Let us think and Act with an open mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 14

SRB

Introduction: I have identified thirty obstacles which cause a distorted and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. Because very few people have time / inclination to read long articles, these are presented in separate brief articles for pointed attention and easier assimilation. I hope this will lead to spreading of awareness and facilitating point by point debate on each of these for saving our sinking democracy.

(Please keep these articles within easy reach for referring back till the series is completed.)

Fundamental weaknesses of present day democracy

Successful governance of a country requires the services of multiple professionals with specialized qualifications and experience at the top level. This basic requirement has been ignored for the top functionaries of government in almost all countries.  Functions of policy making, enactment of laws, planning and implementation of projects and overall governance have been usurped from qualified professionals by politicians without the required specific qualifications under the  claim that they have been elected by people!! How can this absence of qualification for governance be justified even if the claim is true?  Moreover, this claim is completely hollow because of the basic defect that people who elected them did not have the knowledge and expertise needed to select efficient persons with specialized qualifications and experience to enact laws, make policies and govern the country!! This lack of knowledge and expertise among people becomes deplorable when large numbers of people are illiterate or do not have even a moderate level of general education. Just imagine what will happen to a patient if the surgeon is selected by people or to a dam, bridge or house if the engineer is selected by people or to delivery of justice if judges are selected by people and so on!! Selecting top managers of governance by people is bound to have similar atrocious consequences. It is significant that such calamities have not occurred only because the multiple professionals responsible for governance have been selected by specialized institutions manned by highly qualified selectors with many years of experience. In sharp contrast, the political leaders who have to supervise these expert professionals are selected by people without requisite knowledge and expertise!! This topsy-turvy situation is a fundamental weakness of democracy as practiced at present.

Fortunately, even though people were least competent to select efficient persons to run a democratic government, they had awareness enough to distinguish between the bad and the worse and throw out the latter who, they knew, had failed miserably to meet their needs and aspirations. They have also refused to be fooled by the high decibel propaganda about high growth rate which has benefited the rich but not the poor. This awareness, which had received praise after general elections,  has so far saved our democracy from crumbling down further and ruining our country by cautioning such politicians that their misdeeds will not be tolerated indefinitely and rejecting bad governance - the so called incumbency factor which is a reflection of this awareness. Despite their frustrations, this awareness has also kept in check revolutionary violence for the time being. Further frustrations may burst the dam!!

A second fundamental weakness pointed out in Article 2 is that  peoples’ representatives have seldom been elected by majority of people and do not generally have the support of even 50% (often much less) of the people  in their constituencies!! 

A third fundamental weakness  is that there is no system to assess the efficiency of performance of political leaders every year as is regularly done even for the qualified professionals involved in governance.  This topsy-turvy discrimination is obviously illogical and risky. It is also not realized that this discrimination is actually down-grading politics as a strange profession which can be practiced by anyone (even without basic education) without being assessed for efficiency!!  The only “peculiar assessment” called for by this strange profession is that some people (not even majority), that too without knowledge and expertise of governance, consider their governance as satisfactory, that too once in five years (not annually), even if it has not fulfilled their needs and aspirations. This has been achieved by using the power of their oratory to mesmerize people to blindly believe that they are their benefactors. Ironically, this situation has been continuing for such a long time that no questions have been asked.

Moreover, this situation makes a mockery of education and training and also the need for assessment of efficiency of performance. The message conveyed by this is that these important practices may be allowed to continue but used only to make a justification whenever called for!!

It may be argued that increased GDP growth rate has proved the efficiency of this distorted system. This argument is faulty for two reasons:

(1)It ignores that growth has not been inclusive and poverty, hunger and malnutrition of children continue to be rampant. Inflation is stifling; food prices are spiraling; infrastructure projects have slowed down; manufacturing sector is in dire straits; petroleum prices are constantly increasing; the rupee has collapsed; fiscal deficit is high; the rich are becoming fabulously richer; and even the high growth rate is dwindling. Moreover, governance by non-professionals (politicians) has not only resulted in these shameful situations but also to complete callousness in rectifying these shameful situations. (Many more examples of shameful situations faced by the country are given in a later article.) The single track pursuit of growth rate and other misplaced priorities have been at the expense of welfare of people. All these clearly show that except for growth rate, which has resulted in a sense of complacency, the system has hardly achieved anything substantial to speak off for welfare of people.

(2)There is a strong possibility that if the qualified and experienced professionals, who formed the back bone of governance for many years, had been allowed to govern the country without interferences by politicians for selfish and party interests, the situation could have been much better and shameful situations could have been avoided!!

These fundamental weaknesses of present day democracy form the twenty-second and most important obstacle which resulted in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

Three fundamental weaknesses have been pointed out above:

(1) People are least competent to select efficient persons with specialized qualifications and experience to enact laws, make policies and govern the country   because they do not have the required knowledge and expertise.

(2) Politicians who have usurped power from qualified professionals under the  claim that they have been elected by people have seldom been elected by majority of people and do not  generally have the support of even 50% (often much less) of the people in their constituencies!! 

(3) There is no system to assess the efficiency of performance of political leaders every year as is done for the professionals involved in governance.

The incompetence of people to select suitable leaders  emphasized under (1) above gives further justification to the suggestion in Article 2 that we should seriously consider an alternative for the election system because it has failed to elect true representatives with majority support of the people. Therefore, considering both (1) and (2) above, the only solution is to find an alternative for the defective election system.

Meanwhile, the elected representatives should be given the necessary basic training before they start functioning as MPs, MLAs or Panchayat members so that they can do justice to their work at least in a semi professional manner. It                                      is desirable to train some of them to work as specialists in a field of governance of their choice to qualify as professionals in governance. It is pertinent that, unlike for political leaders, basic training is a normal practice for all persons recruited for civil and military services before they are given responsibilities!!

With regard to (3) above, at the end of each year, efficiency of all elected representatives should be objectively assessed and those not performing efficiently warned to improve, as suggested in Article 3. If the elections are held only for those who become inefficient in later yearly assessments or cross a prefixed age limit or voluntarily retire, as suggested in that Article, the training period for new political leaders will not affect much the continuity of governance because the majority of political leaders would have been already trained as suggested in the preceding paragraph and working more efficiently because of yearly assessment of efficiency.

A better alternative to overcome these fundamental weaknesses may be to thoroughly overhaul the system using a professional approach, which is badly needed. This aspect is discussed in detail in another article

Comments (especially those which point out errors or deficiencies, if any, in this article and thereby help to improve it) and suggestions to overcome this very serious obstacle are welcome. Please send these to StartRemovingBlocks@gmail.com. I shall make use of all befitting suggestions to prepare the last two articles of this series – Articled 23 will spell out the basic principles which will guide formulation of the revised system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the revised system of democracy for public debate to arrive at a consensus.

You can help to save our sinking democracy by making as many people as possible aware of these obstacles and possible solutions, through personal group discussions, newspaper articles, e-mail and social media like face book and twitter so that we can have healthy debates and arrive at some innovative ideas to save our sinking democracy.

Let us think and Act with an open mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 13

SRB

Introduction: I have identified thirty obstacles which cause a distorted and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. Because very few people have time / inclination to read long articles, these are presented in separate brief articles for pointed attention and easier assimilation. I hope this will lead to spreading of awareness and facilitating point by point debate on each of these for saving our sinking democracy.

(Please keep these articles within easy reach for referring back till the series is completed.)

Large states -  a hindrance to democracy

Efficient administration is virtually impossible in large states. For example, a minister or head of department in a large state will not have time (without neglecting other work) to make adequate number of visits to all districts for discussions, supervision etc. even once a year. Many aspects of good governance will suffer in many parts of a large state in the absence of frequent intensive supervision which is essential for efficient administration. Due to such inadequate attention by government machinery, people in some parts of a large state feel that they receive only step motherly treatment. Moreover, people in many parts of a large state are unhappy that they have to waste more time and money to visit the capital of the state to sort out their problems with government. As a result of such inadequate interaction between government and people, large states are less efficient in satisfying the needs and aspirations of people.

Diversities are more common in large states. The resulting intra state rivalries between different identity groups have made functioning of democracy more difficult and ineffective in large states.  

Dissatisfaction and frustrations within various identity groups is increasing day by day in large states. This has led to increased conflicts and disintegrating tendencies. Because of pent up deep dissatisfactions and frustrations people in large states have often resorted to acts of violence even at the drop of a hat. Other law and order problems also become more difficult to handle in large states.

All these show that democracy will function better if we divide the country into optimal small states. USA with much smaller population has many more states!! Following this example of a modern flourishing democracy it is worthwhile for India to have more than 50 states. The situation is so bad that some states have large populations which exceed the population of some countries!! Because of a laissez-faire attitude, our democratic Parliament and government have not given thought to improving our democracy by having optimal small states only.

Disgusted identity groups have been mounting pressure again and again for carving out small states of their choice from large states.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Government has not realized that such disgusts have mounted up in many parts of a large state only because of its callousness or inability to carry out investigations throughout the state to ascertain the reasons for these and to educate and pacify people. Hardly any attempt has been made to ascertain the will of the people in different areas spread across large states because of a defeatist mentality arising from the enormity of the problem. Due to inadequate attempts to tackle or meet aspirations of people, violence and terrorist activities had steadily increased in many parts of large states. After prolonged delays which had caused lot of heart burn and violence resulting in destruction of properties and even life, government was forced to ultimately carve out small states out of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh. Yet, government is not prepared to see the writing on the wall. It has not cared to apply its mind to ascertain the optimum size of a state to have a successful democracy in different demographic situations.

Despite facing many problems, government does not have the vision to apply its mind to carry out studies to foresee possible divisive and destructive developments and act to forestall unhappy events or to understand the emerging needs and aspirations of local people.

As pointed out in Article 6, government considers listening to people as a sign of weakness instead of strength of a democracy. This intolerant attitude is anti-democratic and shows a know-all dictatorial approach. It proves beyond doubt that government gives only lip service to democracy and do not at all care for democracy, while ironically boasting that it functions as a democratic government. It has not realized that the real strength of a democratic government lies in its ability to (1) listen to people, (2) accept useful ideas and (3) act on these with vision and commitment.

Because of a laissez-faire attitude, it blindly waits for things to happen and adopts in haste only haphazard piece meal approaches, that too after allowing agitations to build up and cause damages. It has not cared to study the advantage of forming small states in a democratic manner before agitations come up. It refuses to recognize the realities and is hanging on to straws (like a drowning man), with a conservative approach.

Large states have more MPs and are able to put more pressure to derive additional benefits for their states or to block developments in other areas to spite their neighbours and to show off their superiority. This makes people in smaller states unhappy. Such biased treatments which give better opportunities to some people and treat the others with a step motherly attitude are against the principles of democracy.

Thus, having large states causes dissatisfaction among people in both large and small states and results in an unsuccessful democracy.

These aspects form the twenty-first and most serious obstacle which resulted in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

To overcome this serious obstacle, another States Reorganization Commission should be set up immediately with definite instructions to ascertain the optimum size of a state to have a successful democracy in different demographic situations and carve out small compact states (may be with approximately two crore population each to have more than 50 states) which can satisfy the needs and aspirations of different identity groups to the maximum extent possible. Emphasis should be on creating a true democracy to satisfy people by having more homogenous small states. Additional expenditure required to set up and maintain these states should not stand in the way of having a true democracy. People want government to spend public money to meet their needs and aspirations and not according to its whims or to waste as at present. Moreover, it is pertinent that with more states, while over head expenses will increase, there will be considerable savings in travel expenses, administration etc. which will reduce the additional financial burden to a large extent. Some possible ways of reducing expenditure due to forming more states is suggested in a later article.

Comments (especially those which point out errors or deficiencies, if any, in this article and thereby help to improve it) and suggestions to overcome this very serious obstacle are welcome. Please send these to StartRemovingBlocks@gmail.com. I shall make use of all befitting suggestions to prepare the last two articles of this series – Articled 23 will spell out the basic principles which will guide formulation of the revised system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the revised system of democracy for public debate to arrive at a consensus.

You can help to save our sinking democracy by making as many people as possible aware of these obstacles and possible solutions, through personal group discussions, newspaper articles, e-mail and social media like face book and twitter so that we can have healthy debates and arrive at some innovative ideas to save our sinking democracy.

Let us think and Act with an open mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 12

SRB

Introduction: I have identified thirty obstacles which cause a distorted and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. Because very few people have time / inclination to read long articles, these are presented in separate brief articles for pointed attention and easier assimilation. I hope this will lead to spreading of awareness and facilitating point by point debate on each of these for saving our sinking democracy.

(Please keep these articles within easy reach for referring back till the series is completed.)

National integration

Ideally, India should have a democracy which attends to the needs and aspirations of people all over the country. But the situation is very complex and intricate because of wide spread diversities. The feeling that we are all Indians with at least a substantial number of common needs and aspirations is lacking in the country. This has resulted in multiple sets of needs and aspirations which have to be satisfied by a democracy. State wise, language wise, religion wise, caste wise and tribe wise alienations in individualities stand in the way of common needs and aspirations. Wide gaps in economic status also divides the country into distinct groups with vastly different individualities, needs and aspirations. Unfortunately, this is made worse by activities of political parties which often encourage diversities in individuality by creating conflicts to serve their selfish interests. These make the situation very complicated with regard to needs and aspirations to be met by a democracy. Therefore, the needs and aspirations of people can be ideally met only by a federation of multiple democracies and not by a unified democracy. The fact that such multiple units of democracy, if at all they can be made functional, will criss-cross and clash with each other makes the situation extremely complicated and difficult to manage. Therefore, it is more realistic to strive for developing a national democracy which satisfies the needs and aspirations of maximum number of people to the extent possible, with special stress on the have nots who need democracy most, unlike the haves who can manipulate to have a good quality of life. The situation can be assuaged to a large extent only by a well planned and actively implemented national integration programme. This is the only way to develop the best possible democracy for the whole country.

But, attempts at national integration have not succeeded even after many years because of a bureaucratic approach with least priority, which has been sporadic, patchy and ineffective due to lack of vision and commitment. Hardly any attempt has been made to identify institutions which have been struggling to reduce alienations in individualities and support these or to identify and motivate some institutions to do so, because of lack of vision and commitment. There is an urgent need to systematically plan and actively implement multiple innovative strategies to progressively improve national integration, in a mission mode.

These aspects form the twentieth serious and complicated obstacle which resulted in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

To overcome this obstacle, national integration with a vision should be implemented using multiple strategies, in a mission mode. Thinking out of the box for innovative ideas is absolutely necessary.

One way is to have planned inter state migration by encouraging  people, who feel frustrated in  carrying out their visions or to have a good quality of life because of inadequate support from their surroundings, to shift to another area. To the extent possible, alternate choices should be offered to them to choose from. Each state should have an annual target for this and systematically identify, educate (by quoting successful migrations) and motivate persons, to meet the target. This planned inter state migration has the additional advantage of reducing tensions in the former areas by removing frustrated persons. The receiving states will welcome this if it solves their problems like lack of particular types of labour force, new type of enterprises, improvement in trade, additional cottage industries etc. It is pertinent that such types of unplanned migration have taken place and have resulted in inter mingling of people from different places, without any serious problems in the receiving states. A happy “give and take” approach among the concerned people has been strengthened. For example, thousands of people from Bihar and Kerala are working in many states and many thousands from North-eastern states can be found in cities like Bangalore.

