The varied responses from the stakeholders of the anti-corruption movement, or the Jan Lokpal Bill agitation, are interesting; they reveal the many myths that keep the discourse between those who represent and/or support the "system" and those who are on the streets protesting with Anna Hazare on different levels. Three leading myths I've deconstructed below:
Myth #1: The agitators are holding the system to ransom, and that cannot be allowed. The movement, and the spontaneous flow of people on to the streets, is precisely this: hold the system to ransom to reform it. The view of the vast majority of people in India is that the "system" is not functioning. Indian media has regularly exposed the inefficiency, waste and corruption in the system. Indians are aware of the relatively better access to public services across the globe and are not ready to accept a sub-optimal functioning of the system. By pouring on to the streets, citizens of this country are suggesting that they are no longer content letting the system alone, to be run by politicians and bureaucrats (including all levels of government and across various departments) according to their whims and fancies. They will hold the system to ransom, if it does not deliver what they want. To ignore or attempt to squash this cry would be to risk moving into an Arab-world like crisis.
Myth #2: Only elected representatives have the right to executive and legislative functioning. The legislative and executive powers of the elected representatives flow from the people. If the citizens think that their representatives are not likely to pick up the "right" issues, they will act to force their hand. This is partly based on the political situation in India. If people vote a certain government into power, it does not mean that they are ready to accept everything that political party represents. Nor are they likely to neglect the acts of omission and commission. Citizens, after all, did not vote in favour of scams and inflation. The frustration also runs deep because electing the opposition into power may, or rather will, not change the system. So people will vote a party into power that is aligned, as much as possible, with their thinking; but they will also force them to take up issues that are critical to improving the performance of the system.
Myth #3: Anna's act has been merely theatrical. Anna Hazare's courting arrest turned out to be a strategic masterstroke, similar to Gandhiji's Dandi march. The government was shown to be using excessive force in quelling a peaceful movement. Having arrested Anna, if they release him unconditionally, they will be seen to have lost ground or bowed down to pressure. The government has got itself into a bind, and it appears very difficult to untangle the knot. However, this could also be an extraordinary opportunity for the ruling party to do itself a great favour. One parallel comes from the corporate world. Before Toyota, for the first time, recalled its cars due to a manufacturing defect, it was considered a suicidal move in the automobile industry. No one had tried it, and no one dared try it. Toyota, however, managed to build trust and close relationship with its customers by openly admitting its mistake and rectifying it. Can our politicians move out of a "feudal" mindset and agree to be led by the people?
The point is not to demonise the system. Clearly, if the country is growing at 8% or more, we have got some parts of the system right. We do have some honest and efficient politicians and bureaucrats in this country. However, having witnessed the benefits of 8% growth for a decade, the current generation wants more. They want India to be comparable to the best in the world. There is no reason why we cannot achieve it, except if we are held to ransom by an archaic, inefficient, and corrupt system that does not respond to current needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment