Setting our house in order

The dynamism of India's parliamentary democracy is vitiated by the blatant misuse of institutions meant to preserve law and order.

The Roman satirist Juvenal asked the question `Who shall guard the guardians?' in an entirely different context. However, it is relevant to the issue that concern us here. Those charged with upholding and maintaining the institutions that make our parliamentary democracy a dynamic, effective institution have, over the years, often done just the opposite.

The first instance that will occur to many will be the way in which the process of governance has been subverted in the States, and, indeed, in the Union itself, in the institutions of the Central government. The manner in which the political leadership has acted over the years, the graft, nepotism and inaction are matters that have been the subject of much comment by analysts and scholars.

It has become so well known that there is hardly anyone in the country who has not, in conversations or discussions or statements, made some kind of observation on it. From farmers in villages to workers in factories, labourers in cities and in field, hawkers and vendors of fruit to commercial executives and captains of industry - everyone has his or her own story, often personal, of encounters with instances of this subversion.

But let us, for a moment, step back from this instant reaction to contextualise the issue. The parliamentary democracy we have given ourselves is not a single entity; it is made up of the functioning of a number of institutions and presupposes that these function well. All of these exist or have been created by the one law that has brought our parliamentary democracy into existence - the Constitution.

To the extent that all these institutions and structures function well, our parliamentary democracy is strong and dynamic; but when their function is vitiated by corruption or deliberate distortions of their stated objectives and missions, the democracy we pride ourselves on becomes weak. In fact, it is always both strong and frail at the same time; the myriad structures that together give it its identity can either cripple it or keep it strong and viable.

We can see this in the functioning of the structures set up to bring law and order to the country. If these - the police and the courts of law - do not function as they are meant to, the fabric of democracy is weakened, and becomes susceptible to irreparable damage. Shakespeare talks in his play Troilus and Cressida of `degree'; he means order, not only in the sense of a lawful order and even a cosmic order, but order that is the essence of a functioning society and the cosmos itself:

O when degree is shaked The enterprise is sick. How could communities Degrees in schools, and brotherhood in cities, Peaceful commerce from dividable shores... But by degree stand in authentic place?

He goes on to describe what happens when degree, that is order established by law or nature, is absent:

Then everything includes itself in power, Power into will, will into appetite, And appetite, an universal wolf, So doubly seconded with will and power, Must make, perforce, an universal prey, And last eat up himself.

How many instances have we seen of the blatant misuse of the institutions meant to maintain and preserve order and the law, where the police, the cornerstone of the preservation of law, have preyed on people, usually the more vulnerable - the poor and the illiterate - and become oppressors instead of protectors?

It may be that a greedy constable or sub-inspector is not always aware of the impact his act of greed or extortion has on the structures of democracy, but those who oversee his work at higher levels, and those above them are surely aware of the damage such activities cause. What have they done to stop it?

The rampant jobbery and subversion of laws and rules by virtually all municipal bodies has made urban administration a breeding ground for forces that may well destroy democratic functioning in the not too distant future, as corrupt oligarchs take over the structures that are intended to be democratic. And, till recently, have there been any signs that some remedial action will be taken?

While these have been corrosive agents that eat into the democratic structure of the country, we have an example in recent times of what is even more worrying; action that weakens the functioning of one of the three bastions of democracy - Parliament. What happened on the final day of the last session that concluded on May 23 is nothing short of ominous.

A group of Members of Parliament made it their business to try to stop the Lok Sabha from functioning by gathering in what is known as the well of the House and shouting slogans against the Speaker. Nor did they stop at shouting slogans; they made a continuous sound at the top of their voices. All of this has been recorded for posterity to see.

The functioning of the highest law-making institution on the land, one that we as citizens of this country respect and look up to, was subjected to this continuous loud noise.

Surely the members had not been voted to the House by the people in their constituencies to do such a thing, whatever the provocation. What made it even more ominous was that the shouting and screaming was directed at the Speaker for following the established rules and practices of the House. The argument that other groups have behaved in a similar fashion in the past will not wash. Just because others have committed murder or rape, it does not justify those crimes being committed.

It can perhaps be said that the Lok Sabha, being a gathering of those who represent the people of India, is called the House of the People for precisely that reason. At times an issue that has caused great outrage or suffering among people will find a reflection in the proceedings of the House; it is not a justification for disorderly behaviour by anyone or any group, but the expression of the feelings of members can be a kind of reflection of the feelings of their constituents. But the issue here was nothing of the kind; it was the censuring of a former official of the Lok Sabha Secretariat by the Committee of Privileges.

We look to our MPs to raise issues that are of concern to the country and they do so, as a matter of course. It is what makes the House truly a bastion of our democracy. People plead with their representatives to raise issues in the House because they know that the House is a forum where they can have their grievances heard and acted on. Consequently when one sees a group of members behave in a manner that is incredible in its crudeness one cannot but be appalled.

And one begins to wonder what the logical outcome of all this will be. Those who behaved in that manner may shrug it off, and say that happens, but that is not the end of the matter. This cannot happen; if it does and the dignity of the House is affected in this manner then it weakens our democracy. The discord Shakespeare refers to will then not be far away.

The preservation of democracy is not something that can be attended to when one has time for it; it is something that all of us, surely, must be conscious of and strive to secure all the time, in every moment of our time, especially if we have been entrusted by the people to voice their concerns in Parliament. Our democracy is, as we said, at once strong and frail, dynamic and also vulnerable. Surely those who behaved as they did in the House of the People on May 23 know that as well as, if not better than, we do.