My column in today’s DNA
There are 545 Members of the current Lok Sabha and 245 members of the Rajya Sabha – 790 Members of Parliament in all. The Lok Sabha is the assembly of the people – where Peoples’ representatives convene to legislate on behalf of all of us. The Rajya Sabha is the Council of States guiding policies on behalf the States, it has 233 members elected by State Legislatures and 12 who are nominated – these twelve are Civil Society Representatives drawn from all branches and parts of society. 790 people – who are directly or indirectly elected by us the People. You have a Ruling Party that elects or selects a Prime Minister and the PM who selects a Council of Ministers – The Executive. You have legislation drawn up by the Government get discussed in Parliament and debated, and you have Bills becoming Acts that Govern the citizens of India. At least that is the theory.
But, in the last seven months or so, this system – has broken down. It seems that the Government is unable to govern. The Opposition is too busy protesting to oppose anything in a meaningful manner. The legislature has been reduced to empty benches. There is zero debate. And, budgets worth lakhs of crores are passed without adequate questioning. There is a vacuum and that is caused neither by corruption, nor by coalition dharma – it is caused by the complete lack of leadership across the political spectrum at the centre. Some of our States seem to have leaders who have a vision and a plan – whether we agree with that or not is immaterial, at least there is a starting point. Tarun Gogoi in Assam, Nitish Kumar in Bihar, Narendra Modi in Gujarat, Omar Abdullah in J&K, Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu, Mayawati in UP, Mamta Banerjee in West Bengal – lead. But at the Centre, there is a leadership deficit.
Leadership is not about great personality or mesmerising body language or even speeches that inspire. It is about a vision. It is about setting an agenda. It is about communicating that vision and agenda to all stakeholders – and that includes people who support you, oppose you, and citizens at large. It is about being able to build consensus by appealing to the best in others, not coercion by knowing the worst about others. It is about putting something greater, than all stake holders, as the goal to achieve, and ensuring that no one loses track of that goal. It is about having the the Big Picture.
Where is the Big Picture? Both ‘National Parties’ seem to have lost sight of their vision. Both are happy grandstanding and playing politics while issues remain untracked. What is worse is that both have outsourced the ‘vision thing’ to someone else. A someone who is not the representative of any constituency in the country. Civil Society. The Congress Party is guilty of foisting an unaccountable NAC to make policy, to draft bills, to set Agenda – a role that is supposed to be played by Ministers. The Government has been mute at the hijacking of its powers to act, as stipulated in the Constitution.
The BJP is compensating for the government’s muteness by a shrillness that is deafening. It is so focussed on scoring brownie points on debate in front of the television cameras that it doesn’t realise it is lurching from protest to protest, so much so that it has become a farce. And it is not protesting about the hijacking of the Cabinet’s role by a commission. It can’t. Because when it comes to power it will have its own set of unaccountable advisors.
Into this chaos and leadership vacuum have stepped in competing civil societies – Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev – that are challenging not so much the power of the government as the right of the NAC to be the only civil society to make policy and draft law.
There is no one civil society in India: there are many civil societies and unless our legislators get their act in place and put the Republic of India above their petty bickering, more of these non-elected actors will turn up, staking a claim on power. Unless the Congress party disbands the NAC or brings it within the accountability ambit, these other ‘civil societies’ are going to turn up.
Finally, policy-making or legislation by hunger-fast makes for bad precedent. What will you do if a bunch of people in any state – led by a charismatic leader – begin a fast-unto-death for independence? To prevent that from happening, parliament has to get back to work and start delivering.
And if this Parliament is not willing to work, maybe we need a new one.
Hi Gargi,
While I agree with you about NAC getting structurally involved in policymaking being unhealthy for the country, wouldn’t you think this is a lesser evil than RSS dictating national policy in BJP governments? At least in NAC’s case, this involvement is pretty public, the players mostly non-political, and the entire council having some public representatives in it (one actually chairing it). In RSS case, the agenda is more insidious, the discussions completely behind closed doors.
Wouldn’t it be a better solution to formalize the formation of NAC as an advisory body with strict relevant qualifications and more broad based memberships (rather than people with only leftist leanings). The output of this committee is still only an advisory to the government. It should by no means be a draft.
