Mangalore
December 7, 2008
The recent terrorist attack on the prime targets in Mumbai and the death of scores of innocent people has transformed the citizens of Mumbai in particular and the entire nation in general into ‘angry citizens’ braying for the blood of the politicians. At no stage in the history of independent India that the ire and contempt of the people against the political class across the board had been so vocal and shrill as has been witnessed especially in Mumbai during the past few days.
As against the popular belligerent mood of the people, the politicians have practically gone underground, except few faces with fluency in language and sound in argument on the TV. The rest of the tribe has gone into hibernation, waiting for the anger of the people to douse, so that they can reemerge and take the nation for a ride once again during the next general elections.
The question which is foremost in the minds of the people is- Can we do away with the politicians? Some even suggest that there should be a benevolent dictator to solve the problems faced by the nation. Still others feel that technocrats and experts in different fields can run the administration.
The answer for the above question is, No. We cannot do away with the politicians, but certainly we can do away with the politicians with criminal background, corrupt and inefficient, and bring in those persons into politics who are known for their integrity, honesty, sincerity and social service. It is like blood transfusion by which the deceased blood can be replaced by healthy blood and rejuvenate the person, so the political body.
Indian Constitution has adopted the Parliamentary System of Government on the model of the British system, whereas the United States of America has Presidential system. Under the Parliamentary system, the President is the head of the State, so is the Governor at the state level. Both the President and Governors are nominal executive and the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister at the center and the Chief Minister at the state level are the real executive. The entire Council of Ministers is answerable or responsible to the Legislature, Parliament at the center and Vidhan Sabha at the state level.
Under the Presidential system of Government, as in the case of the US, the President is both the head of the State and the real head of the executive. He has option to select appropriate persons with wide experience and knowledge from any field or party to be the Secretaries (Ministers) who are responsible to him alone and not to the Legislature (Congress).
On the other hand, under the Parliamentary system of Government, the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister who are the leaders of the majority party or coalition of parties in the Lok Sabha or Vidhan Sabha form the Council of Ministers by choosing elected members from his own party or coalition partners. If any other non-elected person is being appointed as a minister (Man Mohan Singh was appointed as Finance Minister by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao in 1990s), the person is required to get himself elected to either house of the Parliament within six months.
In Parliamentary system of Government, the Council of Ministers is ‘collectively responsible’ to the Legislature. If the Lok Sabha or Vidhan Sabha passes a vote of non-confidence against the Council of Ministers, the entire Council of Minister is required to resign.
Thus, under the Parliamentary system those elected members, some of them with dubious background, end up becoming ministers due to various factors such as the consideration of caste and region or political pressure. Such ministers manifest not only their inefficiency, but arrogance and corrupt tendencies. Thus, for a clean and efficient administration honest and upright politicians are needed.
In spite of repeated promises of not fielding persons with criminal or corrupt background, all the political parties invariably give tickets to such elements, as winning the seat by hook or crook is the chief aim of the political parties in order to get majority in the Lok Sabha or Vidhan Sabha.
Another issue that was thrown to public debate during the past few days was pinning down the responsibility of the bureaucracy (babus) who advice and assist the ministers in running the administration. The Civil Service that was developed as ‘the steel-frame’ of Indian administration during the British period has gradually degenerated into rusted skeleton. No doubt there are few efficient and honest bureaucrats such as Arun Bhatia, Chandrasekhar and others, but the corrupt politicians do not allow them to function honestly. As a result many frustrated bureaucrats have left and are leaving the administrative service.
Under the Parliamentary system, while the minister administering a particular department is answerable to the Legislature for acts of commission or omission, the bureaucrats attached to the department are answerable to the minister alone and not to the Legislature.
Though the bureaucrat is chiefly responsible for the success or failure of the working of the department, he cannot be questioned by the Legislature. Thus, he remains anonymous as far as the Legislature is concerned. The minister cannot point his finger towards the bureaucrats in his department for the lapses in running his department. Thus, the efficiency of a department wholly rests on the quality of the minister and the integrity of the bureaucrat.
In spite of all his histrionics, Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Railway Minister could reasonably run his large department and pull it out from the red chiefly because he has a good team of bureaucrats and he listens to their sound advice and gives them considerably free hand in day to day administration.
It is high time that young people with zeal for ‘change’ should enter the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS) so that they can infuse honesty and integrity into the administrative system, rather than flocking to the more lucrative IITs and IIMs.
The Citizens’ Action Groups that have sprung up in the wake of the terrorist attack on Mumbai have to sustain their steam of bringing about the ‘change’ in the political system. It may not be possible in bringing about drastic and wide scale transformation. They should think in terms of bringing about change first at the micro-level. First of all ensure that the cooperative societies where you live have right people to run the affairs of the society.
The citizens of one of the wards in Juhu, Mumbai, had shown the way in the last Municipal Corporation election, how alert and conscientious citizens can bring about ‘change’ by electing their own candidate with proven integrity as a Corporator. Dolphy D’Souza, well-known for his selfless social work in his area was supported by right-minded citizens, including celebrities campaigned for him and succeeded in getting him elected.
This experiment can be replicated all over Mumbai, provided the anger and contempt of the citizens of Mumbai can be sustained till the next Municipal elections. Many a times honest and upright citizens do not enter the electoral politics because of the cost of such exercise and intimidation of professional politicians who are threatened by the presence of good candidates. If the citizens so desire they can drastically cut down the expenses on campaigning and other related issues.
We have witnessed how successfully and effectively the modern technology can be used for this purpose. One SMS by an individual could muster a huge crowd in front of the Taj Mahal Hotel on Wednesday, 3rd December 2008, to mourn the victims of previous week’s terrorist attack. Cell phones, blogs, e-mails, etc. can be meaningfully harnessed to canvas support for ‘Citizens’ candidates.
If the well organized and well-knit Citizens’ Action Groups decide to bring about the ‘change’ in Mumbai Municipal Corporation and succeed in their mission, it could act as a model which can be replicated elsewhere and finally at the state and national level. This change can be brought about by the youth and all of us especially the middle-class, who do not leave any occasion to criticize the political system, rather than attempting to ‘change’ it by casting their vote.
First of all let us get ourselves registered in the voters’ list and on the day of election, either at the Municipality level or state level or national level let us not say ‘What difference my single vote will make?’ and use it as a holiday, but go out and vote saying ‘I am the citizen of this nation. I want a good government and security for my family and myself and I’ll exercise my sovereign right to choose my own candidate’.
Well, as a postscript it can be said that we cannot do away with politicians and the system, but we can ‘make a change’ by fielding and electing persons with proven integrity as our political leaders. Let the anger and contempt for the inefficient, corrupt and ‘parasitical’ politicians continue burning in the hearts and minds of the citizens as ember and blow up as a conflagration during the elections.
Dr Eugene D`Souza - Archives: