Opinion - News Analysis   

The answer lies in getting involved

While many find it difficult to be sanguine about politicians, they also concede that the only way around the bad politicians is for the agitated citizen to join public life.

IN CLASSIC civics textbooks, a political party and its operatives, the politicians, are assigned the task of providing a link between the rulers — those who govern, make policies, implement decisions — and the citizens who have grievances or demands, all of which cannot be easily satisfied. Except in absolute military dictatorships, the politicians become the useful link between the administrator and the common man; whenever such a link gets snapped, the consequences are invariably disastrous.

In our own country, we have seen how a prolonged spell of President's Rule in Jammu and Kashmir led to compounding the alienation among the populace. Or, earlier during the infamous Emergency when the politicians were deprived of their "normal" role, even the otherwise astute Indira Gandhi failed to gauge the public mood and consequently had to pay a heavy price.

We have always had politicians as the guardians of public interest. Democracy concedes this role, in theory and practice. Plus as a nation we had the decades of education and experience in the Gandhian leadership: no ruler is entitled to obedience and respect unless he or she is willing to pay heed to people's aspirations and needs.

The prolonged freedom movement also reinforced the popular image of a political leader as the one who sacrificed his personal comfort and family wealth for the greater glory and emancipation of Mother India from colonial masters.

The Mahatma himself became the most dominant and influential role model of sacrifice, austerity, and moral and personal integrity.After Independence, the politicians were expected to emulate the Mahatma's ways of simple living and high thinking.

The post-Independence decades saw the gradual weakening of the Gandhian role model. Once Jawaharlal Nehru passed away from the scene, the transition from the freedom movement generation began. Also began the decline in values and idealism of those who chose to man the barricades in the political square.

Rajiv Gandhi was the first Prime Minister of a generation that had no recollection of the freedom struggle or of the sacrifices and dedication that sustained the movement for Independence. Eventually, he also became the first Prime Minister to be accused of countenancing bribery in the Bofors case.

Since then, the political class as a whole has been dubbed as habitually corrupt, institutionally venal and congenitally amoral, when not outrightly immoral. And the worst kind of corruption the politicians seem to be practising is corrupting the fellow-politician — buying and selling of legislative loyalties, leading to a cascading corrosive effect in every walk of public life.

Is then the corrupt politician omnipresent and omnipotent?

Only a few days ago, the country bid adieu to Kushabhau Thakre, a former president of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The man died penniless, had no home of his own and in his last days was living in a room in the party headquarters. Indeed, there are thousands of political workers such as Thakre; the Madhu Dandvates, the Surendra Mohans, the Rabi Roys, the Harkishen Singh Surjeets, and the A.B. Bardhans who serve the public and political roles.

Yet it is the "successful" politicians who have displaced the honest and dedicated public servants from the popular perception. At any time, any number of former Chief Ministers and Union Cabinet Ministers could be counted among those facing legal prosecution. Are, then, all politicians condemnable and can we find a way of working around this flawed breed? Citizens grumble interminably at the insensitive, arrogant and unaccountable politicians. But is it fair to tar all politicians with the same brush of condemnation?

No; not all politicians are bad, says Sulakhan Singh, an agriculturist from Punjab. He points out there are many politicians, especially at the grass roots who have worked selflessly. "Visit the countryside, and you would find many party workers who have spent their lives dedicated for the party cause and are living in penury," he insists.

Agrees the social activist from Bhopal, Abdul Jabbar, who is critical of the Chief Election Commissioner, J.M. Lyngdoh, for condemning all politicians. "He has no business to pass a sweeping judgment against all politicians. There are always the black sheep and individuals in every system or organisation who are corrupt and politics is no exception either," argues the social worker.

On the other hand, many citizens find it difficult to be sanguine about the politicians. "True, not all politicians are bad and corrupt. But most of them are. With so many scams and misdeeds being exposed regularly on television, in newspapers, you cannot really have another opinion," feels N.R. Bindiya, an executive from Bangalore.

In a similar vein, the IIM Professor, Jagdeep S. Chhokar, concurs: "I do not want to be another Lyngdoh, but in my assessment most of them (politicians) are corrupt. Most of them do not have the interest of the society and the public good at heart which is so essential if one really wants to serve the people and the country."

"Agreed, only a miniscule percentage of politicians are clean, but that should not be used to dub all politicians as bad," demurs Balasubramanyam of Hyderabad.

Moreover, as Lopamudra Baxipatra of Bhubaneshwar points out, "politics is not insulated from the outside world. If degeneration has effected other aspects of life, so has it dented politics."

