supreme Court had felt so in 2003 and said: "The tentacles of corruption are spreading fast in the society corroding the moral fibre and consequentially in most cases the economic structure of the country. It has assumed alarming proportions in recent times."
Raja of Manda, Vishwanath Pratap Singh, in the late 1980s rebelled against Congress to float a National Front to fight corruption, which he smelled only when the Bofors scam hit the headlines. A close aide of Rajiv Gandhi had then ridiculed Singh's outfit as "national affront".
A victorious Singh became the Prime Minister and laid the foundation for coalition governments in India. Experience shows that fruits of his crusade against corruption got annulled as the coalition governments produced some of the most corrupt regimes.
Anna's adamant fast for the passage of Jan Lokpal Bill in Parliament reflects people's frustration over corruption which slows down benefits reaching the needy, be it admission to schools or getting a job. The genuineness of grievances may not always lend sanctity to the method of agitation. Is arm-twisting, howsoever peaceful, of institutions which have been created through years of running of democracy not muzzling of views? None can deny need for course correction though. But courses are not corrected by whipping up a frenzy among people by promising that the Jan Lokpal Bill is the only path to nirvana from corruption. What is needed is self-correction.
Anna's crusade against corruption is right. But, is the 'you agree or I fast unto death' arm-twisting method correct? Alarmingly, Anna supporters are increasingly adopting the 'either you support us or you are against us' argument. Stifling dissent by branding is dangerous to democracy and it has been in vogue for sometime .The other way round is equally frustrating. Elected representatives who get a mandate to rule for five years are equally intolerant towards their policies and working being put to question.
They argue that if people are unhappy they have the right to vote them out of power after 5 years. Do they mean for 5 years no one should raise a voice? Anna's theme is right, but his method of agitation may not be. Team Anna needs to introspect on the need for a wider debate on the core issue - elimination of corruption. But can Team Anna guarantee political, social and economical freedom and justice through this agitation they call a revolution? Can they promise that 'revolution' will create an egalitarian social and economic polity where everyone can enjoy basic human rights, freedom and liberty? We wish his team luck in this endeavour.
Anna Hazare's transformation from a "corrupt unelected tyrant" to "pure Gandhian" in Congress's political lexicon was swift and telling.
The "Confront Anna" political software uploaded by its spokesperson Manish Tiwari was quickly junked and home minister P Chidambaram signalled a restart of the party's interactive system with a more submissive computer programme. Resistance to Anna was expected. The fight against corruption was always met with stiff resistance, especially from those entrenched in power and reaping a good measure of the undeserving goodies at the cost of the people.
Resistance backfired because the termite of corruption has reached every branch of administration exasperating citizens, who remain frustrated in the absence of an effective redressal system. The Supreme Court had felt so in 2003 and said: "The tentacles of corruption are spreading fast in the society corroding the moral fibre and consequentially in most cases the economic structure of the country. It has assumed alarming proportions in recent times."
Raja of Manda, Vishwanath Pratap Singh, in the late 1980s rebelled against Congress to float a National Front to fight corruption, which he smelled only when the Bofors scam hit the headlines. A close aide of Rajiv Gandhi had then ridiculed Singh's outfit as "national affront".
A victorious Singh became the Prime Minister and laid the foundation for coalition governments in India. Experience shows that fruits of his crusade against corruption got annulled as the coalition governments produced some of the most corrupt regimes.
Anna's adamant fast for the passage of Jan Lokpal Bill in Parliament reflects people's frustration over corruption which slows down benefits reaching the needy, be it admission to schools or getting a job. The genuineness of grievances may not always lend sanctity to the method of agitation. Is arm-twisting, howsoever peaceful, of institutions which have been created through years of running of democracy not muzzling of views? None can deny need for course correction though. But courses are not corrected by whipping up a frenzy among people by promising that the Jan Lokpal Bill is the only path to nirvana from corruption. What is needed is self-correction.
Anna's crusade against corruption is right. But, is the 'you agree or I fast unto death' arm-twisting method correct? Alarmingly, Anna supporters are increasingly adopting the 'either you support us or you are against us' argument. Stifling dissent by branding is dangerous to democracy and it has been in vogue for sometime .The other way round is equally frustrating. Elected representatives who get a mandate to rule for five years are equally intolerant towards their policies and working being put to question.
They argue that if people are unhappy they have the right to vote them out of power after 5 years. Do they mean for 5 years no one should raise a voice? Anna's theme is right, but his method of agitation may not be. Team Anna needs to introspect on the need for a wider debate on the core issue - elimination of corruption. But can Team Anna guarantee political, social and economical freedom and justice through this agitation they call a revolution? Can they promise that 'revolution' will create an egalitarian social and economic polity where everyone can enjoy basic human rights, freedom and liberty? We wish his team luck in this endeavour.
======================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment