Dangers of competitive politics

The stage for the politics of competition is set by the politics of denial. If the first is to be contained, the extent of the second must be ameliorated

Hamid Ansari Delhi

All politics is competitive; to think otherwise is an exercise in delusion. Politics is about power and the capacity of social agents to maintain or transform their social and physical environments. It involves choices and necessitates both the philosophical analysis of principles and the empirical understanding of political processes and structures.

In an ideal setting, political agents would compete rationally to make rational choices. At the other end of the spectrum, irrationality would be pervasive. Given human nature, the first is elusive and the second not infrequent.

The people of India gave themselves a Constitution famed for its fairness and accommodative capacity. A generation has tested its efficacy. Do the people constitute a singular entity? If not, their perceptions would not always converge and their politics cannot but be competitive and contentious. The real question is of the nature, content and extent of competitiveness.

In the early years of independence, national cohesion was among the primary concerns. The apprehension of physical balkanisation was misplaced. With the passage of decades, however, and despite the unifying impulse of the market, a balkanisation of the mind has set in. Why has it happened? One explanation for the rise of regionalism lies in the inequities of the growth process.

The dominant assumption, wrote social scientist, Rajni Kothari, was that the imperatives of nation-building would take over the parochial structures of caste and community: "These assumptions have since been belied. As we think backward and examine our record on the promises that were held out by the system and the dominant ideology of development to the poor and the oppressed peoples…we are struck by our incapacity and growing powerlessness before the vested interests that have acted in concert to take the system in completely different directions."

What were the promises? These are encapsulated in the Preamble of the Constitution, in its vision of social, economic and political justice, of equality of status and opportunity and of fraternity that would ensure the dignity of the individual and the cohesion of the nation. The instrumentality is equality before the law, prevention of discrimination, and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. A doctrine of affirmative action is enunciated in Articles 15(4) and 16(4), and elsewhere in that sacred text.

Each of these was attempted; each achieved partial success; each failed in some measure. As in all politics, the dispensation of justice depended on who succeeded in capturing and controlling political power. The reality of caste was consciously reinforced even when pious exhortations urged its denial. Minorities, particularly Muslims, suffered on account of a double denial — of being poor and being Muslim.

The democratic form camouflaged this harsher reality; the democratic practice allowed the better organised to be rewarded, in disproportionate measure, and to rule in the name of the majority even when they did not constitute a majority. The judiciary interpreted the text and the context in its own light; the reason for this was given much earlier by Justice Cardozo of the US Supreme Court: "We may try to see things as objectively as we please. Nonetheless, we can never see them with any eyes except our own."

The functioning of such a system permitted a formal allegiance to national cohesion to be combined with the actual promotion of sectional interests of caste, community, locality or region. With the passage of time, this practice came to acquire wide acceptance. It also got accentuated. Practical politics was built upon this ground reality.

The electoral system recognises first-past-the-post irrespective of the percentage of votes polled. The candidate does not seek a majority either in absolute terms or in terms of votes cast and feels no need to develop a wider consensus. Instead, the requirement is of a critical percentage that would edge past a competitor endeavouring to do likewise. The cohesion gained is of a temporary nature; it does not pretend to have durable glue.

Thus, the elected representative, despite pretensions, is not always representative of the majority of the electorate in his constituency.

He/she represents a minority that has prevailed over one or more other minorities who would, in defeat, strengthen their resolve to overcome the setback. How would they go about it?

We need answers to two questions. In the first place, does this procedure of formal representation reflect adversely on the diversity of the electorate? Secondly, if the actual majority does not find representation, how will its interests and viewpoints be articulated in a system in which the elected representative, at any level, does influence in some measure the allocation of developmental resources?

Experience shows that exclusion in political representation eventually results in denial of an adequate share in fruits of representation. 'Adequate' in this context can only be interpreted in terms of the promise of equality and justice given in the Preamble. This, under the present dispensation, is denied to the loser as also to women, religious minorities and other marginalised groups. Their clamour for a share is audible; it is also justified.

The stage for the politics of competition is thus set by the politics of denial. If the first is to be contained, the extent of the second must be ameliorated. The argument for first-past-the-post system, as a safeguard for political stability, no longer holds. Coalition politics has become the order of the day. In this context, some form of proportional representation would be more adequately reflective of public preferences. A debate on this should not be shunned; there may be lessons here from the European experience.

In India, the politics of competition has also become the politics of agitation. One reason for this is the decline in the functioning of legislatures. MPs and MLAs do in the House what they should be doing, legitimately, on the street. In the process, the duty of debate and scrutiny is neglected. Governments are not held accountable on a day-to-day basis. Legislative control has become perfunctory and compares poorly with the functioning of democratic legislature elsewhere in the world.

The answer to increased incidence of competitiveness does not lie in denial; nor can it be rolled back through coercion. The exercise begins by revisiting the concept of affirmative action. It is a methodology, not a dogma. Its objective is substantive equality. Its field of action is the stark reality of the Indian landscape, camouflaged by ancient and modern formulae of denial.

The Constitution prescribes the criteria for affirmative action. Sufficient data is available to permit fair dispensation, without exclusion. It has to be need-based, not hereditary, a system of periodic review to assess impact, and to allow for up-gradation or down-gradation, thus unavoidable to maintain its objectivity. The Article 334 review of reservation of seats in legislatures needs to be a substantive exercise rather than one of deferment.

Competitive politics has highlighted deprivation and injustice and should be viewed as a wake-up call. It has shed light on the dangers of selectivity that have characterised the functioning of the political system. These sentiments, once aroused, necessitate correctives in terms of institutional efficacy in the political system and equitable distribution of fruits of development leading to substantive equality. Delays aggravate matters. “The excesses of people,” wrote Machiavelli, “are directed against those whom they suspect of interfering with the public good.”

The writer is a former Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations