The political class in this country has always moulded the public opinion and is used to commandeering it by (dividing them into religion or caste-based communities,) appealing to raw and the basest and the most archaic instincts of people and historical schisms between communities in terms of their caste, cultural and religious identities. Lack of information, education and enlightenment among the people in broad swaths of the country which foster superstition, outdated outlook and conservatism came in handy in perpetuating this hegemony. And in this they have always had implicit support of the ruling classes, the economically rich and powerful, both in the cities and villages.
But the development breakthrough brought in by the emerging capitalism in India since the 1990s through the policies of liberalization has changed this force field. India is changing with growing aspirational urban middle classes, whose ranks are slowly but surely being swelled with new entrants from poorer and historically and socially backward classes. Ironically, this is helped by the affirmative policies embraced by successive governments and that of positive discrimination that is the staple of the serial political drama played out by the political class for the last three decades. With the growth in the urbanization, education, enterprise, exposure to international standards through television and mobile telephony (probably two major drivers of demands for consumer products that indirectly helped economic growth) came the need for information. At least urban Indians (especially those in semi-urban, tier-2 or tier-3 cities and towns) - and their numbers are no longer miniscule or could be safely ignored in political calculations - are getting to know about the products, standard of life, standard of services available in the most developed and metropolitan cities of the country. They are also getting informed how the best of capitalism is brought out in the first rate cities in the first world countries by harnessing it through intelligent and efficient regulation and steadfastly following the rule of law.
This underlies the importance and increasing role of the media (especially the electronic version) in highlighting the deficiencies, inequities, unreasonableness in our political system and amplifying the popular impatience about the status quo sought to be maintained by the establishment – the government bureaucracy and the political class – and delays in redressal of the public grievances.
There is also the new technological developments in internet based communication and dissemination (social media platforms, blogosphere) that has made this tide of anti-political class sentiment due to its speed and extent of spread – through spontaneous articulation, repetition, recycling, resonance, lack of a command structure, runaway unpredictability – resemble a tsunami, that of public opinion (something the political class has not yet learnt to commandeer to its selfish goals).
It is in the light of the above that we could analyse what might appear as a beginning of a rethinking by the political class on the bill and later the ordinance to retain the lifeline available in the existing Representation of the People Act (RPA), proposed to be snatched by the Supreme Court in its July judgment, to the convicted members of the parliament and the assemblies. Is this a belated recognition of the strength of public opinion against the criminalisation of politics? It is difficult to be sure, though. Indications are there about the political parties individually readjusting their public posturing, especially keeping in view the imminent need to face the electorates for the assembly elections in four states during the end of this year and for the big parliament election early next year.
It was the Congress party that actually took the lead through an all-party meeting to reach a consensus about bringing about a bill in the Parliament making the requisite changes in the Representation of the People Act (RPA) so that the elected representatives can continue to hold their position despite conviction, with some marginal restrictions. Practically every party, including the BJP, supported the move. But somehow between that meeting and the actual debate in the Parliament when the bill was introduced, the principal opposition party and also smaller parties like BJD, CPI etc, were smart enough to sense the public mood (to be more accurate the mood of the articulate and educated middle classes) and opposed the bill brought by the ruling party. When at the end of an acrimonious day of debate the bill was referred to the standing committee, it was clear that the political class bought some time for themselves.
Pressures from the parties supporting the UPA, like the SP and RJD, whose leader Lalu Yadav was looking at the spectre of disqualification as MP after his possible conviction in the fodder scam case, partly forced the hand for Congress. There was also this arrogance of power, feeling of hurt among some cabinet ministers who pride themselves as the legal eagles being forced to bite dust on their own legislative turf. One found a determined government pushing the so-called Congress Core group into resolving to bring the law by the backdoor of an ordinance to be regularized later in the parliament’s winter session.
The response of the BJP was crafted on the basis of their cynical estimate that their current losses, if any, due to the application of the new legal provision, would be more than made up by cornering the Congress in the forthcoming assembly elections later this year if they can get on to the right side of the enormously negative public opinion about the ordinance. They went to town crying hoarse (including protesting to the President) about the Congress party’s mala fide intentions in pushing the bill as an ordinance and parading their own consistent stand opposing the bill since the parliament debate.
Congress party’s own prevarication was finally ended when they realized firstly that persuading the President, if not about the legality but the morality of the ‘criminal’ ordinance, would not be a cakewalk. Secondly in some quarters of the party, especially its youth enclaves, the realization had set in that pushing through this ordinance would alienate the party from the young India of the social media, the new voters, aspiring among other things a better definition and practice of the rule of law. Certainly they were loath to loose the game to the opposition even before it began.
Thus the two main political parties, though not voluntarily, showed for once a remarkable alacrity in deferring to the undercurrent of a progressive public opinion in favour of a more lawful political space where the electoral exercise might aspire to become cleaner and fairer. If this trend can be sustained it will certainly be good for our democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment