Human histories are filled with diverse contours. Even now some of the cruel and ruthless governance surface and prevail as against the will of the people. We see some shades of these in different parts of the world. In all these regimes the citizens have been treated as objects of their benevolence and dictates. Those who governed and governing have failed to recognize that the power of the people keep assuming that they are not the subjects and makers of history and their destiny, but their objects of charity. Through different forms and modus operandi, the anti-people regimes/governments changed. The will of the people has also prevailed supreme and absolute. The Lok Sabha 2014 shall certainly show to those who consider the masses as mere vote banks and sheer objects of benevolence.
Notionally, democracy sounds good, but practically speaking, there must be some mechanism available for the people to participate in the decision-making and policy-evolving processes. They should have the right to call back their representatives who do not perform. The government technically speaking remains in power only as long as the people wish it to be in power. The Constitution provides this guarantee.
The Constitution lays down the basic structure of the political system of our country for both those who govern and governed. It has three main organs, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary, which defines their powers, demarcates their responsibilities and regulates their relationship with each other and with the people. The Preamble of the Indian Constitution which opens with the following words:
“We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens:
• Justice (social, economic and political);
• Liberty of thought, expressions, belief, faith and worship;
• Equality of status and opportunity, and to promote among them all fraternity assuring dignity of status and of opportunity and to promote among them all fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation … 1949, do hereby, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.”
The opening words of the Preamble are – ‘we, the people of India,’ which simply means that the Constitution has been declared in the name of the people who are the main constitutive subjects and thus the ultimate source of all power is the people and vests with the people. For a democracy to work or function effectively, it is the people who are the fulcrum, the base, the centre, the means and the ends. Therefore, democracy is the base of governance.
‘Governance’ as a concept is almost a recent one. Since the last decade of the twentieth century, many have started to use the term at the expense of the concept of government. As an alternative to government this concept is being used and remains as an exclusive prerogative of technocratic and elite discourse, and has yet to find its space in the popular vocabulary of politics. Over and above, this concept needs more clarity as Modi is uttering quite often. In the context of the Lok Sabha polls and as against the background of Modi’s usage of the term i.e.,, ‘governance’ we need to unpack it. ‘Governance’ is a ‘post-political’ connotation for effective regulation, accountability, transparency and efficiency as against corrupt, inefficient, and unaccountable governments, bureaucracies and quasi-governmental agencies. It goes beyond the conventional forms of democratic government or posits newer guidelines to stereotype features of democracy. Does Modi mean all these facets as part of ‘governance’?
In the wake of Modi utterances, the concept of governance assumes greater importance. For example,
Conventionally, governance encompasses the manner in which the state and its various institutions negotiate and mediate with people, markets and civil society, through laws, policies, regulation and finance. Today governance is overarching with many dimensions including institutional and political manifestations. Governance refers to decision-making and the process through which power is exercised to utilize economic and social resources for development.
The concept of governance, over the last 15 years, has evolved to transcend to the conventional area of the nation-state or government. Market forces as well as civil society processes and citizens’ initiatives have increasingly started influencing the process of governance today. Many civil society organizations (CSOs) strongly believe that governance is not just the effective management of economic resources.
The above quotation clearly shows that the citizens have the right to demand accountability, and public actors are obliged to be accountable to citizens. So, democracy operates with this fundamental principle. In this direction the civil society organizations empower and strengthen the capacities within government to make public institutions more responsive to citizens. Hence, “democratic governance underlines the spirit of a contract – that rulers and people were bound by each other by reciprocal obligations … that entails accountability of the government to the citizens in lieu of the authority vested in it by the citizens.” Governance in this sense is a contractual obligation between the citizens and the public actors. In recent times in India good governance is highlighted in political discourses. For example,
Reforms could help to come out of the morass of problems that our country faces, which includes bureaucratic inertia and inefficiency, corruption, public services and delays in delivery of justice. There is a need for the state to encourage private capital initiatives, and build capabilities rather than redistribute wealth … increased development effectiveness through improved public service delivery and better-informed policy design. The right to good governance is an essential part of citizens’ rights that one can expect from the government.