A positive approach is to encourage such migration. For this, those who are prepared to migrate (particularly relatives and friends of those who already migrated) should be given financial and other supports and other incentives to do so. An easy way to identify such frustrated persons is to opt for religious and linguistic minorities. This should be strictly avoided because it is against the spirit of integration. Economic advantages and/or improvement in quality of life should be the guiding factors for migration. A systematic proactive approach with patience will yield substantial improvement in national integration quite soon.

Inter caste, inter religious and inter state marriages should also be encouraged by giving substantial grants to such couples. Honour killings and other anti-national and immoral atrocities which stand in the way of such marriages should be tackled through educating people and giving adequate grants also to the families of the couple and to village panchayats for each such marriage. Award for panchayats (including wards or residential associations in towns and cities) with maximum number of such inter marriages should be instituted. People should also be educated about the genetic advantages of such inter marriages.

School children and college students should be regularly taken on “know your country” education trips to areas with a different culture so that they can understand and appreciate different cultural practices. This will help to develop a national identity among children and young people. Incentives should be given to schools and colleges which undertake such “know your country” education trips, by way of grants, travel concessions etc.

As stated earlier, state wise, language wise, religion wise, caste wise and tribe wise alienations in individualities stand in the way of common needs and aspirations. Attempts should be systematically made to have dialogues with the leaders of such groups to motivate them to enthuse a national identity in their groups by educating them and emphasizing on them that there is no clash between national and group affiliations. Wherever a perceived clash continues educative dialogues should be continued to amicably remove the misunderstandings. Prestigious state and national awards should recognize individuals and institutions excelling in promotion of national integration.

There are fields such as sports, arts, music, dance and entertainment in which the above type of alienations are negligible. Priority should be given to encourage such activities through out the country to speed up national integration. An additional benefit is that such activities help people to forget their worries for some time and feel happy

Multiple languages in the country complicate the problem. A common national script for all languages should be adopted to mitigate this problem.  Mastering a new script is the most difficult part of learning a new language. Once proficiency in the common national script for all languages is achieved, it is easier for people to learn other languages and enjoy the richness of the literature in other languages of their choice. The fact that people are able to read many words which are common to many languages (particularly because of their Sanskrit origin) makes it even more easy. This will lead to better understanding of different cultures. When people travel from one linguistic state to another, they often face difficulties because they are not able to read the names of places, roads, eating places, bus routes and their destinations, travel direction sign boards etc. If these are written in a national script all over the county, these difficulties will be overcome and tensions on inter state travelers will be reduced. Because all people have to learn the new national  script, there will be no complaints about anyone group getting an advantage over another as happened when attempts were made to propagate Hindi as the national language.

It is important to have a change in mind set to provide adequate funds for all these schemes on top priority basis in order to achieve the worthy aim of national integration, which is essential to have a successful democracy.

In addition to the above, if a variety of serious innovative attempts are made to make it easier for people to mingle with each other, they will understand each other better and a feeling of nationality will develop.

All these emphasize the need for planning and implementing multiple innovative approaches to promote national integration, with determination and a sense of commitment to a mission mode. This will have a definite impact on making the needs and aspirations of people less complex and reduce conflicts to have a democracy  which satisfies maximum number of people in the country.

Comments (especially those which point out errors or deficiencies, if any, in this article and thereby help to improve it) and suggestions to overcome this very serious obstacle are welcome. Please send these to StartRemovingBlocks@gmail.com. I shall make use of all befitting suggestions to prepare the last two articles of this series – Articled 23 will spell out the basic principles which will guide formulation of the revised system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the revised system of democracy for public debate to arrive at a consensus.

You can help to save our sinking democracy by making as many people as possible aware of these obstacles and possible solutions, through personal group discussions, newspaper articles, e-mail and social media like face book and twitter so that we can have healthy debates and arrive at some innovative ideas to save our sinking democracy.