Let’s say India Against Corruption (‘IAC’) wants to prevent people with pending criminal cases from becoming MPs/MLAs.
This is how it can do this:
Announce that IAC will positively campaign for ANY political party that gives tickets to the least number/percentage of criminal candidates in the 2012 Himachal assembly elections.
- contesting elections or even identifying clean and capable candidates will divide us, create controversies & deflect focus from real issues. IAC lacks organizational depth / structure to handle these
- most independents and IAC leaders (except top few who won’t contest) will lose (need ~40% votes in a constituency to win)
- history (BJP, Mamata, etc.) repeatedly shows that getting power is a long process and people change by the time they get power. IAC’s troubles already indicate we’ll be no different
- winning an election is not a replicable model
- people do not mind criminal candidates (either live with this or educate the people); OR
- IAC does not enjoy any popular support…it should reform itself and come back!
Instead of all this, shouldn’t we ask for Lokpal / other reforms?
Govt. won’t/can’t implement any meaningful reform. IAC has to prove its electoral relevance and push / empower the govt. to implement those ideas.
How to avoid / get out of economic crises:
Irresponsible people advocate stimulus i.e. low tax rates and high govt spend
Responsible people advocate austerity i.e. high tax rates and low govt. spend
What we need is capitalism / small government i.e. low tax rates and low govt. spend
What we get from politicians is socialism / big government i.e. high tax rates and high govt. spend 😦
A single currency (like Euro) should have kept Greek sovereign debt in check.
Without ability to print money, the government’s debt is no longer risk-free. This ensures (should ensure) that markets lend less money to Greece at high interest rates.
How did Greece manage to borrow so much?
India’s state of Bengal is in poor financial shape.
Depsite India’s fiscal union, Bengal’s inability to print money and lack of a central guarantee limits its debt (its Debt to State GDP is only ~ 50% and still it cannot borrow anymore).
Greece, despite poor credit worthiness, could borrow so much (Debt to GDP close to 200%) at low interest rates for 2 reasons:
- Greek central bank regulations required Greek banks to load up on sovereign debt even though it was not safe
- Eurozone politicians kept lying to the markets that no Euro country can/will default.
As a result, immediately after Euro introduction, the significant spreads between Greek & German sovereign debt simply vanished due to this ‘guarantee’.
Greece is now crashing since Germany has rightly shown reluctance to honor this guarantee. Honoring this guarantee requires massive money printing (inflation) effectively redistributing wealth from savers (Germany) to borrowers (countries like PIIGS). Germany may choose to do so (effectively become one nation) but there is no compulsion and it will only avoid explicit default. It will NOT make Greece productive.
India’s Bengal is effectively in a monetary union without a fiscal union since India’s Central Govt. is refusing to bail out Bengal. Should it exit the Rupee and print its own currency? Thankfully, the unanimous answer here is No.
Similarly, Euro (a monetary union without a fiscal union) is fine. While Greece has to default, it should remain within the euro.
How can an unproductive Greece recover without devaluation?
Greece govt should restructure/default on most/all of its debt and firmly declare that it will NOT quit the euro (it does not need anybody’s permission to do this). Consequences (this is already happening in slow motion):
- Lack of funding will limit the Greek govt’s spending to available tax and non-tax revenues.
- To spend, politicians will be forced to reform the tax system and privatize (if they are smart, they will also deregulate, cut tax rates and encourage GDP growth)
- Many Greek banks that have lent too much to the govt. will face a run and fail.
- There will be unemployment, under-utilization of other factors of production like land, fixed assets and capital, susbtantial drop in discretionary spending as well as imports.
The good news
The ‘banking system’ will continue to function.
- Deposits (and other paper assets) are currently leaving Greece for fear of being redenominated to Drachma. Once the threat of Euro exit is gone, deposits (and other banking activity) will stay within Greece but will leave ‘weak banks’ and move to local branches of strong (local, european and global) banks.
- The weak banks’ shareholders will lose their investment but its creditors, strong banks and/or other investors will acquire/restructure (the assets of) these weak banks and run them.
The above is already happening.
The really good news
Productivity will increase due to fall in prices, rents, interest rates and wages.
- Low costs of living and doing business will retain/attract local and foreign talent, capital, etc. The immense benefits of Euro/EU (single currency, free markets, capital and labour mobility, etc.) will strongly facilitate that.
- When a country tries to print / devalue its way out of trouble, it experiences inflation.
The KEY: Financial crises generally mean inflation but, for Greece, Euro will ensure deflation!
In a world of no bailouts and no inflation, hardworking Greeks will do well even if the Govt goofs up. Deflation will improve productivity and ensure high value for the low income and savings. (The govt. can also help this recovery by swift deregulation making it easier to do business in Greece. In any case, its ability to do damage will be curtailed.)
No doubt, there will be pain for unfit individuals, businesses and govts. in Greece (and other euro nations) but its unavoidable and default within the Euro will remove excesses in the system and incentivize everyone to shape up.
Also See: How did Greece manage to borrow so much money in the first place?
Right to recall is extremely powerful in a democracy – people can maintain control over elected reps!
However, even if government agrees to give us a ‘right to recall’, the practical issue is deciding the trigger to hold a recall election…how to gather people’s views? Signatures are difficult to obtain and authenticate. Conducting an official vote is expensive and time-consuming.
Solution: ‘Recall agreement’. No need for govt. to do anything!
A typical recall agreement should have the following features:
- voluntary but publicly disclosed agreement between an electoral candidate/party and a citizen-group ( a ‘pressure group‘ or an issue based votebank)
- the pressure group promises to help the candidate(s) get elected by campaigning / voting for him
- the candidate/party, in return, promises to take certain defined actions and/or follow the pressure group’s guidance in his conduct as an elected rep. On agreement violation, pressure group can ask candidate to step down.
- Can’t force the elected rep to do something or vote in the legislature in a particular manner (in a democracy, that should remain the elected rep’s prerogative). The pressure group can only force him to step down if he doesn’t honor the agreement.
Will any candidate/party enter into such an agreement?
Yes, if he/it:
- broadly concurs with the pressure group’s position on most issues or issues defined in the agreement
- trusts its intentions, and
- trusts its ability to swing the election in his/its favor
Candidates/parties who do not enter into such an agreement will not be subject to recall but their chances of getting elected itself will be lower if another candidate is supported by a credible pressure group.
Key is to start with relatively non-controversial /easy to implement demands even if impact is small. Demonstration of impact and good intentions will allow us to demand more meaningful things.
eg: In upcoming Himachal assembly elections, IAC can offer to support any political party that promises to field zero/very few candidates with criminal records. No need for any recall agreement. Just give tickets to clean candidates and increase your seats!! (IAC’s preference should be to support bigger parties given their higher likelihood of forming government).
Can a pressure group (like IAC) swing elections?
Winning requires ~40% of votes but a pressure group only needs to swing ~5-10 % votes towards the candidate in 2nd or 3rd position to help him win. So, serious but unsure candidates will immensely value even relatively small pressure groups.
Will this make the pressure group too powerful?
No.
- Pressure group’s survive on popular support (needs credible leaders, broadly acceptable ideas, transparency, accountability, etc.)
- Success will encourage competition, innovation and accountability (cut any chances of any one group, becoming too powerful)
- Power will be restricted only to issues publicly agreed. People will vote for a pressure group supported candidate only if they agree with the pressure group’s position.
Like all reform ideas, don’t we need the government’s help to establish legal validity to a recall agreement?
No, such agreements are probably already valid!!
No specific electoral law prohibiting a ‘recall agreement’. However, our courts may (incorrectly) strike down such an agreement – ‘opposed to public policy’.
It’s really worth a try. If the winning party/candidate doesn’t honor the agreement post election, then approach court to enforce it (its a voluntary agreement between 2 adults, doesn’t violate rights of the general public because they voted the candidate into office knowing fully well that the pressure group has influence over the candidate).
If the agreement is upheld, the implications are enormous. Even if the agreement is shot down or the government brings in a law treating such agreements as void, the pressure groups can still help candidates win election and extract promises in return. Candidates for their own good will stick to their promises as long as there are pressure groups capable of swinging elections.
India’s current system is first past the post (FPTP) where every voter selects the most preferred candidate and the candidate with the highest votes wins. Very simple.
We need to move to instant run-off voting (IRV) where every voter ranks the candidates.
Say, there are 10 candidates, the voter knows 5 of them and likes 3 of them. In this case, he should ideally press 3 buttons (first for his 1st preference candidate, then for his 2nd preference candidate and then for his 3rd preference candidate). If a voter doesn’t understand ranking/preference or is unaware, he can simply press 1 button (same as now).
Counting of votes is complicated (Start with the 1st preference votes, eliminate the candidate with the least no. of first preference votes, redistribute his votes using the second preference of those voters and so on) but easy to automate /leave to experts.
The cost of moving to IRV is one-time: upgrading the EVMs to allow ranking rather than a single choice.
The benefits of IRV vis-a-vis FPTP:
- encourages more people to vote by allowing them to articulate their choice better (its easy to curse people for not voting but currently the vote is too weak for many rational people to take the effort of using it. We need to incentivize the voters by strengthening the vote – introducing right to reject is another way to strengthen the vote)
- eliminates tactical voting: Currently, instead of voting for their most preferred candidate A, many people vote for a more famous candidate B so as to decrease the winning chances of their least preferred candidate C. B wins despite being less preferred than A. Under IRV, people can choose A as their first preference and B as their second preference
- fairer outcomes eg: a candidate with a 30% vote but hated by the other 70% might win under FPTP but will lose under IRV
- encourages more people to contest elections not just by ensuring fairer outcomes but also by eliminating the risk of being a ‘spoiler’. eg: Currently, if there are 2 candidates – a liberal and a leftist. I am also a liberal. Even though I do not like the liberal candidate for some reasons, I do not contest elections for fear of splitting the liberal vote.
Proportional representation is an even better method but generally opposed since it is believed to substantially increase the likelihood of minority/unstable governments – I don’t think it does but that is a slightly complex argument that I will make some other time.
Update: Please see this post where I explain how proportional representation can substantially clean Indian politics.
I continue to be a massive fan and supporter of Team Anna… so much so that I dread Team Anna’s failure and will consider it as a huge personal loss. Infact, I feel quite low that, in my view, we are failing and failing because of our own basic mistakes. These easy to avoid mistakes are also the ones that make Congress such a horrible organization. Some of them are as follows:
Lack of transparency: More than a year after Jantar Mantar (when ‘the people’ became owners of this movement), we have zero transparency…..all meaningful and serious Team Anna discussions and decisions are behind closed doors. Forget live telecast or edited video recordings, not even brief agenda or minutes are available. I am shocked that the RTI star Arvind Kejriwal says transparency can be suicidal for a people’s movement that rightly claimed honesty as its only weapon…and he doesn’t even explain why? What is there to hide? the fact that we are considering an electoral venture or that we disagree on many things?
The problem is not these things (disagreements, contesting elections)…the problem is hiding these things…the problem is deciding internally and then trying to demo that the nation wants us to contest / we have no alternative (the latest survey on janlokpal is one such example where the questions are framed in such a way that anybody who takes the survey can only support IAC’s pre-determined stance of supporting election candidates).
There is no need to demo anything…just discuss openly and sincerely, people will see it and decide themselves whether there is an alternative. Remember, we are a democracy…treat people as adults like you did before. Don’t be like Congress or BJP.
Transparency will force IAC members to talk and act sensibly and responsibly, educate the masses, create confidence and dispel people’s doubts about IAC, its leaders, its aims, methods, etc. and it also allows supporters (even detractors) to give informed and helpful suggestions/feedback.
Lack of decision-making process: There seems to be no clear decision-making process in Team Anna (i may be wrong since lack of transparency means I can only guess). I don’t think the core or the working committees decide things on the basis of majority votes….it seems to rely on ‘consensus’ (which generally means going with the most vocal or influential voices in the group). It’s fine to give certain people more votes than 1 since they give more to the movement (Anna being the face and moral force, AK being the brain and chief executive, etc.) but, to decide fairly, make this objective and transparent (if possible, do not give veto power to anyone).
Feigning unanimity on all issues:
Why is there never any civilized public difference of opinion among Team Anna members? Please, there is no need to feign unanimity on all issues. Don’t be afraid of media. It can blow up differences only when you pretend there aren’t any. Come out openly with the differences, discuss in public in a matured way, agree to disagree, invite feedback, be open to changing your positions, decide based on majority votes and ask everyone to support the majority decision. People and media will automatically focus on and help with the content of discussions.
Negativity:
Why is everything we say negative? what is the need to turn all politicians and commentators into an enemy? People understand the bitter truth (criminal MPs) when we say it once and continuously repeating it daily only irritates them – they are interested in positive solutions. Why do we have to be defensive on everything related to us and offensive on everything related to the politicians. On the talk shows (bickerings), why is there no difference between us and Congress, BJP folks? Why do we have to criticize govt for everything under the sun from FDI to not bidding for Gandhi memorabilia without explaining clear rationale for our stance.
Going solo and re-inventing the wheel instead of partnering with existing institutions / experts:
We seem to be over-confident (aiming for utopia) about our abilities and unable to adjust and work with others:
- Why do we ignore mainstream media and rely on a channel with negligible reach (Chauthi duniya) to communicate with people? I understand Zee (and other channels) have offered us a 30 minute weekly slot….it should be a good start. The problem is not lack of time …the problem is lack of good content. Create meaningful content…if people like it, you’ll get more slots. Even if all media houses are corrupt, they are not fools…they care about TRPs. TRPs also help us in judging ourselves and signal the need to improve our content. Believe in the markets. If media is not giving us time, then we should look within….simply shouting ‘paid media’ is escapism and, dare I say, leftism.
- I also disagree with this talk of ignoring mainstream political parties and supporting ‘good’ independent or smaller party candidates. Is it a secret that a lot of people vote for only 1) parties/candidates they have heard of and 2) parties/candidates having a reasonable chance of forming a (stable) govt? The last thing that people want is a weak govt or frequent elections. There is a reason (many reasons) why Congress and BJP keep winning despite being widely known to be corrupt. I doubt we can provide a good alternative that is also widely believed to have a reasonable chance. The positive solution is the votebank / political pressure group approach. Alternatively, if we support good candidates, they should clearly promise that these candidates, if elected, will ensure a stable and strong govt by supporting (without blackmailing mamata style) the coalition closest to majority.
Lack of fresh ideas: The Hisar campaign was probably our last meaningful new idea ….this is evidence that we are a closed shop and need to be more open. Even on existing ideas, there is no focus. Even though Uttarakhand passed a good Lokayukta law 6 months ago, IAC has not once demanded President’s consent of the law. Manishji Sisodia, in the spirit of being negative and defensive, even confidently shot down my suggestion to this effect on the ground that the people of Uttarakhand should demand President’s consent and IAC cannot do this!! So much for our only tangible achievement so far! Is it hard to understand that if President approves the bill and the Lokayukta law helps in reducing corruption in Uttarakhand, then our fight becomes easier?
Lack of feedback channels: I am aware of the charcha samuh and chauthi duniya initiatives. Ironically, the well-intentioned Chauthi duniya live with Arvind Kejriwal (where anyone can call and directly speak with AK for 30 seconds) shows that there is no efficient proper mechanism to encourage, capture, evaluate and implement feedback even from regular supporters. Its good to show that AK is directly taking feedback but is it really efficient? Shouldn’t there be a trained team who has more time to interact with people and then transparently channels meaningful feedback to AK / IAC which, in turn, transparently deliberates , decides and acts on that feedback completing the loop?