It is apparent that democracy is the basis for good governance. Good governance stands on vibrant and dynamic democracy. Does Modi’s conception of governance fall within this frame? Modi is eulogizing in the past few weeks, “It is not government, but governance”! What does he mean by that phrase?
When Modi uses the term “Democracy”, he does not mean constitutional frame, rather the majority should have the absolute right. For those who believe constitutionally based democracy, will disagree with Modi’s conception of ‘democracy’. It is an ambiguous term that contains a number of loopholes. It promises but at the same times fails in its promises and takes for granted the masses to give freedom, liberty, equity, and equality. Further, it can strangle the smooth functioning of the three organs of democracy. In such scenario a ruthless dictator manipulates and takes over the reins of governance by stating that he/she would deliver goods without a democratic frame.
Nevertheless, given the plural and heterogeneous character of our Indian society, democracy could hold the country together by providing sufficient space for its diversities to co-exist. But Modi’s brand of democracy is something different. Therefore, there is no clear discourse on these issues. Invoking ‘governance’ for the sake of votes will not suffic e, unless Modi adds flesh and blood to it. The country’s strength lies in democracy which is premised on diversity. But the mutual co-habitation and co-existence are undermined by Modi’s conception of democracy, governance and development. The ultra-fundamentalist forces tend to mix religion with politics arousing communal passion and frenzy, creating a vertical divide among the people. If Modi becomes and elected to the profile he is vying for, it could lead to,
The lack of accountability in governing institutions and individuals is a great bane. The other major deficiency is the lack of transparency in the decision-making processes. An impression has gained ground that criminals with recourse to resources and influence can remain out of the reach of legal processes. There is a question mark also about the proper enforcement of our criminal justice system. It is only through commitment to constitutional objectives that we can bring probity back into the system.
There is no better alternative to parliamentary democracy with adult franchise and a federal set-up. Parliamentary symbolizes the ethos of our country. It mirrors the country as a whole. It embodies and articulates the urges and aspirations of the people. Over the years, Parliament has come to be identified, both in theory and practice, as the pivot of our political system. The responsibility for providing direction, momentum, and institutions for social engineering has been with our Parliament.
In a Parliamentary Democracy, there is the Legislature to express the voice of the people, there is the Executive, which is subordinate to the Legislature is bound to obey the Legislature, and there is the Judiciary to control both, within the prescribed bounds. Parliamentary Democracy has the marks of a popular government duly elected by the people, of the people and for the people. However, the democratically elected governments have failed to address the socio-economic disequilibria even after 60 years of free India. Therefore, we have two Indias under the garb of democracy, one for the rich and the powerful and the other for the poor and the vulnerable. If the present democracy fails to address the divides, there is all the possibility of the forces of religious fundamentalism taking over the country.
The usage of development is value-loaded, and therefore entails, economic, political, social and religio-cultural aspects. The discourse on ‘development’ ought to go beyond the conventional notions of ‘trickle-down’ and ‘economic growth.’ In recent times, development has become a shapeless amoeba-like world. Modi should clearly spell out what he means by ‘development’. Gujarat model of development cannot be taken as a development paradigm for the whole country. His development model does not unfold anything because its contents are blurred and ambiguous. For Modi development might mean market and its fundamentals. But there are millions who live outside the market. The so-called ‘development,’ ‘progress,’ and ‘prosperity,’ can never be measured only through economic parameters, but also does include non-economic parameters too.
