The History of Democracy- Is Anna a Manna from Heaven?

Someone recently joked that, Santa Singh & Banta Singh are on the verge of committing suicide. Why?? Because Manmohan Singh & Anna Hazare have replaced them as the most joked about people in last few weeks!

By now there will not be too many middle class Indians in the world who have not heard about Anna Hazare or the Lokpal bill. As is the wont of the middle class (I am one of them), most have some opinion or the other about the issue. But, I would not bet my salary on how many of them actually know in detail about the issues involved.
What’s my opinion on the issue? I feel the Lokpal bill questions the form of rule which the constitution framers of India had decided, in all their wisdom, for the country- Representative Democracy.

So, is it really is the most suitable form of governance for a country of over 1 billion, or for that matter any country?

Apparently, democracy is not such a new concept after all. Some concepts of democracy have been followed in Ancient Athens way back around 500 B.C. These folks had a form of democracy, in which every citizen voted for himself for every bill or legislation. It’s called Direct Democracy. It was not really such a cumbersome idea back then, considering population in these city states was few hundred thousand at most, and women, children, slaves and foreigners were not considered part of the voting citizenry. So, most of these city states had just a few thousand voting citizens. In Sparta for instance, only men above the age of 30 were considered as citizens with voting rights.

Ancient Rome was also another follower of democracy. What is interesting to note is that even in those times, corruption was rampant and senators resorting to bribes to influence the results was commonplace. This, in the great Roman Empire, and not in a third world country like India. Apparently, even the great Julius Caesar was not above resorting to the not so noble means of bribery! I guess some habits are too old to eradicate. Of course, once Caesar’s powers became absolute, he reduced the powers of the republic and became a dictator, which may have been the cause of his increasing unpopularity amongst the Roman aristocracy and eventual assassination.
Over the ages, there seems to be a propensity amongst human beings for the democratic form of governance. Their success in different parts of the world in different ages may have been to varying degrees. But, there has been no lack of attempt.

Be it the Aztecs in Central America electing a supreme speaker, the Althing or parliament of Iceland founded in 930 AD, the Sejm in Poland or the election of Gopala, the founder of the Pala dynasty in Bengal in 8th century AD, democracy has been practiced since a pretty long time.

And though the tenure of democracy may be pretty long and illustrious, even longer has been the existence of corruption. In fact, one can safely say that as long as there has been civilization, corruption has been its steady companion.
But, there is nothing to suggest that democracy has done any harm to the cause of human rights. In fact, in contemporary times, the eastern European countries, which were part of the Eastern Bloc or satellites of the former Soviet Union, have all embraced democratic parliamentary elections post USSR collapse and seen improved human rights and improved social and economic standards. Be it Poland under Lech Walesa, Romania under Ion Iliescu or Bulgaria under Zhelyu Zhelev, most of the eastern bloc countries saw improved economic conditions post democracy in the early nineties. Needless to say, with varying degrees of success. But, the improvements did not come overnight and some of these countries faced severe economic and social problems initially before tasting success.
So, is it a good idea to tamper with the democratic system of governance? I say no. The solution for corruption cannot be a Lokpal in which few people will pass judgement on who is corrupt and who is not. And who is to monitor whether the decisions of the Lokpal have not been influenced by factors other than yearning for justice?
If we really want to make the country less corrupt, the search has to be inward rather than outward. There are enough existing agencies to check corruption in India. The challenge is to ensure that the people in charge are honest in discharging their duties rather than creating another new agency. Will the people manning the Lokpal be from another country or planet, who are immune to or unaware of the concepts of external pulls and pressures and temptations? I have my doubts.

Anna Hazare, to my mind, has been able to create a vent for the pent up frustration in the people of India. As on date, that seems to be the only achievement from the drama which unfolded last few weeks. Of course, it’s very important to find release to pent up emotions, else they can explode and cause serious damage.

But, as someone commented, it’s not as if corruption did not exist earlier in India or that its quantum was less. It’s only with the increased media presence and scrutiny, their exposure has increased. Is it a good thing? I am not qualified enough to comment. But, free speech, one of the perks of democracy, which allowed Hazare, in the first place to get the publicity in last few weeks and months, may be threatened, if absolute power is given to a bunch of people, not answerable to the people of India.

Some of the salient points of the Lokpal bill which I find impractical to implement:
1. Will have power to initiate action or receive complaints of corruption from public- How does Lokpal plan to tackle the flood of complaints and subsequent delay in meting out judgement and punishment? Will it not be a repetition of the Indian Judiciary?

2. Will have power to initiate prosecution of guilty- Again issues of sufficient manpower. How does Lokpal guarantee corruption free judgement? And what role does the existing Judiciary system have in such a scenario?

3. Will have police powers and ability to register FIRs- If Lokpal has police powers, they would need to investigate cases. Will they have sufficient manpower or expertise to carry out the same? Will it not make the existing police force redundant?

Instead of creating another body, is it not a better idea to try and reform the existing systems?

• Why not make the enforcement agencies, like the CBI and police independent like the Election Commission, free of political pulls and pressures? Hazare can fight and increase awareness so that these bodies are not answerable to political masters.

• The biggest challenge to the Indian Judiciary is the sheer number of pending cases in the courts. Why not show some political will and open more courts, employ more people, increase automation and get rid of archaic systems. I am sure, this is easier said than done, but, isn’t it better than creating a parallel judiciary?

Tell me what you think...thank god (I mean democracy) for free speech!