Paralysis from Policy to Parliament

Policy paralysis. Parliament paralysed by disruption. This is the order, rather disorder, of the day. We could call it the crisis of parliamentary democracy. But no, I don’t agree. It is artificial chaos manufactured in the political factories by petty politicians of all hues whose only concern is power. Power at any cost. Once the power equation changes, it is the same old story. Change? Yes, but only for big beneficiaries. The plight of the common citizen does not change. We’ve seen it over the years. Those who shout loud from the top of their political roofs repeat what their predecessors did when seated under the roof of power.

What I wrote above may seem like the cry of a cynic. Make no mistake about it, I am an eternal optimist. I believe in change, and that change can come only from the people. But I dislike short-change.  And I despise politicians who take the people for a ride. The paralysis that our nation is now witnessing is a politician-made-paralysis. Only when we understand this political cynicism will we be inspired by true optimism. Eternal optimism that springs from the heart and lifts up the mind. You are not weighed down by physical or monetary considerations, or possibilities within a horizon limited by a time frame. You are not merely fighting a battle but  participating in a  war. You study the situation and find that some of those in the forefront of the battle are merely masks. Not true leaders. True leaders do come, may be they are already among us. When we encounter them, we will actually understand the meaning of the Mahatma: Buddha. Gandhi. Mandela. Suu Kyi.

The last great leaders who inspired change were Jayaprakash Narayan in 1979 and Vishwanath Pratap Singh in 1989. Both were clean. Therefore they could stand up to the regime. People recognized the moment and voted for change. But they did not measure up to the Mahatma’s level. The change that they brought about was only in political dispensation. And it was only temporary because many political operators who assumed power were no different from those whom they had replaced. Many were opportunists  who climbed the popular bandwagon either because they had no scope on the ruling side or because they guessed rightly that the opposition side would win.

The third change came about at the turn of the century because there was a tall personality leading the National Democratic Front: Atal Bihari Vajpayee. People trusted him and wanted to see him as their Prime Minister.

Today it is a different scenario altogether. For all the sound and fury, who among the opposition leaders has the standing to inspire change? I have expressed my reservations in the past about Dr Manmohan Singh continuing as our Prime Minister after completing eight years. But after observing the obstruction in the Parliament for a week, I am beginning to revise my opinion. Dr Singh still has dignity and personal integrity. I liked what he said on 27^th August: “My general practice is not to respond to motivated criticism directed at me. My philosophy has been ‘hazaaron jawaabon se achchi  hai meri khamoshi’ ( my silence is better than a thousand answers). But in this case, I wanted to respond and was not allowed to.” It was an aberration not to allow the Prime Minister to speak for so many days. Not to allow a debate to take place. What is the Parliament for, if not to debate, clarify, propose and legislate? If the BJP wanted the Prime Minister to resign, why did they not go for a no-confidence motion? That would have been the right thing to do. In any case, when the Prime Minister resigns, a new government has to be formed. The new Prime Minister has to form a new cabinet. The Prime Minister’s resignation is not like that of any other minister. No short cuts.

But a no-confidence motion is a serious matter on the agenda. Members from both sides have to speak. In a debate the best arguments can be put forth by both sides and misdeeds exposed and recorded. The citizens of the country get a chance to judge irrespective of the outcome of the debate. That’s parliamentary democracy. What we witnessed was not just absence of dialogue and debate. It was the tyranny of the opposition party: no matter what your numbers, you must do what we demand.

I have not gone into the issue, the bone of contention. Too many have commented on it, both in  print and electronic media. I will only say that this issue is also an example of paralysis of policy. When the UPA government wanted to go for coal blocks allocation through auction in 2004, the states then ruled by the opposition parties stiffly disagreed. Now the same parties are fighting the government on the policy which was also followed by them when they were ruling. This is political expediency par excellence.

Can any significant change be expected if those now in opposition win the 2014 elections? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

Published in The Navhind Times, Panorama 02.09.2012