www.civilsocietyonline.com

December 2007 Edition

Comment on this story

 

 

MILINDO CHAKRABARTI

PEOPLE of West Bengal witnessed an event that perhaps cannot happen quite often in one’s lifetime. It unfurled just a few hours before I sat down to write this piece. People in thousands – representing no political outfits, raising no political slogans, raising no flags either – walked silently down the road to protest against the mayhem that West Bengal and the rest of the country saw happening in Nandigram. Sandwiched between the struggle of two political parties – West Bengal has long been polarised between‘we’ and ‘they’ – common people had to bear the brunt as they ended up not only losing lives in scores but also their properties and dignity.

Human rights were violated with impunity. Indians are often praised globally for having painstakingly maintained a vibrant democratic culture since Independence. Our country’s achievements look more prominent when they are compared to the failure of a democratic ethos taking roots in neighbouring countries like China, Pakistan, Myanmar, Nepal and Bangladesh. In terms of size, India is the largest democratic country in the world and claims a legitimate position of global respect vis-à-vis the USA – the country practicingdemocracy for more than two centuries, spread over a large land mass. Democracy lays emphasis on the State facilitating activities that are “of the people, by the people and for the people”. But often situations arise where an action may not be beneficial to all citizens. A certain decision may well hamper the interest of one group of society with another group yielding considerable benefits. A simple operational rule to resolve such conflicts emerged in the form of the majority principle. If a decision by the state benefits more than half the population, the majority principle of democracy expects the decision to be implemented.

However, questions remain. The duty of the state is to protect the life, livelihood and property of each citizen. Should decisions be taken that are acceptable to the majority but capable of harming the interests of a minority group – their source of livelihood, their lives or their dignity? Unfortunately, no clearcut rule exists to resolve such a crisis. The managers of statecraft are expected to use their wisdom and experience to arrive at a meaningful decision. They use their foresight and conviction to convince people to an agreement that has the capacity to ensure gain for all in the longer run, even if the short term implications of such a decision may go against the interests of the majority. The arguments of positive discrimination in favour of minorities are premised on such an understanding of society. Make no mistake! Democracy never expects a politician to be infallible. The powers that be who are not necessarily always on the right track stand the chance of being unseated in the next election. That’s the beauty of a democracy What if political leaders lack foresight or are interested in short term gains alone? They may well take decisions that are populist, short-sighted and often against the long term interest of the state.

A powerful opposition to the ruling political party is thus a necessary, if not sufficient condition for the success of a democratic system. The opposition is expected to keep a thorough watch on the activities and decisions of those in power. Their duty is to blow the whistleas and when the ruling party is visibly off the track in managing statecraft. Quite logically, the opposition leaders are also expected to use their conscience, foresight, conviction and wisdom to protect the lives and properties of all the citizens of the state. What happens if both these groups behave irresponsibly? Nandigram happens. A huge rally with the spontaneous participation of concerned citizens – a guess estimate puts the figure at more than 60,000 spirited souls – takes place.

People of Kolkata witnessed many such big rallies earlier. But they were all organised by different political parties. There is a qualitative difference. Unlike those big rallies organised by political parties in Kolkata earlier, this rally never involved ferrying participants in trucks and vans from different parts of the state. No food packets were arranged for the participants. As is often alleged to be the standard practice of political parties, no allurement money was paid to the participants either. The resultant traffic jam will surely not encourage public interest litigations in the Kolkata High Court. Should we be happy with this historic event? Yes and no. One is happy to find a spontaneous expression of concern by common people and enraged disapproval of the way the ruling party handled the issue in Nandigram. One is simultaneously unhappy to witness the abysmal failure of opposition parties to behave responsibly in identifying a solution to the Nandigram issue. Civil society reactions have forced many a ruler across the globe to godown on their knees and relinquish power. Some such ousters laid the foundations of a better future for their society. A good number of such reactions ended in ultimate disaster. Several factors determine the future impact of a civil society intervention. The capacity of civil society to identify the political leadership that will guide the masses through the turmoil and channelise their energy towards a brighter tomorrow is one very important requirement to sustain the onslaught against an erring ruling power. Civil society upsurges can ignite the initial spark.

But they cannot ensure sustained burning of the candle. The fuel necessary to keep the flame burning continuously has to be supplied by the political system. Civil society protests against the Iraqi war brought thousands of Americans together. We were enthralled to see footages in the electronic media. Michel Moore’s interpretation of 9/11 provided important clues about the wrongdoing of the Bushadministration. However, the arrogance of the President could not be chained in any perceptible degree. Maybe the opposition political group will be reinstated by the forthcoming election. Maybe not, if they are not strong enough. Civil society had to take up cudgels against the present government in West Bengal because of the perceptible vacuum created by the opposition parties. What if a strong political opposition does not emerge in time to fill this vacuum?

The juggernaut will roll on for years to come and the people will surely lose confidence in their capacity to undo the wrongs perpetrated by an arrogant ruling party. The driving force of a democratic polity may dry up for ever. Are we up to the challenge?

MilindoChakrabarti is director of
CREATE (Centre for Studies in Rural Economy, Appropriate Technology and Environment)
E-mail: milindo62@gmail.com Phone: 913542270555.

Want to give feedback on this article

Name Email Subject Feedback (Not more than 250 character)

 

Disclaimer

The views expressed here are strictly personal and civilsocietyonline.com does not necessarily subscribe to them. We shall endeavour to upload/publish as many of the comments that are submitted as possible within a reasonable span of time, but we do not guarantee that all comments that are submitted will be uploaded/published. Messages that harass, abuse or threaten other members; have obscene, unlawful, defamatory, libellous, hateful, or otherwise objectionable content; or have spam, commercial or advertising content or links are liable to be removed by the editors. We also reserve the right to edit the comments that do get published. Please do not post any private information unless you want it to be available publicly.

 

About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | ©2007 Civil Society

.
........................................Webmaster Vishwanathan ( vishu4@rediffmail.com )