Questioning the nature of Indian democracy

·        Is holding 5 yearly elections the hallmark of our democracy ? The manner in which such elections are conducted (use of money and muscle power, inducements, openly pandering to caste, religious, ethnic, linguistic, regional prejudices are known to vitiate the electoral atmosphere) raises serious doubt whether the election results are manipulated to an extent.

·        Though in principle people can make a free choice in these elections, it is really the political parties that one gets to choose from a list (though given as a list of candidates). The parties nominate candidates by a non-transparent process in which their winability at any cost becomes the major factor in their choice. Their present and future utility to the party takes precedence over the moral character, educational qualifications and background, knowledge, competence and wisdom that the candidates, ideally, could bring to bear on the delivery of public good to the constituents who would elect them.     

·        Assuming that the election provides Indians a means to choose and/or overthrow their rulers in a non-violent manner, they have to perforce agree to be governed for the next five years by a set of ‘chosen’ people, who despite pious protestations, effectively arrogate to themselves the power to set the rules of governance as per their convenience and their perpetual benefit and continuance, and insist that these ‘rules’ are sacrosanct, next to being god-given, and can not be challenged by anybody – people at large or by some other associations, organizations, institutions on their behalf.

·        Once chosen, through a far from satisfactory electoral process, a party or an alliance of parties parading a majority of number of wining candidates (MLAs or MPs) expects an effective immunity from critical scrutiny of the policies persued by the executive (the government) formed by them as well as the details of implementation of even those stated policies. Not only are the protests by the opposition parties as well as dissatisfied members of public and civil society considered undemocratic, but even adverse comments by a constitutionally mandated auditor of the accounts of the government are deemed to contribute to the perils of our democracy. In the same spirit some unfavourable pronouncements and judgments by the highest judicial institution of the country (the supreme court) are deemed hostile and not conducive to independent and efficient operation of the three sets of wheels propelling our democracy. Whoever has talked about the checks and balances being part of democratic functioning must be ignorant of the daily grind of a state machinery !  The question is : should we be proud of such a machine or a little disgusted and even scared at the prospects of having to deal with it on a daily basis ?