In any case, I never understood why people feel that only legislators should frame laws? What formal qualifications do representatives have which enable them to understand the nuances of law. Ultimately, laws should be framed by specialists, isn’t it?
Certainly lack of knowledge and wisdom is pretty much visible in the above 1st paragraph of the comment. The only problem with online discussion is, every tom, dick, harry and harry’s brother considered self to be expert and dishes out judgements instead of opinion which have option of debate. The kind of derogatory statements used for RSS, is certainly coming from person, who has assumed to have seen RSS only in dreams and have had no chance of attending a shakha or interacting with a sanghi. How NAC is public and what strengthens the argument that RSS is closed door or what ever NONSENSE is uttered.
While the 2nd n 3rd paragraph is worth discussing, not that it is agreeable
Those ugly people in ill fitting shorts congregate in the playground where I run. Does that make me eligible to comment?
Hi Jaymin,
Thank you for your comment. My views on RSS are completely based on my real life interaction with them. I have had RSS pracharaks having baithaks in my hostel room, I have visited a RSS ‘pili kothi’ in a prominent city. I have been handed a khakhi shorts and ordered to attend their meetings without even asking for my assent on the same, and I know very closely what happened in the RSS camps that my college hostel mates attended and left in horror. And all my college mates know the role of RSS activists in the first full scale violence in my engineering college,.
Believe me, no amount of online PR done by RSS sympathizers like you can ever change my mind on what kind of thought process the leaders in this organization has.
All that said, my point in the original post was that it is common knowledge that BJP’s major policies are dictated by RSS. I would be very surprised if you think this is an uncommon opinion that is held only by me.
sorry for the delay in responding – been overwhelmed with work & commute ..
@sandip – i am against a precedent of this sort being created. I am not enamoured with the idea of the RSS dictating to the BJP- especially given that the current BJP does not have a single leader with the moral stature of ABV to be discerning about the advice.
My issue is this entire area of accountability and responsibility. by all means give inputs on social welfare and development. But, the Cabinet, the MP’s – let them draft legislation – with consultation -and carry it through …
Sandip, seriously, when I say X sucks, is Y sucking even relevant?
And regarding your last paragraph, now that you’ve basically said you are a fascist who disapproves of Democracy, why you even oppose the RSS? They seem your type. Maybe they wear the wrong color — but fascism isn’t the clothing as much as it’s in the ability to tolerate individual dignity over your own perceived wisdom.
Hi Nilu,
What part of my text up there mentions that I disapprove of democracy? Or are you being naive and taken up by the claims of the Congress in the last few days that law making is their primary responsibility?
Do you realize that much of the content of the laws being drafted are not provided by the representatives themselves, but bureaucrats whose qualifications is having a background in administrative services?
Do you remember the subtle change in the Nuclear policy that actually showed how bureaucrats sabotage laws to serve foreign business interests?
I agree that original framing of laws should not be done outside this existing framework. Therefore I disapprove laws like communal bill, RTI etc having been framed outside this framework.
But having a qualified and nominated and balanced panel of experts providing their views on a draft is not necessarily a bad thing. Again, I agree that this is not being done now.
there is an old saying
Der aye par durust aye
…. you have finally got the plot … Congrats!
🙂 power w/o accountability is a dangerous thing … most dictators started with good intentions …
Questions:
1. Advisors in any institution
2. Role of advisors and NAC
3. Blame mentality/scapegoating
4. NAC institutionalisation
Title: Scapegoating NAC for failure of democratic system
Any institution which is involved in complex decision making whether it be Home Ministry, Railway Ministry, Prime Minister in
case of India or President & Members of Congress of US always have an array of “advisors” to help them deal with issues with
which the central actor (President, Prime Minister, etc) has to deal with.
This is so because of the simple fact that a person doesn’t know in detail about everything that comes up in modern
governance.
So, no matter what kind of institution it is, if it has to deal with tasks which involve specialized expertise, advisors,
researchers and technocrats are always hired.
{{The Role of the Council of Economic Advisers, Murray L. Weidenbaum, The Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 19, No. 3
(Summer, 1988), pp. 237-243 Link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1181948}}
NAC and its advisory role
One major concern raised by people are what is the constitutionality and legality of NAC that it is drawing up bills which are
being passed in the Parliament. And like in any democracy, contentions persist and play a role. But given the present
political climate their are suspicions and scapegoating of NAC.
But my contention here is NAC is not ramming down bills in the throats of our Parliament and hence the people but it is
translating the wishes of parliamentarians as best it could.
Let us look at the legislations passed in last 10 years, most of the legislations ranging from Arbitration and Conciliation
Act or Domestic Violence Act have proved inadequate as well as myopic. I use both the terms with a distinction.
By Myopic, I mean the vision, the object and the approach to the issue is limited and by inadequacy I solely mean the
inefficiency pertaining to its implementation. So, even though Nazi laws against Jews were myopic and barbaric, they were
efficient whereas our laws dealing with social welfare though couched in utopian terms are completely inefficient.
Whereas, if we look at NAC laws, we see a similar myopia of vision and object of the law, for instance, the Communal Violence
Bill which buttreses the narrative that hindus everywhere in India are bloodthirsty vandals looking for an opportunity to
murder muslims which is both historically & empirically inaccurate as well as purely politically motivated.
{{For my contention on Empirical Study of Communal Violence in India, refer Ashutosh Varshney’s Ethnic Conflict and Civic
Life, Yale, 2002 and Radha Kumar’s article in foreign affairs URL: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/58071/radha-
kumar/india-s-house-divided-understanding-communal-violence }}
However, existence of this particular narrative and its link with religious-political alliance formation and backfighting is
out of scope of this response. However, the bill brings out this communitarian divide and power struggle within the elite
circles of our polity. And it is the well thought nature of the bill that makes one thing all the more about it. Till now laws
would be passed but they would be skeletal, prone to court argumentation and poor in implementation. This time it has provided
an architecture to achieve the goals set within it.
So does this mean that the bill is manipulative measure by NAC to destroy India?
On the contrary, NAC simply translated the desires of the parliamentarians and the party with brutal efficiency. So even
though they have “drafted” it, the nature of the bill, the object and the target of the bill is not set by them, but set by
the Principal, in this case UPA.
And this is how advisors function in every system. Principal draws the broad outlines of every action whereas the precise
details are done by the advisors who then return it to Principal for its approval.
So why all the anger over NAC?
Well, in India where there is no healthy public discussion and there is no way for people at large to speak to their own
functionaries and hence seeing NAC recommend a bill does create frustration coupled with feeling of “being left out” along with suspicion on the motivation of such a recommendation. Both the feelings are justified on part of every citizen as well as any “civil society” group. And the blame squarely rests on the inability of the govt to convince its own public about its actions.
I live in the same country as yourself and being left out or atleast inability to get my voice across does create frustration but it is not the fault of any existing advisory body but the failure of the successive government which does not behold itself to be accountable to its own people except during the frenzy of elections.
Now, why should NAC not be dismantled?
My response is that no matter who the public functionary is, he cannot be possess on his own all the knowledge, information and data to adequately respond to each situation he would face and hence always relies on a “team” of “researchers/technocrats/advisors”. And even in time of Nehru, all the legislations and policies were not drawn by the elected but by a team work by Planning Commission, bureaucrats and related intellegnstia. And it has always been so.
So what to do about this “technical help”?
Now, the question before us is what do we do when even the general public cannot be expected to master each and every detail related to governance like a technocrat. So the question before us has to be answered with simple realism that since even very educated and intelligent public can only argue broad contours of any policy along with certain “salient” “essential” characteristics. For example, in case of health care legislation in America, the public debated around 4-5 important issues of care of aged, guaranteed reimbursement, relationship with insurance agencies whereas the exact bill deals with tons of legal, procedural, institutional & policy issues.
So technical expertise is necessary to translate the demand of the polity by the elected using their knowledge. However, in our country this chain is broken, here the elected are using the knowledge of experts to enforce their thoughts upon the polity. Hence the natural outburst of anger against the advisors.
Given, the arguments above, I would suggest the retention of NAC as well as its legalization and permanent formalization on three broad parameters,
1. Institutional Integrity: The institution must be completely accountable and transparent in every work it does. Its member must disclose all personal details as well as research carried out by them to be scrutinized by the public.
2. Institutional Continuity: The institution should not become a playground for the elected to put anyone there anytime. It must have certain guarantees to provide its research effectively, free of “back stage” intrigues while at the same time ensuring that the actors are not completely at mercy of the party in power thereby forcing changes as they wish.
3. Policy Continuity: Also the policy decided by a government cannot be totally reversed without the support of legislature. Thereby ensuring that whatever policy is decided carries out to the full. One of the failures in this regard was Congress’ motivated decision to cancel BJP’s golden quadrilateral which was supported even by World Bank.
Also the supremacy of legislature must remain which should control and define the executive’s power.
So is there a way out of present uncomfortable situation and to bring a better state of affairs?
Yes, one of the things that is common throughout India, that is, perhaps one thing which fits the slogan of “unity in diversity” is shared hatred and mistrust of netas. Until and unless they are made more directly accountable to people our problem will not be solved.
I would suggest a three prong proposal for this:
1. Electoral Reforms: To provide for realistic electoral process which promotes open debate, gives chance to hear everyone’s voice, does not demand the desirees to scrounge for funding and thereby creating a process where even you, Madam, can hope to get elected and the only thing that should prevent it from happening is your popular appeal.
2. National Public Debate Commision and Provision for Referendums: One of the major changes that should be made is emphasizing the point that law is made by the people only either directly or through its legitimately elected representatives. Also a Debate Commission must be charged to carry out nation wide debates on each and every issue that comes up before the parliament and provides a platform in both urban and rural areas to state their opinions and network with people with similar opinions.
3. Greater Political/civic/legal Education: Our people at the end of the day must be taught about their political institutions, analytical thinking and legal framework to be able to participate in day to day affairs and comprehend the multitude of information that will come their way.
In this system, technos will become just a very useful tool to convert the wishes of people into reality.
I hope that I was able to convey my message.
Waiting for a reply,
Cheers,
Hersh Sewak,
NUJS, Kolkata.
@HershSewak (Twitter)
1) agreed – on need for advisors. for example i will not expect any government to pass an ‘energy bill” of any sort w/o talking to advisors. similarly, the Companies Act consulted with industry associations & bodies.
the NAC is not accountable. Sonia Gandhi as a MP is. But, this current tamasha is neither about Mrs.Gandhi nor really about corruption – it is about an attempt to control agenda. Agenda Setting – it is called in media studies.
If you look at the members of the NAC itself – each represents a different Civil Society or interest group. That means one view over all others has a stake in getting legislation passed.That group has more power… obviously other groups are going to get into the act for staking their claim to power… there is no mechanism to deal with it. we deal with conflicting power bases with election- we choose. how do we get to choose b/w AH’s civil society and BR’s civil society or Arundati Roy’s civil society or Pramod Muthalik’s civil society .
NOw there are two ways of dealing with this –
a) get them to compete elections as well…. but the first past the post system is screwed. and i agree, we really need some form of proportional representation – to give all these vocies- be they religious or developmental or environmental, capitalist etall. I would actually look at some sort of PR being introduced for municipal elections.
b) make the consultative process in all legislation more inclusive. In the UK, for example, there are public hearings for key legislation. Interested parties do take part.
On why the NAC should go –
I will give you a company example. You are running an organisation with overall goals and objectives. It has to get to point x in a certain span of time. That x could be revenue, it could be quality, it could be output …. now – all key resources & resource allocation in the Organisation have to be under unitary control. There has to be a clear chain of command. What happens if a key shareholder / stake holder puts a parallel command structure in place. What you have is what is happening now.
I understand that the Planning Commission looks at GD{ issues, and the NAC looks at HDI issues – either bring them under the same ambit or merge them. Policy making in the Governement has to be holistic. You need to have your targets – HDI &GDP – and you have to delver them. But for that, there has to be a chain of command. And, today, this chain of command has become a circle – and nothing is getting done. so if the NAC has to continue – the parameters you suggest work.
on your last point – agree completely.
The NAC is subversive. and it needs to go for the Good of the Republic – an older piece from the blog (and DNA) – http://t.co/w244nWLN
Just bathwater, the baby is the Queen RT @calamur: NAC is subversive. and it needs to go for the Good of the Republic http://t.co/QsILnVKS