For anyone who doubts whether Democracy works as a political system, the last few days of the Indian Parliament has shown that democracy, actually, on the ground, does indeed work.
Ok, maybe it did not work as deemed perfect at an ideological scale, but realistically it has shown that it can reflect all the perspectives and views, including minority views; even better it has shown that even small but energetic and motivated grouping can have impact, can have their voices heard.
The background is that there has been an ‘alleged’ Telecom scam which has been exposed by the media. The concerned Minister has resigned not owing responsibility (of any nature, forget moral) but to allow the smooth functioning of the Parliament. The Government of the day is being asked to justify its actions (the political opposition calls it inactions) by the top Judiciary.
So we have a perfect blend of drama for a Jeffrey Archer novel in the vein of ‘Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less’ - the executive branch accused of graft-budging, a legislature up-in-arms, a frowning Judiciary and a ‘valiant’ media.
Thus forth, all well and good. But as always the mad.madrasi perspective is different (has to be different, isn’t it?).
What if all the days the Parliament was adjourned was used instead for debate on the issue of whether to appoint a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) or whether the existing Public Accounts Committee (PAC) will do? Why should We, the people of India, be denied a public discourse and debate on why or why not one or other committee is good or bad?
Both the ruling party and the opposition parties are responsible for this disruption and denial of this opportunity to display their ‘finest’ in action. With all the man hours lost, there would have been enough time for all 545 odd members to state their piece for 5 minutes, if not more. No doubt that we the people would have borne witness to the sensible and fearless arguments put forth.
(I am not responsible if anyone combines and shortens the stated ‘sensible and fearless’)
;-P
The ruling party should have had the grace to accept a ‘wide ranging’ debate - a no holds barred debate on the issue - Of whether to constitute a JPC or to purse with PAC. They have for reasons best known to them kept treading water, waiting for the rescue ship to come in.
The political opposition is equally to blame for the sorry state. They seem to keep moving-the-goal-posts. First they wanted the resignation and once achieved want a JPC probe. When given in they might also want a no-holds-barred debate on the floor of the house.
It is time for all of us to wake up! One just can’t have the cake and eat it too!
The legislature has been entrusted with governance and it is high time for the legislature to start finding ways to do that job. It is always good to remember what happened the last time someone said ‘eat cakes, if not bread’. Democracy encourages ways to carry the views of opponents along, to adjust, compromise, cajole and bargain. There is no room for stubbornness in a democracy while rigidity is a characteristic of authoritarian, constrictive regimes.
My Mischievous half murmurs, ‘maddie you know why both are putting their foot in - PAC cannot question ‘policy’ only how that policy has been executed, whereas JPC can question the basic ‘policy’’.
While my Wicked half whispers, ‘substitute what you like for “miz palin” in this olipant cartoon’
:-D
Ok, maybe it did not work as deemed perfect at an ideological scale, but realistically it has shown that it can reflect all the perspectives and views, including minority views; even better it has shown that even small but energetic and motivated grouping can have impact, can have their voices heard.
The background is that there has been an ‘alleged’ Telecom scam which has been exposed by the media. The concerned Minister has resigned not owing responsibility (of any nature, forget moral) but to allow the smooth functioning of the Parliament. The Government of the day is being asked to justify its actions (the political opposition calls it inactions) by the top Judiciary.
So we have a perfect blend of drama for a Jeffrey Archer novel in the vein of ‘Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less’ - the executive branch accused of graft-budging, a legislature up-in-arms, a frowning Judiciary and a ‘valiant’ media.
Thus forth, all well and good. But as always the mad.madrasi perspective is different (has to be different, isn’t it?).
What if all the days the Parliament was adjourned was used instead for debate on the issue of whether to appoint a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) or whether the existing Public Accounts Committee (PAC) will do? Why should We, the people of India, be denied a public discourse and debate on why or why not one or other committee is good or bad?
Both the ruling party and the opposition parties are responsible for this disruption and denial of this opportunity to display their ‘finest’ in action. With all the man hours lost, there would have been enough time for all 545 odd members to state their piece for 5 minutes, if not more. No doubt that we the people would have borne witness to the sensible and fearless arguments put forth.
(I am not responsible if anyone combines and shortens the stated ‘sensible and fearless’)
;-P
The ruling party should have had the grace to accept a ‘wide ranging’ debate - a no holds barred debate on the issue - Of whether to constitute a JPC or to purse with PAC. They have for reasons best known to them kept treading water, waiting for the rescue ship to come in.
The political opposition is equally to blame for the sorry state. They seem to keep moving-the-goal-posts. First they wanted the resignation and once achieved want a JPC probe. When given in they might also want a no-holds-barred debate on the floor of the house.
It is time for all of us to wake up! One just can’t have the cake and eat it too!
The legislature has been entrusted with governance and it is high time for the legislature to start finding ways to do that job. It is always good to remember what happened the last time someone said ‘eat cakes, if not bread’. Democracy encourages ways to carry the views of opponents along, to adjust, compromise, cajole and bargain. There is no room for stubbornness in a democracy while rigidity is a characteristic of authoritarian, constrictive regimes.
My Mischievous half murmurs, ‘maddie you know why both are putting their foot in - PAC cannot question ‘policy’ only how that policy has been executed, whereas JPC can question the basic ‘policy’’.
While my Wicked half whispers, ‘substitute what you like for “miz palin” in this olipant cartoon’
:-D
Ah well... Govt and opposition like debating only infrnt of media. Parliament is for chilling out. Go there, hv tea, disrupt it and go home.
ReplyDeleteLOL. don't forget the samosas at 25 paise each.
ReplyDelete:-X