Freedom of Expression
Do we have democracy in India?
The other day I read in the news paper that Sonia Gandhi warned people who said not very respectfully about her pet man Manmohan Singh. She said, he is prime minister of India and so to talk disrespectfully about him amounts to showing disrespect for the post of prime minister. This gave me a point for consideration and I want to share with you all my interpretation. I had some queries in my mind related to this topic.
Is there any difference between natural democracy and constitution based democracy?
If our present constitution is not proclaiming true form of democracy then what would be that constitution which shall be considered as truly democratic constitution?
What is the true form of democracy?
Do we have a constitution proclaiming democracy?
A seat of honor and a person sitting on that seat are different or same.
I shall consider my queries taking first the last one, if a seat of honor and the occupier are equal or different. I better explain the point with an example so that you may understand the significance better. There is a proverb in Marathi that says, “A monkey sitting on a throne is not called a king, he is called a monkey”. That means a monkey whether sits on a branch of a tree or a throne that does not make a difference for the observers; he is always a monkey for them. The extension of this argument shall suggest that a prime minister’s seat is different from a person occupying that august seat, they are not the same and so any criticism of that person is a criticism of that person and it has nothing to do with what seat he is sitting. When we criticize our ministers it is criticism of those individuals and their wrong work. The seat they may be occupying is totally immune from any of the criticisms. The seat is beyond any possibility of criticism or praise; neither affects the seat. One friend of mine a solicitor by profession told me the hitch in the matter. He told me if somebody criticizes a person by taking his name then this argument is applied but if instead that person is criticized calling him by the seat he is occupying then it may be (not necessarily always though) considered as condemnation of the seat. Other law watchers have other views. This explains that any criticism of Manmohan Singh is essentially his and has nothing to do with what seat he may be or may not be occupying. Criticism or praise is always permanent but position of any seat is always temporary. And so even after the person has left that seat the criticism or praise due to his work still continues to hold good for him or her.
My second from last query, Do we have a constitution proclaiming democracy?
I personally feel that our present constitution is not proclaiming democracy. Then what does it proclaim? Yes, this enquiry automatically comes up and unless I answer it, my objection can not be accepted. According to my reading of this constitution our present constitution proclaims representative government and it does not mean democracy by any standards. People vote for some to occupy important positions in the government and that by no standard can be considered as true form of democracy. Yes, one may call it pseudo democracy or partial democracy but not complete democracy. People are not free excepting some ordinary freedoms. In fact this constitution makes people slaves of the representatives they vote; and so this system can not be considered as a true democratic system. I shall explain what I feel proper democratic system according to my thinking later.
What is the true form of democracy? The true form of democracy demands that people have a complete control on all the basic functions of the government. What are the basic functions of a government? Yes, this enquiry automatically comes up and unless I answer it, my point can not be accepted. According to me there are five basic functions and people should be able to elect their representative for each of them otherwise true democratic system is not achieved.
For that I studied many ancient democratic systems in India because believe me or not but the democratic systems have been in practice in India since very old times. In them I came to know that these five functions if remain separately controlled no amount of acrimony immerge between the people and the government. People can demand explanation from each authority separately and a type of divide and rule will be possible. What are those basic five functions? Yes, this enquiry automatically comes up and unless I answer it, my point can not be accepted.
Presidential control, Prime Ministerial control, Defense control, Supreme Court functions, Election commission and we see that our present constitution has clubbed all the responsibilities on one hand, Prime Minister!
If this one man is not competent then all the functions are in trouble. If this one man or woman is corrupt then everything becomes corrupt. Our president is called a doll or dummy because this position has no powers at all! Many say why this position is created. And there is no sensible explanation. Defense Minister is under prime minister and that makes him practically useless. Supreme Court judges are selected and approved of by prime minister their pay, increments, facilities and transfers are controlled by PM and that makes this position dependent on prime minister. Reducing competency of that position to almost zero level. Election commissioner is selected by prime minister and is practically controlled by both prime minister and his allies (home minister). This makes the prime minister a veritable lord of the government! This makes the system practically most undemocratic in every aspect. There is no control on this one person and if this one person is like a stupid fellow as Manmohan Singh then our future is finished. Indians have yet to get the real democracy and for that we must discuss this very vital issue openly and everywhere as far as possible.