Excuse me for some of this criticism is probably over the top …but I criticize only because this movement has such great people and potential and this is India’s only hope.
Loved the first episode of Aamir’s Satyamev Jayate for various obvious reasons – the effort, the focus and the awareness created, etc. It also correctly highlighted the importance of deterrent punishment (establishing rule of law) to ensure that people think twice before committing murder.
However, it could have also highlighted the real economic and practical reasons why people want at least 1 male child …so much so that even very educated and well-to-do people actually kill the girl child. In general, in India:
- girls have fewer employment opportunities – so, for parents, they are less a financial support and more a burden
- weak law and order means girls are subject to sexual harassment and hence, need greater parental effort in bringing up
- dowry is still prevalent
- once married, girls do not live with their parents, do not financially support them and do not continue the family name
- last rites are performed only by the male child
If we highlight these issues and find a way to incentivize and gradually change customs, there will be less of an incentive to prefer a male child.
Seen another way, even supposedly good people like me (I treat my wife well, did not take dowry and will be perfectly happy with a girl child) contribute to female foeticide since my wife no longer uses her maiden surname, doesn’t contribute financially to her parents and doesn’t live with them. Time to improve!
**Please find faults and suggest improvements**
After 65 years of democracy, millions in India continue to suffer miserably.
Most Indians have some or the other reform suggestion for governments but most are clueless on how to convince/empower/force the governments to carry out these reforms.
- In 2011, Anna brilliantly tried fasting and mass mobilization without tangible success.
- Some give up whereas the more committed ones suggest ‘taking the bull by its horns’ i.e. contesting elections and forming a ‘good’ government as the only alternative. While they make commendable efforts towards their noble intention, the path is extremely difficult, can take decades and if and when they succeed, there is no guarantee that the resulting government is ‘good’.
So, here’s a reform suggestion that does NOT rely on the government: ‘Right to recall’
‘Right to recall’ is the right of people to recall poorly performing elected representatives before they complete the full term.
Straightforward justification – in a democracy, people have the power to appoint …so, they should also have the power to remove without having to suffer for 5 years.
Right to recall’s utility is tremendous – most elected representatives will perform better when they know that they can be recalled. Also, recalling poorly performing representatives is good.
However, a key practical issue is what should be the trigger to hold a recall election? People are the best judge of a representative’s performance but how to gather the people’s views? Signatures are difficult to obtain and authenticate. Conducting an official vote is expensive and time-consuming.
Solution:
Here is an extremely simple and powerful ‘right to recall’ model using the principles of liberty:
Establish legal validity to a ‘recall agreement’!
That’s it.
Let me explain.
A typical recall agreement should have the following features:
- completely voluntary but publicly disclosed agreement between an electoral candidate/party and a group of citizens (lets call them a ‘pressure group‘ or an issue based votebank – as against religion or caste based votebanks)
- the pressure group promises to help the candidate(s) get elected by campaigning / voting for him (Important: while a candidate generally needs 30-40% of votes to win an election, a pressure group only needs to swing a few % votes towards the candidate in 2nd or 3rd position to help him win. This makes even relatively small pressure groups immensely useful for serious candidates who are not sure of winning on their own)
- the candidate/party, in return, promises to take certain defined policy actions and/or follow the pressure group’s guidance in his conduct as an elected rep. If the candidate violates the agreement or the pressure group is unhappy with his work and asks him to step down, he will have to step down.
- The pressure group cannot force the elected rep to do something or vote in the legislature in a particular manner (in a democracy, that should remain the elected rep’s prerogative). The pressure group can only force him to step down if he doesn’t honor the agreement.
Will any candidate enter into such an agreement?
Yes, if he:
- broadly concurs with the pressure group’s position on most issues or issues defined in the agreement,
- trusts its intentions, and
- trusts its ability to swing the election in his favor
Candidates who do not enter into such an agreement will not be subject to recall but their chances of getting elected itself will be lower if another candidate is supported by a credible pressure group.