Even if opinion may be divided on the extent of the political class' corruption, no one feels the country can do without politicians. Partly because the country cannot think of leaders from other sectors in the society being capable of providing any better or more honest leadership and governance. "The choices we have are limited, and we have to live with them. But over-riding all is the absence of an alternative to leaving the governance of the country to our politicians," laments the business executive from Kolkata.

The businessmen, even the most respected and successful, are not deemed to be competent to lead the nation. As Bindiya argues, it requires one kind of talent to run a business empire and quite another to preside over the public affairs. "Managing a country is not like managing a company. You need to manage many States, many religions, taxing border problems and on top of all that, you need to be diplomatic. Business leaders have a cylindrical vision, a very company-centric approach."

Nor are citizens willing to put all that much faith in the other counter-breed, the self-proclaimed doer of good, the activists in the non-governmental organisation sector. Many citizens believe that no doubt there are shining examples of dedication and selfless service. Collective efforts such as the Amul Dairy and the Lijjat Papad project are given as examples worth emulating.

"These are shining examples of collective efforts registering success in different fields. These are group initiatives that achieved the desired goal without the involvement of politicians. These should inspire others and can be definitely replicated in other areas," points out Mr. Balasubramanyam.

Similarly, Daulat Singh Rajawat of Jaipur believes that dedicated individuals and groups can set an example in good governance and clean public behaviour. He cites the case of the late Socialist leader, Mama Baleshwar Dayal, who represented the collective consciousness of the Adivasi population in the south Rajasthan districts of Dungarpur and Banswara. Mr. Rajawat also mentions the success notched up by social activists such as Baba Amte.

Or, Mr. Sulakhan Singh cites his neighbouring village, Bhullar, where through collective efforts people have constructed a school, which was later upgraded. Citizens also constructed a hospital and veterinary clinic, while they also improved the quality of roads and lanes in the village. In his own village and many others, people received non-political guidance to pool their resources and to set up clubs for the youth.

Admittedly, there are very many examples of dedicated men and women devoting a lifetime to advancing and promoting the causes dear to their heart. But not all citizens believe that the social activists are a substitute for a proper political leader. The only way around the bad politician is for the agitated citizen to join the public life.

"Instead of crying foul, what is needed is a concerted cleansing of the process. More good people should get into politics so that the rotten apples could be outnumbered and outmanoeuvred," suggests Dr. Baxipatra. It is precisely for this reason that this daughter of a trade unionist (who was a Minister in Orissa) has joined the political process. She is a member of the Biju Janata Dal, and she spells out her rationale for joining "politics": "Navin Patnaik is clean and untainted — a hope for the future."

The middle classes cannot go on complaining about the quality of the political crowd and its shortcomings without being willing to "dirty" their hands in the business of electoral politics. Already, it has become a fashion among political parties to invite retired bureaucrats, generals, and diplomats to their ranks, especially on the eve of elections, all with a view to impress upon the voters that the parties value the newcomer's professional merit and experience. The problem, however, remains that once the "professional" joins a political party, he or she rarely raises a voice in support of reform or wholesomeness; the newly inducted professionals soon lose their voice in the face of "organisational discipline".

Nonetheless, most citizens feel that the political parties bear a responsibility for fielding a slate of "clean" candidates. Mr. Rajawat of Jaipur recalls a former Chief Election Commissioner's plea that the least that the political parties could do was to "identify 500 honest people and put them up as candidates". The problem is that most political parties put premium on the "winnability" of a candidate rather than his/her suitability for public life.

It is vital therefore that the middle class public opinion forces the political parties to clean up their act. The problem, however, remains that while the bigger, national parties may be willing to submit themselves to some ethical norms; the smaller/regional parties feel no such obligation. Therefore, the judiciary, national parliament, media, the civil society and enlightened citizens should demand institutional reforms. Sulakhan Singh, for instance, says that a politician once convicted of a corruption charge should be barred for contesting.

Most citizens subscribe to the idea that it is still possible to put in place institutional reforms that would make politicians act responsibly and in the larger public interest. The message is loud and clear: the politicians may be corrupt but they are not dispensable; moreover, the democratic system can and must find ways of ensuring that they do not always get away with their corrupt and venal ways. — H.K.

(With inputs from Sarabjit Pandher in Chandigarh, Sunny Sebastian in Jaipur, Lalit Shastri in Bhopal, Marcus Dam in Kolkata, Prafulla Das in Bhubaneshwar, Manas Dasgupta in Ahmedabad, T. Lalith Singh in Hyderabad, Rasheed Kappan in Bangalore and S. Dorairaj in Madurai.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Can we do without politicians?
• It is not their business
• Random voices
• The answer lies in getting involved
• Speaking in one voice

Copyright © 2004, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu