Sunday, July 24, 2011

Our political actors are not Kalidas.

Who should pay for the elections? Not the state

I do agree cent-percent with the logics and reasoning given by renowned and esteemed author. He has great experiences as he is working in this field with ADR (since august 1999) in close coordination with election commission and other associated organizations. He has contradicted the idea of starting of funding of elections to start with-SC/ST and women. By giving the support of Law commission findings and views of CECs, very rightly, he says, first we need political reforms- pre requsits for such funding. Without setting political houses in order on different issues like internal democracy, annual audit, transparency etc, state funding will deteriorate the situation- means money power will speak more loudly. It will be like giving a knife to monkey which will harm everyone including himself- not knowingly.
Without completing national level consultation, circulation of cabinet note by law ministry for soliciting comments indicates some foul play like lokpal bill. Author has indicated correctly that present and past CEC is opposing including law commission findings, then what type of consensus we talked about. Is law commission findings and CECs views having low weight than so called opinion censuses- even national level is yet to conduct? I think, seeing the public demand and mood against them, they are trying to show the same path to electoral reform bill like Lolpal. So that it also can’t gets the consent of parliament for many years- as lokpal is pending for 42 years. It may be a diversion tactic to avoid political reform. As government knows the next agenda of Anna is political reform. Hence it can be seen as a move to block their way before they start.
If we see the things from the initiator’s angle, we found them right in their actions to make electoral reform another jokpal. None would like to make a law which will interfere in their own workings – as did by Kalidas. Now, they are free to mold as they wish. But after electoral reforms, it will be difficult for them to fulfill their wishes. It is not a wise step on their part to make strong and good laws. They have two options then. One, don’t make laws as till date. Two, if compelled to act, then make very weak and ambiguous to manipulate easily. Out of two which one is adaptable? Under present circumstance when country is reeling under the heat of corruption at top level- thanks to judiciary- sitting idle like past is not possible for the government. Hence option one is ruled out. Then option two is workable. Tactic is, give it a controversial start so that it should have a controversial life at least 42 years.
Inspite of knowing fast moving political scenario, our political actors are not able to come out of their inertia. They are still trying to do politics like past. This is not possible now at any cost. To support this, Obama’s election is a good point to be cited. A study finds that w e live in a age where 60 percent of Americans routinely assume that every politicians is lying to them ( Trippi, 234). So, fed up with whites’ double standards and lies, they elected a black head of the nation. They slapped the leaders and gave a red signal to old politics. Likewise in India, things are similar to USA. Powerless Anna and Baba set some ideas before nation and public is driving this idea with a super fast speed- not imagined by our law makers. In this judiciary is playing its role and not sitting ideal. The judicial actions are accelerating the speed and doing praise worthy work.
A section of political actors are denouncing it as judicial over reach and activism. While doing so they forget about their inactions and act of sins. They don’t want to be honest, but they wish to see others dead honest. India is a big democracy and vote is an indicator. If we conduct a referendum for good actions among Legislature, bureaucracy and judiciary, I am sure Judiciary will get the highest numbers in their favor. In changing the situation ICT role can’t be ignored. ICT has affected all walks of life like politics. Obama is a product of ICT that’s why he is also known as internet president. It is difficult to change the oldies. So hope lies with the youngsters. That’s why all political parties are pushing their youth wings to act in full swing. They are trying their best to attract youths as they are amenable and ready to accept the change. They are also aware of to potentials of modern tools and technology like social media. The new political trends can’t be set in reverse gear.
Concluding this, is author expecting our political actors to be modern Kalidas? They should cut same branch on which they are sitting to fall down – as we know about our historical Kalidas. No, I too oppose this as they are not like Kalidas. But thanks to author for highlighting this issue which in not in national interest from any angle.
(Views are personal and based on different findings and references)