Will this make the pressure group too powerful?
No.
- A pressure group will have, and maintain, ability to swing elections only if its leaders are credible, have generally acceptable ideas and it follows best practices (transparency, accountability, etc.) with the right intention. Ultimately, it needs popular support and having popular support in a democracy justifies power.
- If one pressure group does well, its power / success will encourage other competing pressure groups. Competition will increase innovation and keep pressure groups accountable (cut any chances of any one group, becoming too powerful)
- Remember, the pressure group’s power will be restricted only to the issues agreed in the publicly disclosed agreement. People will vote for a pressure group supported candidate only if they agree with the pressure group’s position on those issues.
- To inform people about the recall agreement while voting, the candidate list at the polling booths should have the pressure group’s symbol alongwith the political party’s symbol.
Wait…don’t you need the government’s help to establish legal validity to a recall agreement?
No, such agreements are probably already valid!!
Need some research but I believe there is no specific electoral law prohibiting a ‘recall agreement’. However, our courts may (incorrectly) strike down such an agreement on grounds of being ‘opposed to public policy’.
It’s really worth it for Team Anna or any other pressure group to enter into such an agreement with some candidate(s) or, preferably, some serious political party and help them come to power. If the party doesn’t honor the agreement post election, then ask its candidates to step down. If the party risks failure in next elections and ignores the pressure group’s request to step down, then the pressure group should approach a court asking for specific performance of the contract. In my view, such an agreement should be upheld because its a voluntary agreement between 2 adults/groups. It doesn’t violate the rights of the general public because they voted the candidate into office knowing fully well that the pressure group has influence over the candidate. This is also perfectly in sync with the principles of liberty.
If the agreement is upheld, the implications are enormous. This will increase people power, encourage citizens to group together, become politically aware and bargain with electoral candidates, force elected representatives to honour the recall agreement and generally perform well and also establish a continuous dialogue between ordinary citizens and politicians. Doesn’t this sound more like a true participatory democracy compared to what we have now?
My belief is that participatory democracy i.e. people’s meaningful participation is all we need. All systemic reforms that India really need will follow! (if you disagree with people’s ability to do good to themselves, then you probably disagree with the very notion of democracy and liberty…remember, we already consider every adult person, howsoever foolish or ignorant, qualified enough to have an equal say in electing the leaders of the country)
This also explains why Indian democracy has failed to honour the will of the people. It is because we do not have enough democracy. We have ‘universal adult franchise’ where every adult can vote (and stand for elections). Isn’t this different from democracy – government of the people, for the people and by the people?
What if the agreement is shot down or the government manages to bring in a law that prohibits such an agreement?
This is unlikely but a setback. However, the representative’s betrayal will hamper his ability to win the next elections. Nothing that can stop the pressure groups to help candidates win election and extract promises in return. Candidates for their own good will stick to their promises as long as there are pressure groups capable of swinging elections.
This is a positive way to bring change
When Team Anna campaigned against Congress in Hisar, it was (wrongly) criticized for being negative and anti-congress since all other candidates were also corrupt.
Every political party has some corrupt elements and some non-corrupt ones. We should focus on strengthening the weak/meek non-corrupt voices rather than crticizing the entire political class. Remember, a political party will do anything to achieve/retain power. Its human / natural. If we can propel them to power, they will do anything we ask them to. In other words, lets give them a constituency for reforms (by voting en bloc) and they will, for their own selfish sake, give us reforms.
eg: BJP inducted the corrupt Kushwaha and fielded criminal candidates (despite some opposition from within) rightly or wrongly hoping that they will improve its UP 2012 tally. If Team Anna campaigned for BJP on the condition that it removes Kushwaha, doesn’t field any candidates with criminal records or corrupt images, follows inner party democracy in choosing candidates, promises to pass/support Jan lokayukta bill in UP, etc. then it would have helped BJP take a high moral ground, strengthen the clean guys within the party and hopefully, win a few more seats with the help of Team Anna.