If our present constitution is not proclaiming true form of democracy then what would be that constitution which shall be considered as truly democratic constitution? As I have said we need a constitution in which we the people of India will have right to vote and select these five officers directly.
We will elect our president who will have to be a very learned person and an acclaimed personality in his field preferably economics. Preferably not belonging to any political party! Today we have any Tom Dick and Harry to become president and that has made this position a joke. President’s job will be to monitor all the four functionaries.
Prime Minister could be belonging to any political party but will have to get elected not from the parliament as we have it today but from the people. He shall make his cabinet of ministers from the elected members in the parliament which will be formed as usual.
Defense Minister also can come from any political party or may be independent but he shall be elected by people and not by a prime minister.
Supreme Court Judge will be a candidate from the fraternity of the lawyer community and they will first select a few candidates from the community and then elected out of the choice of them recommended by the lawyer community. No political party will be involved; financed by appropriate funds by compulsion.
Department of Election commission will be an independent authority and financed by appropriate funds by compulsion. A group of senior persons from the bureaucracy will automatically be allowed for the election and people will elect the one out of them on merits of that person. No political party will be involved.
If by my opinion these five functions are made directly answerable to people and they giving their work report to people through the media both government and private then people will have suitable control on the various functions of the nation.
As for states, we need the election of chief Minister, Governor by people directly, and other positions are controlled by the centrally elected functionaries. Today we have “chief Minister of Gujarat”, who is actually “chief Minister of government of Gujarat”; this irregularity will be corrected with this modification.
Even Rajasabha at the center and Vidhansabha at the state level will be holding elections to elect the learned people who will be selected by people’s choice. This may be a costly affair but worth if we really want true democracy to prevail in our country. Political parties will be especially excluded from taking part in these elections.
Importantly these people can call themselves as “of India”, legally. Today we call president as “president of India or Prime Minister as Prime Minister of India and so forth but these epithet are not legally correct. Legally speaking these positions belongs to the government of India conducted by a parliament and so the correct epithet will be, “President of Government of India, Prime Minister of Government of India,” and so forth. Please remember presently we are using wrong designations by calling them as “of India” instead of “of Government of India”. At present we do not have any post like president of India or Prime Minister of India and so we must do the necessary corrections.
By my opinion the worst part of this constitution is in declaring emergency. We have experienced the period of emergency during Indira Gandhi. People are made scapegoat for wrong doings of the politicians they have elected! There is only one type of emergency in present constitution but I feel that is absolutely outrageous and totally incompetent in controlling the politicians who actually spoil the situation. Ordinary people have no possibility to do anything that can demand such a situation. In a truly democratic constitution two emergencies should be possible, one by the president and the other one by the people! When people shall demand emergency all politicians will be put behind bar and all the assets of them and their parties be confiscated and added to national treasury. In that situation people will have all their democratic rights intact. If this second type of emergency is brought up then we the people will have a perfect control on these politicians. At present this is not possible and that is the reason why this constitution has failed to deliver the results. Politicians appreciate present constitution because it is most suitable for them and so they will always try to discourage all attempts to change this constitution.
Is there any difference between natural democracy and constitution based democracy?
As per my opinion natural democracy demands a two way control on both people and the government. That means in that system people have their rights and duties and government has its duties (only). What we see today; here people have no duties and the only right is to elect their representative. Once they elect the government body they have no other function whatsoever. That is constitution based democracy. In natural democracy people have certain rights such as freedom of expression, moment, religion, profession, hobbies, food selection and so forth while the duties are maintaining law and order, controlling population. Today law and order is sole responsibility of government and about population control! Better said nothing!
I request you to give your opinion on this discussion and if possible pass on this matter to your near and dear for their opinion. Send your comments.
-------------------------------------------------
You may contact me on my Email ID given below,
You are invited to visit my other blog if you are interested in stories.
http://ashokkotharesblog.blogspot.com
Visit my other blog for interesting issues:
|
|
