Democracy beyond the right to vote

IT is unfortunate that neither the people nor those who hold public offices are aware of the wider definitions of maladministration and corruption. It is necessary that they be acquainted with them. It is also necessary to evolve a suitable, prompt, and effective mechanism to deal with complaints of this nature. This will go a long way in curing our public institutions of inefficiency and abuse of power: With these words ends the second chapter of Justice P B Sawant’s fact-finding report.

The 12-page chapter -- Corruption and Maladministration in Public Institutions -- in the 372-page inquiry report is a scathing critique of the present day socio-economic and political democracy vis-à-vis social activism. The chapter records certain vital observations on the country’s democratic polity, the scope of corruption, citizens’ responsibilities, and the need for people to go beyond the right to vote. The Oxford English dictionary explains the adjective “corrupt” as dishonest, accepting bribes, immoral, wicked or decaying (individual). Corruption, says Justice Sawant, is only one type of maladministration. He calls misadministration a mix of negligence, the lack of supervision, neglect of grievances and complaints, carelessness, waste and inefficiency, besides corruption.

There are certain observations on politicians. "It appears that for the last few decades now, a tribe has been growing fast -- it looks upon public office as a source of pelf and power... Some of them have become bold enough to not only defy the law, but also to make it a norm of their public life. Unless this arrogance of power is checked in its track, the disease may spread and devour the rule of law itself."

Justice Sawant observes that the country's democratic polity has deepened class cracks. The rulers appear disinterested in concepts of social and economic democracy, and instead are perpetuating social and economic inequalities, which make suitable foundation for their survival, Justice Sawant says. He underlines the fact that the onus of reducing inequalities and their social consequences lies on the civil society.

Here Justice Sawant makes vital observations about citizens’ role in democracy. The existing framework of political democracy hardly confers any right on citizens beyond the right to vote and to contest elections. He further observes that in the absence of social and economic democracy, even the rights to elect and get elected remain on paper for most people. With multiplying social and economic inequalities, the right to vote itself may be manipulated, while the right to contest elections has become the preserve of a wealthy few.

Justice Sawant takes serious note of the all-life pervasive chalta hai attitude. There is a pernicious theory that has been doing the rounds for the past few years: it says that corruption needs to be condoned to some extent because elections involve huge expenditure. Justice Sawant describes this notion as “perverse and dangerous” and “legally and morally indefensible”.

Participating in elections is not the end of citizens’ role in democracy. People must realize that they cannot and should not expect anything in return for voting for a particular person, apart from what they may share with others as citizens. Justice Sawant feels that this would go a long way towards making the country's public life "clean and safe" for democracy.

Justice Sawant says that citizens definitely can play a role in democratic governance that goes beyond franchise. He therefore calls on citizens to embark on constructive activities, with or without government support to improve the quality of social life. Agitational means too are fine, he says offering a word of caution to activists. He lays down certain norms for agitations. They have to be peaceful and legal, and must not allow agitators to become extra-constitutional centres of power. Justice Sawant does not mince his words when he says that when social power is used irresponsibly or to subvert constitutional authority, it is hardly distinguishable from terror.

When I talked to Justice Sawant for a Sunday interview a few days back, he was emphatic that I read the chapter. “You should read it,” he then had told me. When I did, I remembered about the 50 or more per cent of Puneites who chose to stay at home while the rest of the nation voted for first the Parliament, and then and a few months later, the State Assembly. Then I thought of motorists who jump signals and break traffic rules and try to bribe their way out of fines. They are all convinced that no change is possible. And choose to remain oblivious to unacceptable social ills.
(First published in The Maharashtra Herald on Aril 7, 2005)