|
Milind Wani writes a rejoinder to Ashish Kothari’s ‘Why I did not vote’, pointing out why a cynicism about the representative form of democracy is a cynicism about Indian citizens themselves
‘Why I did not vote’ by Ashish Kothari (http://infochangeindia.org/200907087822/Governance/Analysis/Why-I-did-not-vote.html) makes for interesting reading. Kothari argues against India’s representative form of democracy, which is based on the Westminster model. His grievances are valid but the ’’deep cynicism” that leads him to question the validity of the “national elections as a meaningful mode of democracy” might be a little overstated. Like him, for most of my adult life I have not voted; for the same reason -- a deep cynicism. This changed in 2004. The BJP’s ‘India Shining’ media blitzkrieg had me convinced that the BJP would return to govern the country for another five years, replicating its Gujarat model on a pan-India scale. After the 2004 Lok Sabha results I felt both a huge sense of relief as well as shame. Relief that the communal forces had lost out (for the time being) and shame that while I was being cynical about the Indian polity, millions of citizens had gone right ahead and voted out the politics of hatred. That was the end of my cynicism. Clearly, as Kothari indicates, there are limitations to the form of representative democracy. But in the face of those limitations should we simply disengage? Is Kothari arguing for a complete disengagement? What he definitely is arguing for is “drastic changes in our democratic framework” that will deepen our polity and make it truly participative and direct. Great idea! But what would this actually entail? At the very least, it would mean overcoming all the limitations of representative democracy that he lists. But isn’t it also true that at least some of these are more than ‘‘drastic’’, they are in fact revolutionary changes which would entail a profound transformation of the economic, political and social formations that define and underpin our society? Is this perhaps what he is suggesting? If it is, then it is strange that his argument does not even mention the need to transcend the economic system (capitalism) that forms the sub-stratum of representative democracy, although he does make a passing reference to ‘neo-liberal’ economists in Delhi. To bring about “a form of radical ecological democracy” would require the overthrow of capitalism, surely? But while that happens, what should we do? If the very survival of democracy is at stake then can any political space be considered too vitiated? On the other hand, would not things be different if more people, especially the progressive, left-of-centre kind, participated in elections more seriously? Would not greater participation lead to the coming to power of parties that have a genuine feel for the pulse of people’s aspirations and thus make governments substantively more representative? Does this sound too fanciful? But consider the UPA-1 government during the previous dispensation (2004-2009). Their gross mishandling of the Nandigram/Singur issue apart, did they not play a positive role vis-à-vis NREGA, the Tribal Bill, thwarting PSU disinvestment etc, and thus a necessary role in confronting neoliberal globalisation? With enough numbers in parliament it may even be possible to radicalise the Indian Constitution, as progressive governments in Latin America are doing. Within the Indian context there are already some indications that those disillusioned with their elected representatives are taking destiny in their own hands. Anti-incumbency is no longer the standard reason for loss of power. The victory of the Swabhimani Shetkari Sangathana in Kolhapur (Maharashtra) against the powerful NCP shows what the political conscientisation of the suicide-prone farming community can translate into. Hopefully more such examples will be seen in the future. The debacle of the left was mostly due to the arrogance of its cadres -- which resulted in a loss of legitimacy of the left as representatives of the people. Out they went! This was also why other contenders were eliminated from the race to power, demonstrating the coming of age of India’s representative democracy as well as of the maturing voter. The moot point is that people are voting seriously while electing their government and to be cynical about this is to be cynical about the people who vote, not just about a representative form of democracy. It’s clear that changes in existing policies/laws/schemes through widespread consultations involving processes-of-consent, setting up of institutional structures enabling widespread public participation etc are urgently required. These form the core of a radical and participatory democracy. But how do we formulate such “forums of participation”? I think this is also a question of power and the need to wrest it away from the current set of elite interests. The battle for political power needs to be fought at every level (of hierarchy) and every available space (laterally). How are radical changes (laws enabling referendum, recall etc) going to be enacted if the people who propound them do not participate in the processes that can bring to power political formations interested in such enactments? Obviously, to argue that the representative form is the only valid form of democracy would be fatal. The argument is for a larger role for progressive and radical social formations within the representative form of democracy. If the Constitution needs to be radicalised then radical laws need to be enshrined within the Constitution. And for that to happen, socio-political formations struggling for these issues/programmes need to enter the institutions which enact these laws/policies. Who else is going to ensure that all this gets done if people shun representative politics? Certainly the extreme right and centre-right parties are not going to stop occupying spaces in representative electoral politics. Right-wing formations like the BJP are not going to let go of the opportunity to democratically enact fascist laws and policies. Hitler’s National Socialist Party came to power through electoral politics and his anti-Semitic policies not only affected the social order of the day but also the natural-order (the environmental destruction due to the Second World War). Within the Indian context, will the BJP endorse decriminalisation of same-sex relations? Will human rights be respected? It seems unlikely, if Dr Binayak Sen’s illegal incarceration and Professor Sabharwal’s murder in BJP-ruled states is anything to go by. The challenge is how to convert the rough-and-tumble of realpolitik that we today witness in representative democracy, into a revolutionary realpolitik. Only such a revolutionary realpolitik could adequately hope to meet the challenges thrown up by emancipatory visions which will include elements of both radical ecological democracy and radical social democracy. The society of the future requires human society and nature to be mutually sustaining and harmoniously reinforcing, where, to quote Marx, “fully developed naturalism equals humanism”, and “fully developed humanism equals naturalism”. If this means participating in representative politics, then so be it! (Milind Wani is with Kalpavriksh environmental action group) Infochange News & Features, July 2009 |
