14 May 2014, 02:24 PM IST
Once again, a book has given occasion for public bemoaning of Sonia Gandhi's role in the UPA government. Arun Maira says in his new book that Sonia Gandhi called the shots in the UPA government, decided on policy and appointments. This is portrayed in the media as major subversion of democracy. Really?
The assumption implicit in this criticism is that the political party is some kind of a seasonal expedience, to be of some use at election time and otherwise meant to reveal its good character by keeping quiet and speaking only when spoken to. Governance, including formulation of policy, would be the sole prerogative of those who man the government; their preferences and occasional brainwaves would shape government programmes and policy. The party should retreat to the margins and passively wait for the next elections to come out of hibernation.
This vision of politics reflects, essentially, the rudimentary development of democracy in the country. Except in a context of direct democracy, possible in tiny communities where every member plays a direct role in taking every decision for the collective, democracy is not possible, or rather will not be substantive without vibrant political parties. Parties exist to mediate between the people and the state. The party organisation and its wide reach enable elected representatives to get to know their voters' concerns and, in turn, let them convey back to the people what the government can do about these concerns and has been able to achieve.
Indian elected representatives hold durbars, a feudal court, in which the subjects gather to petition the ruler for favour and relief. This form of supplication before a representative of the state and the latter's condescension in granting an audience reflect underdeveloped democracy and a stunted party system.
It is only in such a system and resultant low level of democratic consciousness that the party is seen as an adjunct to politics rather than its driving force. The ease with which politicians change their party affiliation and the tendency for individual leaders to dominate a party, to the extent of making it a personal, heritable fief, both reflect the same failing of stunted democratic development. Democracy stands stunted in the Congress as well, of course.
All parties exist to capture state power and use that power to mould society according to their respective vision. Difference in vision demarcates one party from another. Sometimes, even when sharing the same broad vision, difference of opinion on current strategy and tactics could be so severe as to make the followers of different schools of thought gather themselves into different parties. Sometimes, the only point of difference might be over who should lead the party in its pursuit of a particular vision and strategy.
Even within the framework of India's rudimentary democracy, parties do play an important role. People vote, for the most part, on the basis of party affiliation. When a candidate gets a certain number of votes, more than half that many votes would have accrued on the strength of his/her party affiliation. The party gets elected.
The party with the largest number of elected representatives is called on to form the government. The party chooses its leaders in the legislature, decides on ministerial appointments The party is held accountable for the performance of the government led by it. When the BJP called on the electorate to throw out the corrupt Congress, they endorsed the concept that the party is being held to account, primarily. When the Congress is held responsible for the state of the nation, after having functioned as the ruling party for 49 out of the 62 years of democratically elected governments since the first general election of 1952, the same principle applies.
Inclusive growth is not the vision of an individual leader in the government, but the vision of the Congress party. Land reforms in West Bengal and Kerala were not bright ideas that occurred to their chief ministers when Communists formed their governments. Rather, land reforms were the rallying point of the Left parties, for which they mobilised support and on the basis of which they sustained that support. The leaders of the Communist parties naturally played a major role in deciding what the policies of the Left led governments would be. Promode Dasgupta, the CPI(M) state secretary was, in his lifetime, far more powerful and far more respected a leader in West Bengal than chief minister Jyoti Basu was.
The president of the Congress party was a powerful leader, before Indira Gandhi was appointed prime minister and then staged a coup and took over the government and the party. No one found it strange that the Congress party and its president should wield power and influence policy.
Sonia Gandhi led the Congress to victory across the country in 2004 and 2009, as the party's president and most popular leader, its cementing force, to use Sharad Pawar's phrase. This time around, she and her son would jointly share responsibility for defeat or victory, as the case may be. She and the Congress are being held to account for the performance of Congress-led government, the scams under its tenure, and also take credit for its achievements in inclusive growth. How could she not have played a role in deciding the policies of the government led by the Congress party?
Democracy would have been subverted if arbitrary people in the government had formulated policy divorced from the vision and expectation of the party that got them elected and installed them in office.
Legitimate criticism of the National Advisory Council is not that it served as a platform for Sonia Gandhi to wield influence over the government. Rather, the problem is that the Congress did not have sufficient emancipatory imagination of its own within the party and had to outsource thinking up creative policies to an advisory body. Whether as chairman of the advisory body or simply as president of the ruling party answerable to the people, Sonia had both the right and the responsibility to play a major role in determining the policies of the UPA government.
Those who criticise her for this fail to appreciate the role of the political party in a functional democracy, and see politics only in terms of individuals and leaders. The shoe, in other words, pinches on the other foot.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Sonia Gandhi, party and democracy
Dengan url
http://osteoporosista.blogspot.com/2014/05/sonia-gandhi-party-and-democracy.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Sonia Gandhi, party and democracy
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Sonia Gandhi, party and democracy
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar