MARIAN PINHEIRO
The constitutional promise of democracy extends be yond periodic elections. In India, the opening words of the Constitution, “We, the people of India”, establish popular sover eignty as the ultimate source of all political authority. Democ racy, therefore, is not merely procedural but substantive, re quiring governance that contin uously reflects the will, welfare and dignity of the people. Yet, the lived experience of democracy in Goa, and in creasingly across India, reveals a deep rupture between con stitutional ideals and political practice. Elections have become spectacles of power, finance and identity mobilisation. Govern ance has been reduced to trans actional politics, coalition arith metic and patronage networks. Once elected, representatives often sever organic ties with the electorate, re-emerging only at the next electoral cycle. In Goa, this rupture is par ticularly stark. A small state with fragile ecosystems, comu nidade land systems, dense so cial networks and a historically participatory civic culture has witnessed accelerated environ mental degradation, specula tive land conversion, regulatory capture and elite consolidation of power. Casinos, real estate expansion, coastal destruction, forest diversion and infrastruc ture projects have proceeded often against local consent, sometimes in open defiance of village assemblies and gram sabhas. This democratic deficit has generated a contemporary awakening—what may legiti mately be described as a Peo ple’s Power movement—espe cially among rural communities, women, environmental defend ers and local collectives. This movement does not seek chaos or anarchy; rather, it seeks the restoration of democracy to its constitutional and ethical core. Mahatma Gandhi’s doctrine of trusteeship offers a moral grammar for democratic gov ernance. Trusteeship rejects the notion of ownership of power and wealth, replacing it with custodianship on behalf of so ciety. Political authority, under this doctrine, is exercised not as entitlement but as responsi bility. This conception resonates deeply with Indian constitu tional values. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that public power is a trust, not private property. In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2G Spectrum Case), the Court held that nat ural resources are held by the State in trust for the people, and their allocation must conform to transparency, fairness and public interest.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Trusteeship, therefore, is not merely Gandhian idealism—it is constitutional realism. Political parties in Goa in creasingly function as vehicles for corporate manipulation rather than platforms of public accountability. Electoral prom ises often dissolve post-election, replaced by ministerial negotia tions and power consolidation. Although Goa has a strong statutory framework recognis ing gram sabhas, their resolu tions are routinely overridden through administrative noti fications, project exemptions and legislative dilution. This undermines the constitutional mandate of local self-govern ment under Part IX of the Con stitution. Mining leases, linear infra structure projects and real estate conversions have pro ceeded despite widespread lo cal opposition, raising serious concerns under Articles 21 and 48A of the Constitution. Indian Supreme Court jurisprudence strongly supports participatory governance. The sustained mobilisation against illegal mining in Goa culminated in Supreme Court intervention cancelling mining leases. This movement exempli fies People’s Power compelling institutional accountability. Village-level resistance to power corridors, highways and rail expansion has fore grounded the tension between “development” and democratic consent. Women’s collectives in rural Goa have emerged as frontline defenders of land, water and forests, revitalising participatory democracy at the grassroots. These movements reflect constitutional self-de fence, not obstructionism. People’s movements have achieved remarkable results internationally. In Iceland, cit izen-led constitutional reform following financial collapse demonstrated the capacity of people’s movements to disman tle elite capture.
In Switzerland, institutionalised direct democ racy ensures continuous public oversight, significantly reducing corruption. In Brazil (Porto Ale gre), participatory budgeting decentralised fiscal power and enhanced transparency have strengthened democracy. Even in the Philippines, non-violent People’s Power dismantled en trenched authoritarianism. These cases confirm that Peo ple’s Power, when institution alised, strengthens democracy rather than destabilising it. People’s Power is not an al ternative to the Constitution; it is the Constitution in action. In ecologically vulnerable regions like Goa, democracy cannot survive as a periodic ritual—it must function as a continuous moral and political practice. Unless power is restored to its rightful status as trust, the cycle of exploitation will per sist—predictable, tragic and devastating. Goans should im mediately insist upon: Gram sabha empowerment Make gram sabha resolutions legally binding on land use and environmental matters Mandatory quorum and re corded voting People’s Environmental Con sent Framework Free, Prior and Informed Con sent (FPIC) for all major pro jects Social audit legislation Independent social audit bod ies with enforcement powers Citizen oversight councils Statutory councils to monitor mining, infrastructure and real estate Public trust doctrine codifi cation State legislation explicitly adopting public trust principles There should be a law for gram sabha consent for land and environmental decisions. Statutory social audits of major projects should be mandatory. Citizens should insist on public performance reviews of elect ed representatives. Goa should have independent citizen over sight councils. In every land conversion or mega project, there should be transparent dis closure of political and financial interests, even in the allotment of contracts. Such initiatives will reduce corruption and nepotism, strengthen environmental protection, and restore public confidence in governance, and will augur in sustainable, peo ple-centric development. Goa’s future depends on re claiming democracy from trans actional politics.
People’s Power offers not protest alone, but a governing ethic rooted in con stitutional morality and trus teeship. People’s Power offers a corrective—not by abolishing institutions, but by re-anchor ing them in popular sovereignty. The future of Goa cannot be secured by electoral arithme tic alone. It demands a moral, constitutional and civic re-ori entation. People’s Power is not a threat to democracy; it is de mocracy re-established. People’s Power is not an al ternative to the Constitution; it is the Constitution in action. In ecologically vulnerable regions like Goa, democracy cannot survive as a periodic ritual—it must function as a continuous moral and political practice. Unless power is restored to its rightful status as trust, the cycle of exploitation will per sist—predictable, tragic and devastating. Restoration and revival of Goa’s environment, culture and wellbeing of its people can be achieved only by ‘People’s Power’. (The writer is a Professor of Law and an education consultant)
