FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 2024
Since God had told Digambar that he would not intervene in politics in Goa, that he has no role to play, it is time for us to get back to the basics on what means by a democracy. Everyone - tyrants, autocrats, demagogues, turncoats - invoke democracy. All power wielders claim to be democrats. In this process many perversions get obscured. Yes, democracy is indeed the best form of government and even though it has many deficiencies, it is better than its competitors, fascism, authori- tarianism, majoritarianism, elitism, communism. What is it, therefore, about democracy which makes it so superior to other forms of government?
Popular Control:
While there have been many definitions of democracy, many of them vague, the most popular one is that given by Abraham Lincoln for whom democracy was ‘government of the people, for the people, by the people.’ While this sounds very aspirational, we need to translate it into a measurable dimension to assess why one democracy is better than another. We need a democracy audit template. I work with the definition of the International Institute of Democracy and Electoral Assistance, (International IDEA), which says that democracy has two core principles, ‘popular control of power’ and ‘political equality’. While political equality refers to ‘equality of the vote’, ‘equality of representation’, ‘equality to offer oneself as a candidate’, all of which we have, all legal attributes, it is the other core principle that requires our attention.
The first derivative of ‘popular control of power’ is the ‘separation of powers’ and ‘checks and balances.’ These lead to a set of institutions that give materiality to the core principle. Simply stated these translate into the institutions of the legislature, judiciary, and executive, each separated from the other, theoretically equal, acting as a check against the excesses of power of the other two. Added to these three is the media, the informal fourth branch, the watchdog tasked with exposing excesses and defending the public interest. Supplementing these four institutions are the independent oversight institutions, of the CAG, CVC, ECI, CBI, ED, Lokayukta, etc. To further fracture the concentration of power we have the third tier of government, the panchayats, of whom there are 191 in Goa. Together these constitute the ‘deliberative’ and ‘oversight’ institutions of democracy. On paper they look very impressive. But are they working? Are they delivering popular control of power in Goa?
Democratic backsliding:
This is a question each of us must answer. Mine is a definite NO. Instead of controlling power, these institutions, paradoxically, have conferred uncontrolled power on our elected representatives. That is what the pathology of defections reveals. There are no checks and balances by any of the ‘deliberative’ and ‘oversight’ institutions. Either they are comatose or have been co-opted into the pathological game. Defections have been taking place in Goa for 30 plus years so obviously it is the new normal. If 33 out of 40 MLAs support the regime, with 3 others providing outside support, we have a legislature that will not perform its high duty of questioning the government.
Why has democracy in Goa come to such a pass?
The answer must be sought sociologically. The causes must be found in society. Like in other parts of India, democracy in Goa too is the path to acquire state power. Through elections individuals transform themselves from being mere citizens to becoming elected representatives, thereby acquiring the ability to leverage state power. The state in India, and in most post-colonial societies, is a source of overwhelming patronage and coercive punishment. Because of an ineffective judicial system state power-wielders can make exceptions to laws of all kinds from planning laws to criminal laws. Remember Fr Stan Swamy. As a result, public interest gets replaced by the pursuit of private interest. The democratic state becomes a rentier state. People who control state power collect rents of various kinds. The ‘deliberative’ and ‘oversight’ institutions democracy are supposed to prevent such arbitrary power but they do not in Goa. Why?
In subsequent articles I shall offer some explanation of why such backsliding occurs. The answer does not lie in the character of our elected representatives, for after all even in the USA and the UK there is backsliding, but in the inability of the existing institutions to function as per their designed objectives. Goa is a severe expression of institutional failure.
Three explanatory paths can be identified as the source of this pathology. The first is the weakening, if not erosion, of our federal structure. The second is the transformation of the media from an information institution to an infotainment institution driven by the dynamics of capital. And the third is the nature of the party and electoral system. I will say no more here for they need to be debated in our own discussion groups.
Restoring some form of popular control:
Popular control in democratic societies takes place in two ways, through institutions, and through civil society. Although the main institutions have failed us some institutional devices are still available to hold the State to account. They are (i) the Public Interest Litigation, (ii) the Freedom of Information legislation and (iii) the device of a ‘Report Card’ designed by the Public Affairs Centre in Bengaluru. The PIL is being effectively used by Advocate Aires Rodrigues to challenge the illegality of cafes and the conferring of cabinet status.
It is a strategy to be emulated. Similarly, Goa was an early pioneer in the discussions on Freedom of Information. Perhaps Frederick Noronha could run an online training programme on how to file a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. Imagine PIL/FOI groups in each taluka. And finally, a periodic ‘MLA Report Card’ could be initiated by a newspaper as was done by the Hindustan Times. There is still some hope.
(Peter Ronald deSouza is the DD Kosambi visiting
professor at Goa University)
