- Home
- Columnist
TN Succession War
By Dr S Saraswathi. Dated: 2/24/2017 2:22:24 PM
Democracy vs Democracy
The Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu enacted on 18th February a curious democratic drama -- one party claiming parliamentary majority made of members physically kept away from the external world for 10 days and straightaway brought to the legislature to vote in a "confidence motion" under "whip", and another party insisting on democratic secret ballot by force inside the House.
The actors are members elected by the people, and the stage is supposed to be the "temple of democracy". The scene presented violent actions and ended in forcible eviction of members of the main opposition party and adoption of the confidence vote. Clearly, it is a case of democratic institutions working against democracy, but not a lonely case in India or in Tamil Nadu.
In remarkably quick succession of political events, Tamil Nadu has unfolded the potentiality of democratic institutions to endanger democracy. The challenge is not likely to come from political players, but has to be moral and ethical spearheaded directly by the people.
The evicted DMK has moved the Madras High Court to declare the result of the confidence vote as null and void, and is going to move a no-confidence motion against the Speaker.
It all starts with undemocratic notions like "political heir", identification of successor by the predecessor, political legacy, proximity and/or resemblance to a leader -- all of which are seen as granting rights to a person or group to political power and positions. Legitimacy is claimed by using democratic forms but overthrowing democratic principles. And "Samadhi shows" (prayers at funeral sites and memorials) are played to raise popular emotions to substitute popular mandate. On the whole, the importance of gaining popular support by hook or by crook is maintained.
The case of Tamil Nadu is extremely complicated. The criminal side of politics stands exposed and punished. The extent to which legal machineries can be used to cover crime and corruption is uncovered. Yet, within and outside the legislature and parties, there are ardent supporters and admirers of tainted politicians -- alive or dead -- which is evidence of total bifurcation between popularity among masses which can be converted as votes on the one hand and personal and political integrity and adherence to law on the other. The bifurcation is facilitated by the people -- ultimate sovereigns in democracies -- and politicians are beneficiaries.
"Yatha raja, tatha praja" (meaning "like the king, so the ruler") - the ancient saying is still true in modern democracies. It can be perceived as two-way traffic in Tamil Nadu, each side influencing and shaping the other. The masses are satisfied with freebies and do not question the source, and the rulers assume benevolent posture and do not mind the means. A few dissenters still alive and alert to the goings have to act now.
Conducting periodic General election and convening Legislative Assemblies are certainly essential democratic institutions, but not a barometer for democratic character of democracy.
No less important is the voice of the people represented by members in the legislature and by people outside. Popular opinion expressed through social media and street level action is raised as an argument which goes beyond electoral mandate. Need to consult voters and right to recall elected members are also demanded due to loss of credibility of the elected members.
Established constitutional bodies are found inadequate to ensure democratic governance. In-between elections, people want to be consulted.
Political democracy has degenerated into a form without substance as decisions were taken in riot-like situation in the law-making body, whoever may be the culprit. There is then a danger of democratic institutions transforming into instruments for cheating and exploiting the people. Paradoxically, the worst danger to democracy lies within democratic institutions themselves in the current Indian society.
Several parties have emerged in various States including Tamil Nadu which are centred around an individual or a family. These are run as a family enterprise and administered like a family property. Party elections are organised to stamp legitimacy to heirs and successors. Manufactured majority gets authority in the name of democracy.
The AIADMK as a political party under the leadership of Jayalalitha was known for severe discipline and public expression of absolute loyalty and devotion to party leadership. Loyalty is sine qua non for promotion and even for survival in the party. Public display of submission and sycophancy and competitive spirit among party men in that display became too common to escape public notice.
The demise of Jayalalitha was so unexpected that the rank and file of the party was quite unprepared. It involves shift of loyalty. Regional parties particularly need a "figure" to rally around and keep the flock together. Loyalty to a person or a political party is not a democratic virtue like loyalty to Constitution and law. But, the former is necessary for survival in current politics and not the latter. When the two forms of loyalties are in conflict, democracy is on trial.
There is no mention of political parties in the Constitution except in the Schedule on Defection added in 1985, but they are well established in India. But, the importance of inner party democracy is not recognised by many of them resulting in degeneration of parties as autocratic structures with fragmented parts within and elevation to posts and wielding of power by nominees, proxies, and appointees where election according to the Party constitution should be the method of selection.
The way the AIADMK is ridiculed by media as "proxy rule", and "remote control" reflects signs of undemocratic democracy, and puts a heavy responsibility on the party to steer clear of such epithets to prove its democratic character. That its arch rival, the DMK, is subject to the criticism of wielding "one family rule" is no answer to all-round degeneration of the party system.
The 170th report of the Law Commission (1999) recommended adoption of a law to govern internal democracy of political parties. It has stated that democracy and accountability, which are the core principles of Indian democracy should bind the political parties also. The Commission maintained that a party could not be "dictatorship internally and democratic in its functioning outside".
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, 1949 is the only constitution providing for establishment of political parties and to prescribe that their internal organisation should conform to democratic principles.
Political liberty, believed to be the hallmark of democracy, assumes prevalence of freedom of information, of opinion, of thought, of research, and of propagation. If some parties demanded secret ballot in the confidence vote, it merits consideration in the context.
Exclusive reliance on precedents to deal with an abnormal situation, such as the one in Tamil Nadu, is open to debate. Every precedent has a starting point. People holding high offices cannot simplify their work by looking for precedents, but have to take decisions in their contexts.
Any election, the principal instrument of taking a democratic decision, has to be conducted in a free atmosphere with free circulation of information and freedom of choice. Decay in procedural democracy will inevitably lead to decay of substantial democracy. What is going on in Tamil Nadu is a case of democratic institutions pitted against democracy.
—INFA