Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Current rift in AAP: False myths about Democracy in the modern world

Despite the availability of varied view-points in newspapers and TV discussions these days on the recent rift in AAP, ( the new political party formed by Arvind Kejriwal, a common man who genuinely sought bottom-level change in the existing wrong political practices) common citizens in the country, or even the class of intellectuals fail to arrive at right and balanced conclusion as to whom, or what to blame for the sad turn of events ! Though the Political out-fit was the brain-child of Arvind Kejriwal and his close associates of his 'Parivartan' ( an NGO he formed to fight corruption in Politics during late 1990s) days, other prominent men like Adv.Prashant Bhushan and Journalist Yogendra Yadav joined the movement in due course. No doubt, joining of these eminent men of mind and ideas at a later stage had given AAP its much needed mainstream avatar.

Now, after the recent unbelievable electoral mandate( 67 seats out of the total 70) received by the party in the recent Delhi State election, questions arose as to who all should share the glory and fruits of the unprecedented victory, and the political power that followed.

Unfortunately, there still exist the remnants of the old myths around the Power-Thrones that once Kings and his likes occupied, its goodies and glory around the Democratic seats of power too ! This is in spite of the fact  and high-claims that, democracy is purely a political system of EQUAL-MEN ! Therefore, such questions and issues about the balanced sharing of Power is natural.

No one could bear the thought that such high and unimaginable grab on the Power-Seat is going to any one-person of the group that labored-together to set it up ! The cries and out-bursts about such NO-CURE imbalances in the name of democratic injustices will be common, as it has happened here too.The 'power' attained was the prize of the collective effort, therefor, how could only one person enjoy it as his-own ?

Here,those who were agitated about the recent incident and cried out that,'democracy' has been murdered, as if to hint that democracy is a pious and noble something, were absolutely wrong ! Modern democracy, unfortunately has no such piousness to claim ! It has become something like the concept of old socialism, about which we were taught in our history classes during the college days that ' it was like a cap worn by many, hence that lost its original shape' !

Whatever the professional men who are engaged in the game of modern politics is added to the various features of democracy and its practice, in a never ending process ! Its bottom essence and morals have not been defined or clarified so far.( Please see more on this tragedy from link:

  What exists today is only certain famous symbols about its functioning, like the periodic elections, the freedom of dissent allowed by the ruling party to the opposition parties and to the general public, the free-press, the independent judiciary etc. There is nothing binding on the occupiers of its throne, with regard to what really they should represent, and bestow to the people ! It has more to do with the art and science of politics itself, than anything genuinely relevant and meant to its real END, the people !

What its practitioners engaged-in is plain scramble for political power, without which they can not think of occupying the seats of the mainstream, and bring-forth their passionate,  but of course subjective view of progress and development, or delivering their subjective view about freedom, liberty and equality to people. It is a necessary evil, because its bottom morals, goals and rationale, vis-a-vis-people are not yet been clearly defined. That is why some who occupy the Power-seat disturb the entire scene with their authoritarian ways, or usher-in 'development' at the high-cost of the rights and liberty of people, as in the case of the ex.Singapore ruler Lee Kuan. His model of State-craft, wherein the State as a stand-alone entity achieve 'success' and development, is being emulated by many world-leaders.Such a model thrives on the philosophy that, people, after all do not need anything else than food, shelter and cloth. They are mere passive subjects of the more predominant reality- the State. Our blog post referred above, about modern states usurping the individual citizens deserves its relevance.

There need not have any two opinions about one-thing, ie. about the very subjective notions and views about 'development' that each democratic leader keeps. Democracy is only a practical and inevitable medium ( or a means)  for enabling one-leader , or a political group to implement his/their subjective ways. In a recent article in Hindustan Times by veteran Media-leader Rajdeep Sardesai showed with ample examples that, every political party in India is one man, or one family centered ! It is the existential truth ( or evil?)of modern democracy. In such an existential truth about modern democracy, what the well learned and wise Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan have done to the movement that they all had collectively built-up, was absolutely naive and childish !

A movement, be it be the freedom movement of India by Gandhiji, or the recent re-launching of BJP into the center-stage of Indian politics by Narendra Modi; loses its very base character and direction when the reign of the State moves into other hands !Those co-leaders, active in any movement, must show the sagacity and wisdom to understand this very existential fact about all human-initiatives. If these co-leaders try to abduct the movement and make it the movement of one of them, in order to share the glory of all its achievements, it is equal to killing the very movement !

Understanding democracy as a public-platform of every leading figure to implement his or her way and sub-ideas would be self-destructive,and inability to recognize the very basics of every collective movement of human-beings ! During the building-up stage of the very movement, arriving at a very clear and distinct mission statements and objectives was the only sensible step to work-together. For Gandhi and others, freeing India from the British rule was a very distinct, clear and singular goal, and the method that Subhash Chandra Bose had stood for was obviously impractical and radical for the day. So, the latter opted to move-out of camp that Gandhiji had led.

At least now, Kejriwal could strive for such a distinct and clear mission and goal document, which could be used as a mother-value reference paper for all actions and polices of the party to be adhered to, or to be made consistent to. Under such an arrangement, the goal and mission naturally become more central and relevant, than any one individual. 

Kejriwal at least had such a clear vision about the role of the State and its commitment to people, which was refreshingly different and inspiring !. The need of the hour is to prepare a distinct and clear value and mission statement,and publish it in the public domain. Every citizen could then check consistency of whatever his government does, with the said public value, policy and mission statement for their adherence and logical consistency. 

Constitutions of nations serves the same purpose. Adhering to its base values and doctrines should have been the sacred and unalterable norm and value of every government and political parties. Such a document should remain as the ultimate reference document, most centrally for its inherent VALUES.

Posted by: Abraham J. Palakudy : An  independent philosophy and polity research ( non-profit) initiative 

No comments:

Post a Comment