வெள்ளி, 24 ஜூன், 2011

Raj Thackeray is right, Anna is filling a BJP vacuum | Firstpost

Raj Thackeray is right, Anna is filling a BJP vacuum

Akshaya Mishra Jun 23, 2011

After a bout of boisterous posturing over corruption and black money, the BJP is suddenly nowhere in the picture. It now appears, its intervention was specific to the case of Baba Ramdev only; neither the party nor its mother organisation, the RSS, was really keen on the bigger issue. Their withdrawal from the scene provided breathing space to the government and helped it formulate a clear strategy to handle Anna Hazare and the group of anti-corruption crusaders.

As the principal opposition, the BJP was expected to pounce on the opportunity created by Hazare and team and take the moral high ground by taking the attack to the embattled UPA. Ironically, no other opposition party has shown the inclination to seize the initiative to make a political statement.

Leader of Opposition Sushma Swaraj and senior BJP leader L K Advani have a job on their hands if they want to resurrect the party in the national scene. Manvender Vashist/PTI

There’s a clear vacuum in the opposition space. It’s waiting to be occupied.

Unfortunately for the opposition parties, it is the civil society which has stepped in to fill in the vacuum. When people outside the political mainstream take the political centre stage, parties need to introspect.

Raj Thackeray, president of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, hit the nail on the head. “Common people are supporting activists like Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev because the opposition is inefficient, both at the Centre and the states,” he said on Thursday, while talking about the state of the BJP and the Shiv Sena in the context of the Gopinath Munde episode.

Munde, who had threatened to quit the BJP after being pushed to the margins in the state unit by party president Nitin Gadkari, hob-nobbed with the Congress before deciding to stay back in the party. Thackeray claimed the Congress refused to entertain Munde’s demand, which forced him to change his mind.

The Munde episode does not amount to much in terms of political significance but it reflects the poor state of affairs in the BJP, the party in waiting for the big national role in case the Congress-led UPA is voted out. The party is saddled with too many middle-level leaders, none of whom has shown the promise to shine on the national scene. The leaders are too busy settling personal scores among themselves—Sushma Swaraj vs Arun Jaitley, Narendra Modi vs Sushma Swaraj, Shivraj Singh Chauhan vs Uma Bharati, well it’s a long list—to focus on the party and its growth.

“Whatever is happening in the BJP is not good and should stop,” an exasperated RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat told reporters some days ago. He made it clear that it was up to the BJP to tackle its problems. Nothing much has changed. Middle level leaders are busy building their loyalty base. Gadkari’s role in Munde’s case makes it evident.

It is clear by now that the party’s political future is bleak unless it comes out of the RSS shadows to build an identity of its own. But given the fact that it is impossible—the BJP is yet to develop a solid organisational structure of its own and has to depend on the huge RSS network for political survival —the party needs nothing less than a magic wand to revive its fortune.

So what we have in the end is a party without a focus and a game plan. The confusion has made itself conspicuous during Anna Hazre’s anti-corruption agitation.

What threatens to make the vacuum in the opposition space a long one is the absence of other parties to take over. The Left, the only party with a promise in terms of ideology, has managed to marginalise itself; the other parties in the frame are confined to the states.

This leaves the field wide open for the Congress, which despite minor troubles here and there, has managed to keep its house together. It is free to handle challenges like Anna Hazare the way it wants without bothering about an opposition backlash.

Team Anna to e-democracy: A case for ‘mob rule’ | Firstpost


It’s become fashionable for politicians across the spectrum and for media commentators to mock Anna Hazare and his band of merry men for their use of the term “civil society” to describe their mass-mobilisation movement.
“If they are ‘civil society’, who are we: the uncivil society?” said CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury, less in jest than in malice.
The Congress has, of course, been leading a campaign to brand Team Anna as being unqualified to speak on behalf of anyone other than themselves because they’ve not been through the grind of electoral politics. Party spokesperson Manish Tewari, ever ready with an over-the-top hyperbole, suggested that Indian democracy was “in peril from the unelected and the unelectable.”
It’s true that Team Anna is made up of men who are unelected, but does that mean they should be barred from the posh club of people who have an exclusive say in public affair. Reuters
An editorial page commentary in Business Standard takes forward that argument, claiming that the Anna Hazare-led movement was “a clever coup staged (by) a clutch of social activists and retired civil servants…to project itself as ‘a representative of civil society’.”
It further claims that “so-called ‘civil society’ leaders” had “filled the vacuum created by the elected MPs’ abdication of their constitutional responsibility.
The commentary  brands the Lokpal institution — as visualised by Team Anna — as “an all-powerful Frankenstein of an institution”.  Although it was aimed at destroying corruption and empowering people, it would, in the essential nature of all Frankensteins, “destroy democracy in the name of the people.”
Writing in Tehelka,  Mona G Mehta makes a similar alarmist case.  The celebration of Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev as “civil society agents who are making our democracy more accountable” reveals a misunderstanding of civil society as inherently positive.” Invoking Tocqueville, the article goes on to say that “civil society” came with “tyrannical possibilities”.
All this is completely over the top.
It’s true that Team Anna is made up of men who are unelected (and possibly unelectable), but  does that mean they should be barred from the posh club of people who have an exclusive say in public affairs – and who provide inputs when it comes to drafting the law of the land? Is  law-drafting a privilege only of parliamentarians? Should the dirty, unwashed masses not be allowed to contribute with ideas on how the country ought to be run?
Anyone who suggests that should ponder over a unique, even radical, experiment that’s going on in Iceland.  The country is drawing up a new Constitution – and is, somewhat uniquely, crowdsourcing ideas from its citizenry, using all the social media platforms available today.
The Guardian reports:
In creating the new document, the (constitutional) council has been posting draft clauses on its website every week since the project launched in April. The public can comment underneath or join a discussion on the council’s Facebook page.
The council also has a Twitter account, a YouTube page where interviews with its members are regularly posted, and a Flickr account containing pictures of the 25 members at work, all intended to maximise interaction with citizens.
Says Thorvaldur Gylfason, member of Iceland’s constitutional council: “I believe this is the first time a constitution is being drafted basically on the internet.”
There you have a country that is crafting an entire constitution and making it a participatory process involving its citizens. And over here, Anna Hazare and his men are branded agents of tyranny merely because they exerted moral pressure to get the government to enact a strong anti-corruption law that will, hopefully, stop the rapacious plunder of India. Shouldn’t that be the right of any citizen in a true participative democracy? Isn’t that what an open government means – or ought to represent?
Nor is Iceland the only instance of countries soliciting views on laws from the public.
Futurist Ross Dawson notes that New Zealand attempted a somewhat less ambitious project while redrafting its Police Act in 2007 using the crowdsourcing “wiki” format made popular by Wikipedia.
“These examples,” he writes, “represent the future of government.” He, however, concedes that the path forward will be “long and slow.”
“At the heart of democracy is the idea that we all have an equal voice in shaping how we are governed. However most democracies distort that, not least in representative democracies, in which individuals (who usually represent political parties) are voted to represent groups of citizens. The first-past-the-post nature of these elections, combined with the fact that voted representative are often swayed by financial or other persuasions to support their own interests rather than those of their constituents.
“I believe the future of government should, and hopefully will, be crowdsourced.”
In fact, nearer home, even the National Advisory Council – that’s Sonia Gandhi’s own kitchen cabinet that is also made up of unelected and unelectable people – is now pitching for “pre-legislative consultative processes”.  In other words, for broader consultation with the hoi polloi before laws are made.
The NAC has asked for a policy on ‘pre-legislative consultative processes’. It basically ‘mandates public participation and consultation at every stage, from the time a decision is taken to draft a policy till the time it is represented as a bill to be tabled in Parliament’.
The NAC said its sub-group on transparency, accountability and governance, headed by RTI campaigner Aruna Roy, would evolve a policy on “pre-legislative consultative processes” and recommend it to the government.
The rationale was that to strengthen participatory democracy, it was “important to go beyond the existing parliamentary consultative process and directly involve the people in the formulation of important decisions, policies and laws drafted in the name of the sovereign”.
The NAC said all policies and laws in the pipeline should be opened up for public discussion before they are finalised.
Perhaps the NAC is pitching for this radical idea now because its own legitimacy has been called into question after the government attacked Team Anna and civil society groups. Even so, it’s an idea worthy of consideration.
But do the foul-mouthed Congress spokespersons, who rejoiced in mocking and slandering Anna Hazare and his team for making bold to inject themselves into the law-drafting process, feel the same way about this proposal from Sonia’s kitchen cabinet for wider consultation with the dirty, unwashed masses?