Ofcourse, some elements will anyways criticize us but a ‘mask of BJP/RSS’ or ‘anti-Congress’ or ‘anti-BJP’ charge will not hold water if Team Anna publicly gives all parties an equal opportunity of agreeing to its conditions and transparently going with the party agreeing with more of its conditions.
Political parties already have a legislated ‘right to recall’ in the form of anti-defection law where, if an elected rep defies his party whip, then the party can get him disqualified and ask for fresh election in his constituency. This law harms democracy by making the elected reps blindly follow the party high command. The recall agreements can transfer some of that power to the people encouraging more pressure groups and radically increase public participation in politics.
(needless to say, the anti-defection law needs to go – or restricted to ‘confidence votes’ or ‘money bills’ where high stakes lead to horse trading….and now we all know how to bring about this change :))
Political pressure groups – how do they differ from political parties:
- They cannot undermine parliament by making laws ……the law making authority of parliament is supreme. Pressure groups, who derive their power from the people, can only influence the parliamentarians by their ability to swing elections.
- Even if a pressure group goes rogue and risks its existence by insisting on a wrong decision, parliamentarians can refuse to be influenced by them and let the people decide in next elections
- They will not take any executive decisions…executive decisions will remain the government’s prerogative but pressure groups can influence these decisions
- Pressure groups, unlike elected representatives, will not receive any remuneration or funding whatsoever from the public exchequer. They have to rely on donations – another check on their power
- Pressure groups can be issue specific i.e citizens may come together for/against a particular issue (let’s say FDI in retail) even if they disagree on all other issues. On the other hand, governments (run by political parties) have to take a call on all issues.
- They allow an opportunity for citizens to engage in the nation’s politics without being full time politicians
P.S. While i personally disagree with this and consider this as an unnecessary attack on liberty, there may be need for safeguards to ensure this does not encourage religious/occupational votebanks or lobbies >> maybe agreements signed only by ‘qualified’ pressure groups may be granted legal sanctity. Qualifications should be objective and may include conditions like:
- pressure group (or its core decision making body) cannot be dominated by people from a particular caste, religion, occupation, etc.
- high standards of transparency like meetings to be video recorded and publicly available
- the pressure group’s decision asking the representative to step down can only be taken by its decision making body in a transparent manner (with 2/3rd majority)
PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE ANNA’S MOVEMENT.
It’s very different from the numerous other movements. Here is why:
– Great demands – Can have huge positive impact on the nation. They are not demanding punishment for one particular person or resolving one person’s plight or simply expressing their anger. Since a broken system causes most issues, they have very concrete demands that will actually fix the system – a very important part of it.
Going by the HK experience, this can substantially reduce corruption within 2 years. A strong anti-corruption environment is conducive for many important reforms, Also, Anna’s success will give him confidence to fight for more and inspire many others
– Anna / his team – Good intentions, very capable, great track record, clean despite being in public life for a long time, apolitical. Draws support mostly from the common man.
– Method – Legal. Completely non-violent and, despite the magnitude, does not inconvenience the public. NO striking of work, no rail/road blockages, no burning of property, no forced bandhs.
Strengthens participatory democracy by spreading awareness, encouraging people to voice their opinion and forcing govt. to consider public opinion (incorrect view that indefinite fasts are anti-democratic and set a dangerous precedent)
– Consequences of failure – we might have to wait atleast another decade or two before some able and well-meaning group even tries to fix the system.
– Consequence of success – will encourage more such bold moves by same / different people
– Chances of success – Not very high given the attitude of political parties but public support has never been so good. Anna’s team has spread so much awareness and build credibility. The nation is watching. This is by far our best chance
– Will my voice be heard / make a difference / eventually matter? – Can’t say for sure. However, your voice carries MUCH MORE weight in this case than it has in any elections or otherwise.
If you are looking to do something for your countrymen (that includes you and your family), please take notice – THIS IS THE MOMENT !!
Democracy4India 