violet

The government that Is

PART-I

Witnessing a momentous period in the rise of our nation, I would like to know what result we should expect from all that seems to happening in our country.  As Henry Thoreau said, “our government needs to represent more of what the country is about”; 

At an average growth rate of 7.5% for the past 5 years, we certainly represent our capacity to progress and develop fast; the fields of music, literature and art have seen their stalwarts in various people of this country; the defence forces have been exemplifying leadership at one of its bests, Bollywood is making a lot of money; cricketers are getting a lot of attention; so far so good.  There is also a flipside to this story which talks about the plight of the Vidharbha farmers.  The politics of communal identity in Maharashtra and West-Bengal coupled with the fracas over the Ram-Sethu and the SEZ’s add a new dimension to our identity; corruption, sexual violence and religious fanaticism make sure that our country encounters serious identity crises.  When all this is happening, I expect the people to stand up. 

The solution to our problem is a democracy.  It was said that the reason why a majority rule the nation is not because it is most fair to the  minority or because the majority is wiser but because they are physically stronger; the inference being that the rest don’t have too much of a choice.  That would explain the theory behind a coalition government which is basically only making a physically stronger team.  Speaking about such an issue with Sri.Sidharthachary raised certain valid arguments in favour of our society.  Not the society that India actually is, but the one that our government- the physical majority- proposes to represent.  The relationship between a society and a government raises a few very critical issues.  First, is the idea of a government and the need for it; how we see the role of a government in a progressive society.  This issue is better addressed keeping in mind what Thomas Jefferson said: “the issue today is the same as it was all through history in all of the earth; whether man should be allowed to govern himself or be governed by an elite.”  The question therefore, is if the developed society we envision is one with complex laws and regulations, regulating our lives or is it one where we have the capacity to govern ourselves and the governments role is limited to security, order and expedient decisions; the point being that progress as we are seeing it happen today is witnessing an over involvement by the government in the functioning of the society; The point being that progress of a human society should not be characterised by dependence but independence.  We need to realise that, security, defence and foreign relations aside, our aim should be to envisage a society living independent of  government protection.  When the finance minister announced a Rs.60000 crore loan waiver to farmers, the question realised was if this was the right example we were setting.  I’m not yet mature enough to debate the merit of such an economic debacle but I would rather help the farmers repay their debts than pay their debts for them.  The aim of the government is to help us govern ourselves and not ensure our inability to exist without it.  In the “resistance to civil government”, Thoreau refers to the motto that ‘a government is best which governs least’ and subsequently makes an inference that when men are prepared for it, that would be the kind of government they will have.  The aim of every government and citizen- since the government is ‘of the people’- is to aim at developing such a society.  First, I must say that is inhuman to trust anyone with such a responsibility of governing a country.  A country is way too precious for that.  Just as a capitalistic economy is left at the mercy of the consumer and the market, the society, - crime and intolerance apart, - should be left at the mercy of the people.  While it is not a ‘no government’ that we need, it is a ‘better government’; a government that governs less.  I believe we need to earn such a government but at this stage that is the responsibility that our representatives should be entrusted with; to develop the society into a self-sustaining entity. Here I would like to question the pertinence of laws and enactments.  From personal experience we have often seen fit to decide for ourselves, what rules to obey and what to ignore.  The debate over the morality and unjustness of laws is a thing of the past.  Laws, as we see them today, are more a product of our needs.  Do we therefore, with a complex system of laws, enable a system to govern our needs?  Again I would like to reiterate here that the context I am speaking of is exclusive of the interests of security, safety and public order.  I am talking here, for example, of the laws of taxation and public welfare.  Government policy should be restricted in these fields solely to the service of the public as a whole and the power and duty of the government should not be extended to the individual suffering of a community or section of a society.  The responsibility of such welfare should be the responsibility of the people of that section.  For this, it is also necessary to break down barriers of communities and religion; for people to be able to govern themselves, thus forming a true democracy, welfare of the society should be everyone’s problem and not a governments’; if such a society demands scraping down our diversity, then so be it.  While referring to welfare here, I maintain that in cases demanding expedient decisions, the responsibility must be shifted to an external source which is here, a government.

As a continuation to the point previously made, and as one that could be treated independently, the solution to each of our problems lies in democracy.  A true democracy is one that is truly representative of the people.  The government we elect is not representative of the entire people.  For a society to be truly democratised, there must be democratic governance at a much lower level; there must be a democratic functioning of the society in all spheres.  I would like to elucidate my argument by quoting Adam Smith when he says “personal advancement serves the common good.”  For a society to be truly democratic, it might be seen as favourable to treat public governance, not as public or national service, but as a profession.  This can be done by massive privatisation of all major departments of the government, functioning solely on meritocracy and with lucrative pay scales; since financial stability is the hallmark of a successful nation today, the government must be a form of technocracy and must treat not politics, but economics as its guiding principle.  History rightly suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom.(Contd.)

GAUTAM SWARUP