Skip to content

India is rapidly becoming a country lost in depression. With over a hundred bills pending, the opposition staging walkouts like it was a fashion show ramp, precarious economy, the two things our politicians appear to be unanimous on are both against National Interest.

 

One is

Baijayant Panda, MP tweeted that the UPA was trying for an all-party consensus on a law against the Supreme Court order disqualifying convicted MPs. Considering that the main parties in the Parliament also happen to be the parties with the most politicians with criminal cases against them, they are coming together to pass a law and save their behinds. So they can continue to comfortably enjoy their privilege while filing appeals and leisurely court cases.

It would be tough to imagine anything worse than this in terms of democracy, but there is worse. After the CIC order that ruled that six National Parties would be brought under RTI Act because they were public authorities, the government is doing what it does best. Match fixing. Said six parties are in agreement that they will do no such thing and are amending the law to provide exempton to political parties. This morning. None of the parties have instituted PIOs as directed.

So let us get this straight. Citizens rights are eroded for "security", but the far greater problem of corruption and accountability in a country that has almost made a religion out of it does not deserve transparency.

A democracy defends citizen's rights and provides transparency in public organizations. This worthless government and the useless oppositon and their cronies in the Parliament will conspire to prevent accountabilty in what have emerged as the greatest hubs of corruption.

The political parties that get land for their offices in Delhi, residential space for leaders, that don't pay taxes on donations they get from the public have the gall to formally put information about them out of reach of questioning by the masses.

They do not think the public has a right to know how they run their party before trusting them to run the government. It seems after these jokers wrecking the country to this extent, they still expect us to make our decisions based on the propaganda they design for us to swallow instead of examining how they operate and seeing if we want that for the nation.

Today, they will bring about this farce in the Parliament. I sincerely hope enough people with conscience are still left alive that it doesn't pass, but hopes are low. If they bring about this perversion of the RTI Act, remember names. Remember faces. Remember parties. Never vote for them ever again.

Save India. Save the right of people to demand accountability.

Save RTI.

Enhanced by Zemanta

10

I have written in another article that the elections themselves lay the grounds for corruption, misuse of power and squandering resources in power struggles for survival. So I admit that I am not particularly fond of the method as a means of ensuring democratic representation.

Now, it seems Team Anna attempts to fix problems arising from this very structure through the means of installing an ombudsman, which seems to me a good idea, unless we are able to drastically change our parameters for elections, or we are able to move away from a system of elections completely (as described in that article).

There are those who suggest more responsible and more quantity of voting as a means to get better politicians. And it is some very thinking minds making this suggestion. This seems very illogical to me, but I am willing to give it a go, if some fundamental problems I see are addressed by this system in ways I don't see at the moment. Listing them out. I would appreciate inputs from anyone who has given this serious thought. This is not about Team Anna, but the viability of the proposed alternative as voting.

  • There are many issues handled badly by political parties. Fundamental, legal, constitutional. Is it realistic to expect voting to fix them? Issues that are handled or mishandled differently by different parties, but actually a basic requirement from all.
  • If there are issues that are not acceptable from any party, why should votes be spent on them than on real preferences in values? Elections ought to be a way of representing National opinion on how the country should be run - "legally" should not have to be a factor for choice when it is a basic requirement from all. "Honestly" also ought not to be left as a matter of vote.
  • If there are two candidates, one I like the ideals of, but belonging to a corrupt party and another honest but not too useful, whom to choose? Should I have to sacrifice ideas like... say "better roads in my locality" because it adds power to a party which will exploit my country?
  • Why is a legislation that will police politicians wrong, if it is fine for normal citizens? A regular citizen stealing money from any organization would be behind bars, then why does the Supreme Court have to intervene and overrule the natural actions of the system to even investigate what is happening?
  • I had no role in bringing a politician in another place to power - A Raja or Kalmadi, for example, but his loot impacts my well being as well as that of every citizen in my country. How can voting alone protect the country from this, if there is no real power to any entity to monitor or check without permissions from those who are most unlikely to give it, and beyond likely to tip off the suspects rather than aid investigation?
  • No matter how scrupulously people vote for honest politicians, by virtue of size and experience, big parties will have power. It is probability. These big parties all have leaderships, stakeholders and hierarchies that often don't even contest elections - let alone be elected into power. The actions and influences of these people directly impact the country, and there is no way short of disempowering all big parties through elections to prevent this.
  • In the unlikely event that big political parties are completely left out of stakes, the combined nuisance potential they have will bring down any government.
  • In the unlikely event that big political parties are completely left out of stakes, we also lose out on years of experience of administrating the country and have leaders with relatively less experience, influence and knowledge of the system - a weaker government in terms of capability.
  • But really, it comes down to the basics - is five years a reasonable wait to challenge the power of exploiters of the system in a hit or miss process?

All thoughts welcome. I don't think people recommending voting haven't thought of this. So I am looking to find the value and solutions that are visible to them and elusive to me.

Lokpal or not, these things must have solutions, no? What can it be?