Conscience on the margin

It's time that people's movements should join the electoral process and stop policies from being hijacked by politicians in the establishment

Vijay Sanghvi Delhi

India completes 60 years of Independence. The Indian Parliament has already seen four generations of the Nehru-Gandhi family. While Nehru laid a strong foundation for Parliament, the following generations could not sustain the strength of the system or stem its steady deterioration as politics steadily slipped into manipulative games. Governments became more interested in rushing through legislations while oppositions were busy stalling proceedings rather than debating issues of public concern.

As parliamentarians found less time to debate national issues, their function passed on to those who were outside the representative democratic system — the apolitical elements who had no inclination to contest elections. These public interest groups felt that forming parties or belonging to them would inhibit their freedom to raise issues of concern, resolve social and ecological issues, and attend to the development needs of those who are forced to live in deprivation and social, economic and educational inequality even after 60 years of Independence.

Non-government organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations and people's movements function as specialised groups working on specific issues, thereby making coordinated action by all of them impossible. They are too small to make a dramatic impact. However, their campaigns have brought about larger awareness among the people who would generally ignore these issues in the past.

They may not have succeeded in forcing governments to abandon the big dam projects or halt the development of Special Economic Zones in different parts of the country, or warn farmers on the use of genetically modified seeds, but they have succeeded in drawing the attention of various forces, including the judiciary, to intervene.

While one NGO succeeded in raising an alarm over the presence of pesticides in soft drinks, parliamentarians did not question the lacklustre response of the government on the issue. A parliamentary committee studied the problem and made recommendations for corrective measures, but five years on we do not know if bottled water or soft drinks   are any safer.

The inaction by the establishment over such a sensitive issue would naturally lead many to believe that business interests are strongly entrenched in the establishment. Public interest groups have succeeded in raising issues of public concern due to some kind of media support. However, their work is reactive and not proactive. They can prevent or stall a policy from being implemented, but they cannot set new policies and standards.

Policies may appear to be the end result of debates in assemblies, Parliament or in other elective bodies. But they are set in the closed circuits that operate within the establishment and can be manipulated; besides, politicians have little time to study what the coteries present to them.

The public interest groups overlook the fact that their refusal to get into elected positions and set the agenda for policy formulation results in an undermining of the democratic process because they don't have the public endorsement that only elected representatives enjoy. Meanwhile, parliamentarians see no danger to their positions and feel no need to take corrective measures in formulating and debating issues of public concern. This is one crucial reason why Indian democracy seems to be sinking in a degenerative quagmire.