The general perception is that the poor are almost charity cases, and should sit and wait for the “mythical trickle-down effect” to pour wealth. Modi’s conception and contents of development to a larger extent is premised on “trickle-down” theory. Can growth and equitable distribution of wealth and resources go together? Even if it is possible, can market regulate its processes, so that the combination of equity and market fundamentals keeps the momentum going? In most parts of the two-thirds world, the combination of re-distribution and neo-liberal policies has hardly worked. As a result, sustained economic development and productive economic initiatives failed to take off. Instead there are many spin-offs.
In the absence of productive economic activities, one can hardly expect sustained economic development. In a world of market-backed free liberal economics, a sizeable capital is invested in speculative areas and service sectors, where returns are instantaneous and not employment-oriented, but profit-maximizing. Those who are excluded by the market forces have fallen into “inequality traps” and in the process pushed to poverty, especially feminization of poverty, migration, redundancy of labor leading to unemployment, suicides, debts, and so on. Modi’s discourse will have to be on these, not simply saying he for ‘development’, ‘progresses and ‘prosperity’. How is he going to realize these?
With imperfect markets, inequalities in power and wealth, translate into unequal opportunities, leading to concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of a few while the majority have no choice, but to voluntarily opt for mass suicidal attempts. In sum, it is nothing but a genocidal project. Every day we keep reading, listening, and witnessing shocking stories of the inequalities in income, opportunities, and life chances, faced by communities within and between regions. There is no clarity on these issues. Modi is not expanding on these and fails to enter into discourse on impending issues that confronts commoners.
People are fed up and lost their patience on false promises. They will not wait and keep listening to false rhetoric any more. As said: “In the long run people are dead”. It is again a myth that the sharing of wealth and opportunities more equally and equitably is not possible in a highly demarcated and hierarchised Indian society. Masses have the determination, resolve and resolute exercise their franchise to those who could deliver goods in the coming Lok Sabha elections. Apparently, the civil society should move towards,
Actually, in front of the kind of fervent imaginations and political passions that revolutionary dreams evoke, the imagery of civil society is tame and practically bland. It promises no dramatic or radical change in the lives of people. What it does do is proclaim that ordinary men and women have the political competence to make their own histories in small but sure ways. By engaging in an activity called politics in a free civil society, they realize their selfhood and recover agency, even as they acquire the political confidence to bring the non-performing and non-responsive state to order and hold it accountable. The argument also excites the hope that a vibrant civil society, inhabited by concerned and ethically motivated citizens, may be able to restore the same political ardor that had roused masses to action during the anti-colonial struggles.
But history has its own way of playing tricks with well-meaning projects and inspiring concepts...
The grammar of development, governance and democracy that fits all the citizens is not the one Modi is talking about. BJP via Modi’s ideological and political connotations of development, governance and democracy are totally different. Hindutuva forces under the aegis of Modi frequently use ‘democracy,’ ‘governance,’ and ‘development.’ In the name of these three concepts, they are trying to woo the masses. All these concepts are value-load and thus political in character. Beware of these terms. They have clear underpinnings and ideological moorings. As a note of caution, one should be clear with regard to the ideological and political accent and content.
If we give in, there is every possibility of getting subsumed and eventually sucked into Modi’s jargon. Therefore, it calls for careful interrogation and introspection of these terms before one decides to vote. Modi and its hindutuva bandwagon keep claiming many things as if they are the custodians of democracy, governance and development. In order to bring these three they may even use metaphors, symbols, and idioms. The question is: Can Modi be trusted for democratic, prosperous, transparent, and accountable good governance? It is indeed the question for all of us before exercising our franchise.
For Modi, ‘democracy’ is another name for “Development of the Majority” and “Governance of the Majority”. Therefore, Modi’s understanding of development is lop-sided and topsy-turvy. He is least bothered about bridging the social and economic inequalities and inequities of our society. What we hear from Modi is nothing but jargons and slogans. Hence, it is imperative that the concepts namely democracy, governance, and development ought to be freed and thus be and de-mystified. Words are important, since they are political in nature, ideologically loaded, given twists and turns, and thus nuanced.
