UNDERSTANDING DEMOCRACY

P M Ravindran, raviforjustice@gmail.com

The crisp definition of democracy-rule of the people, by the people, for the people- was
popularized by one of the most popular presidents of the US of A, Abraham Lincoln. But the
idea had initially been mooted by Plato in his book Republic (380 BC).

Direct democracy, where people participated directly in the governance of the society, had
existed in Athens, Greece, in it’s hey days. What we have today is representative
democracy, where governance is through elected representatives. Even here there are two
types- the Parliamentary type and the Presidential. In the former, we have political parties
contesting elections and the party that gets majority among the successful candidates
heads the government. In the Presidential type people directly elect the President to head
the government and the President chooses his own team of Secretaries to assist him. But in
democracies like Philippines the government is formed by all the parties sharing portfolios
in proportion to the seats won by their candidates. While collective responsibility is a plus
point there, the absence of a strong opposition to provide the requisite checks and balances
is also a bane. Parliamentary democracies can also have the Monarch as the Head of the
State as in UK.

By default, these governments are transient. The tenures of elected representatives vary. It
is 4 years in the US of A and 5 years in India. The continuity in government is provided by
the bureaucracy. They are responsible for record keeping and follow up actions that include
the executive functions of governance that are duly delegated by the President.

Democracies usually have another institution that is very much part of the government but
insulated from the other two organs. It is the judiciary, responsible for interpreting the laws
in the context of disputes brought before them. Since democracies lay a great stress on rule
of law the onus on this institution is also quite high.

Thus we have, essentially, three organs of government in any democracy: the legislature,
the executive and the judiciary. Since India also has a federal form of governance they are
replicated at the state level too. Though we have also introduced a three tier Panchayati Raj
System-the Gram Panchayat, the Block Panchayat and the District Panchayat- below the
state, the powers devolved and resources made available are not commensurate with the
projected objectives of grass roots democracy.

Whether at the national or state level, one can often hear the refrain of balance of powers
between the various organs and checks and balances. Before we go to analyse these issues
let us kill another question: who is the Head of Government at the national level in our
country?

Head of the Nation State is the President of India. He is elected by a Collegium of MPs and
MLAs. No bills passed by the Parliament will be effective until it is approved by the
President. It is only when the President approves that the Bill it becomes an Act that can be
implemented as a law.

Interestingly, the Governors in the States are in the image of the President but they are not
elected, even indirectly. They are simply appointed by the President on the
recommendation of the Union Cabinet. As such they have a dubious reputation of being
agents of the political party heading the ‘government’ at the Centre.
For now we shall limit our analysis to the Union Government.

I have stated earlier that the Head of the Nation is the President. It is not merely titular. He
is the overall Head of the Government and is assisted by the Union Cabinet of Ministers
headed by the Prime Minister. The PM headed cabinet is strictly the interface between the
legislators in Parliament and the Executive under the President. Here is a tricky situation
which could be confusing. But this confusion arises from the fact that there is
preponderance on the authority of the Prime Minister due to our acceptance of a
democratic form of government. It is a given that the Prime Minister wields the ultimate
authority on behalf of ‘the People’. But how he wields it need to be analysed in detail
because the first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, himself had reduced the office of the
President to a rubber stamp. So it is not unusual to hear even the PM being referred to as
the CEO or the Head of the Government itself.

For the moment we can sidestep the turf battles between the first PM and the Presidents of
his time. I shall just highlight one factor that will leave no room for doubt that the President
is the Head of the Government in general and the Executive organ of the Constitution in
particular. Just look at any Government Order. It is always issued in the name of the
President.

So we have to get this clear that it is the President of India who is the Head of the Nation
and its Government. The Prime Minister and his cabinet are just that- ministers giving
counsel and help in administration. Yes, the Prime Minister is directly elected by the citizens
and, along with the parliamentarians, represents the will of the people. It is this pre
eminence that is expressed through the provision that when a Bill is not acceptable to the
President he can only send it back and if it is presented again, with or without changes, it
has to be approved by the President. This does not dilute the powers or status of the
President as he is also an elected entity, though indirectly. Coming to the importance of
directly elected and indirectly elected let us not forget that Dr Man Mohan Singh who was
the Prime Minister for 10 years had only been a member of the Rajya Sabha and not the Lok
Sabha.

The role of the Executive is to provide administration in accordance with the laws framed by
the Parliament and approved by the President. Authority to exercise discretion in taking
decisions is delegated in a calibrated manner to enable effective and efficient
administration. But abuse and misuse of this discretion cannot be ruled out. However there
are provisions in the Indian Penal Code to address this also. The problem is only in using
these provisions when needed.

This is a process that requires continuous tuning and refinement. For this to happen there is
a need for an effective feedback system. One is of course through the elected
representatives who are duty bound to have their ears to the ground and pick up every
signal for change that his constituency demands. The media, often touted as the fourth
pillar of the Constitution, is also a feedback channel. There has to be another one that is
directly available 24X7. http://pgportal.gov.in/ is an attempt to provide this, if used diligently.

It is unfortunate that in our country the performance of none of these channels are
satisfactory. Has anybody experienced or heard of any MP or MLA discussing legislations in
the offing with their constituencies? One MLA in Kerala, new to his job, used Facebook to
seek public opinion on a bill being presented in the Legislative Assembly. The next we heard
was that he had been ticked off by the Speaker of the Assembly for breach of privilege of
the House. And if anyone has observed the interactions that these elected representative
have with the public there is a doubt that should have come up in their minds: are we
electing these people to merely inaugurate various functions in their constituencies or
project the will of the majority of their constituency during legislation?

Let me recollect an event. We were commemorating the death anniversary of an

environmental activist, Sri Indiannur Gopi, of Palakkad in his hometown. On the dais were a
good number of current and ex MLAs. The special guest for the occasion was Sri Rajinder
Singh, the Waterman of India. He was to speak on his experience in rejuvenating water
bodies in the desert villages of Rajasthan and offer suggestions to bring alive the
Bharathapuzha river, a project for which Sri Indiannur Gopi had dedicated his life. All the
MLAs mouthed the usual nice words and left. And the guest speaker never mixed words in
condemning the attitude of the MLAs who could not spare time to listen to the suggestions
he had to offer. Little did he know that it was not an exception and that his words too were
lost to thin air.

Am I being too much of a cynic? Just try and recollect any legislation that is in keeping with
the aspirations of the people. Or try posting a suggestion/feedback/complaint at the pg
portal.

It should be obvious that when we discuss checks and balances between these three organs
there should be practically no interference by any other organ in the legitimate functions of
any organ.

Unfortunately there are plenty of reports that suggest political interference in the functions
of the Executive. Even political party leaders at the lowest level are reportedly interfering
with the day to day functions of institutions of public administration, including police.

I once sought information under the RTI Act on the posting of District Collectors and
Superintendents of Police in the 14 districts of Kerala. I was shocked that except for
Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam and Kozhikkode, the average tenure of these public
servants had been less than one year. In the three districts it was nearly 3 years, the
standard tenure. It revealed not just simple political interference but a deliberate effort to
deny opportunity to these important functionaries of administration to settle down and be
effective. The even more sordid conclusion is that though the IAS and IPS are the most
influential lobbies in the country they would not take up this issue of denial of standard
tenure for them to work effectively and efficiently.

While posting as an unofficial punishment is an unwritten rule throughout our country, it

seems to be the only modus operandi known to the political masters to keep the
bureaucracy toeing their line. This has been disastrous in the delivery of government
services to the citizens.

While bureaucrats have been blaming political interference for their failure to perform and
even corruption, there are many reports that blame the bureaucracy directly for impeding
the progress of the nation through their sloppy procedures, euphemistically called the red
tape.

This is what Raghunandan Raghavan, a former member of IAS, had written:

There are actually six kinds of officers as follows, in two categories, the corrupt and the
honest. The corrupt consist of the demanders (those who are aggressive and demand
money), the takers (who often accept favours in kind) and the intellectually dishonest
 (who might not take money, but are not averse to giving the wrong advice or looking
away, and who play the caste, region and old school tie card to get plum postings). The
honest too fall into three categories; the honest doer, the honest non-doer (who comes
to office and just pushes files put up to him/her) and the honest un-doer (who sees the
honest doer as his greatest and most proximate enemy.) The only ones who actually get
anything done are the honest doer and in some cases, the intellectually dishonest.

Now why does this happen? Because you cannot expect people to remain excellent if all
they need to do is to pass one exam early in ones life and then sail along protected from
competition. It is like saying that since Sachin scored a century in his first match, he will
be captain for 35 years. The IAS offers a great comfort zone for people. The way out is to
throw open the bureaucracy to lateral entry. This has already been suggested by the
Administrative Reforms Commission and in some sense by the 6th Pay Commission. But
both these reports again go to Committees of Secretaries, for implementation! It is no
surprise therefore, that these recommendations have not been implemented! By the
way, what is said above is true of the police, the income tax, the audits and accounts
service and indeed, of all permanently recruited bureaucrats.

Suffice to say that the politicians and bureaucrats are hand in glove in making a mess of
governance and life miserable for the law abiding citizens.

When it comes to judiciary we were taught in our school that they not only sit in judgment
over disputes between citizens but also between citizens and the government and
between governments. The mandate is not only to sit in judgment over disputes but also
protect the citizens from government excesses. But then it can easily be said that this is the
institution that has failed the citizens more than any other. It is not only a failure from the
point of view of justice delayed is justice denied but also from the point of view that justice
should not only be done but seen to be done. Some reports state that it would take 325
years for our courts to clear the backlog of cases, if no cases were to be filed henceforth.
This failure has also directly affected the other organs of the Constitution because they are
not bothered about the laws and tend to push the ordinary citizens to the court. After filing
a case in the court the only thing that the aggrieved citizen can do is to wait for death to
visit them and relieve them of all agonies.

To conclude, here are some statics:

Constitution of USA (adopted on September 17, 1787 (232 yrs back), is less than 12 pages
and 4400 words, It is the oldest written Constitution and comprises of just 7 Articles, It has
been amended merely 27 times. The last amendment (27th) was proposed in 1789 and
enacted in 1992!!

Constitution of India, (adopted on January 26, 1950 , 69 yrs back) is more than 450 pages
and 1,17,000 words. It comprises of whopping 450 Articles, and has been amended 116
times! The problem with this voluminous Constitution is that everybody agrees that ‘you
can’t live by the book’ and so it is back to ‘might is right’.

We can all now agree with Thomas Jefferson who had observed that “When the people fear
the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”

30 Jun 2019.