Distortion of democracy

The attempts to suppress by judicial fiat all collective forms of protest are part of a wider authoritarianism which is creeping into Indian society.

PRAKASH KARAT

THE Election Commission has issued a show cause notice to the Communist Party of India (Marxist) asking why it should not be deregistered as a political party. This follows a judgment of the Kerala High Court which has decreed that hartals are unlawful. Earlier, in l997, the Kerala High Court had prohibited bandhs, declaring them as illegal and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in l998 endorsed this judgment of the Kerala High Court. Not satisfied with its prohibition of forcible hartals, the two-memb er bench of the High Court has directed the Election Commission to deregister those political parties that are found responsible for forcible hartals. This directive was issued despite the Commission's counsel arguing that it had no powers to deregister any political party. It is in pursuance of the court directive that the petitioner in the original case has approached the Election Commission seeking the deregistration of the CPI(M) as a political party.

What does all this amount to? Bandhs, hartals and mass demonstrations are basic forms of protest which political parties and mass organisations resort to. They are an inherent part of a democratic system. The higher judiciary has displayed a class bias i n considering all these forms of mass protest as illegal or unconstitutional. The attempts to suppress by judicial fiat all collective forms of protest are part of a wider authoritarianism which is creeping into Indian society. Judicial authoritarianism is a symptom of this trend.

During the freedom struggle, these weapons of mass protest were used against British rule. They were endorsed by the national bourgeoisie and the national leadership. Now the same classes who became the rulers after independence consider these protest ac tions to be disruptive and unlawful. The argument advanced is that opposition to government policies, or, state repression, should be expressed only through constitutional channels. Such channels are defined as the legislative chambers, the precincts of courts and the respectable platforms provided by the ruling elite themselves. This is a distortion of democracy and will spell the end of a vibrant democratic political system.

Despite the constitutional guarantees of the right to association and freedom of expression, in practice the fundamental rights of ordinary citizens are severely circumscribed. It is only the continuous democratic activity relying on mass mobilisation th at has to some extent succeeded in expanding the rights of citizens and in breaching the monopoly of privileges vested in those who control wealth and power in society. For ordinary people, who cannot be litigating in courts endlessly or influencing a ca llous and corrupt bureaucracy, very often the only avenue open is to collectively organise and resort to mass protests. For people who are powerless, it is often political parties and public organisations, whatever their limitations, that respond to thei r demands. By organising mass collective action they provide the only hope for voicing their grievances and providing access to authority which is supposed to be available in a democracy. If the mass movements can be sustained, the way is open to influen ce state policy and get some access to resources for a livelihood.

In recent years, particularly post-liberalisation, the prevailing mood among the ruling elites and the vocal middle classes is to do away with such collective protests as a nuisance. The concern of big capital for discipline and order among the working p eople is mirrored in a more banal fashion among the aspiring middle classes who are aggrieved when traffic gets blocked in demonstrations or when the daily certainties of life are upset. The recent spurt in judicial activism mirrors this concern of the l iberalised era of the masters of capital, the multinational corporations and big business, and their acolytes in the middle classes.

The logic advanced for illegalising bandhs and hartals is flawed and insidious. In a bandh called for an issue which affects the lives of millions of people, say a savage hike in the price of foodgrains in the public distribution system, it is possible t hat some people will be inconvenienced if the transport workers respond to the call, or employees of a public utility do not work. This is seen as an infringement of the rights of the persons concerned and gets translated into the bandh itself being decl ared as not just illegal but also unconstitutional. By the same logic, a strike called by a majority of workers can be considered an infringement of the right to work of the minority and illegalised.

Next the target would be public demonstrations. In fact the Calcutta High Court is hearing a petition to curtail street demonstrations. More recently, the Delhi High Court has asked the government to implement guidelines on holding demonstrations and ral lies in public places. According to the affidavit submitted by the Delhi traffic police, it is proposed to allow processions only between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. By this rule, people cannot demonstrate after working hours. This means they will have to leave t heir places of work and lose wages to exercise an elementary right.

The effect of such idiotic proposals is compounded by restrictions such as allowing only "one box-type loudspeaker" and limiting the time of demonstrations. One should ask the learned judges on the bench who approved such guidelines to find out from the lawyers who appear in their courts what they think of such measures. Only recently, thousands of lawyers all over the country took to the streets for days on end to protest against the brutal police lathicharge in Delhi on their colleagues who were demon strating for their demands.

In a democratic society, there can be reasonable restrictions placed on mass gatherings and demonstrations. There are laws extant which can be invoked by the authorities to regulate or restrict such activities. For instance, permission has to be sought f rom the police for the use of loudspeakers in public meetings. The tenor of the recent judgments is not concerned with such reasonable regulation. It is to completely suppress or marginalise mass political activity. In the case of bandhs and hartals, the courts can very well ask the administration to enforce the existing provisions of the law to deal with any coercion and violence indulged in by any person or group.

What is not realised is that a creeping authoritarianism has already eroded much of the democratic rights of citizens. The Boat Club grounds in New Delhi, a traditional site for marches to Parliament and massive rallies, have been out of bounds since l99 3 for such activities. No government since then, whatever its political colour, has undone the restriction.

So you have a situation where the people of India who wish to present a mass petition to Parliament have to do so 6 km away in a ground tucked away behind the Red Fort. There is a similar situation in most State capitals. People cannot protest peacefully anywhere near the State legislatures, as there is a permanent ban on assembly imposed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Our ruling elite seems to be selective in aping the arbiters of democracy who sit in Washington. They do not want the people to march to Parliament, just as the American people are allowed to assemble before the U.S. Congress, or for that matter near the Parliaments of most European countries.

In the prevailing situation, it seems the courts, the chambers of commerce and the mainstream media are all for a sanitised version of democracy. Some of us, on the Left, have anticipated this development as a consequence of liberalisation. The big press ure of the big business and transnational capital and the attendant moulding of public opinion to view all forms of mass protest as harmful and illegal is a major step towards the constriction of democracy and of narrowing the democratic system. It amou nts to subscribing to the following globalised version of democracy being purveyed by the American think tanks: the holding of periodic elections to elect the government is tantamount to democracy; organising and protesting against the policies of global ised capitalism is not only undemocratic but is to be outlawed as an unconstitutional act.

The CPI(M) will certainly contest the Kerala High Court order through legal channels. But what is more important is to challenge politically and publicly the philosophy and thinking behind this judicial intervention. All political parties must take a sta nd on the issue.

Every day, in some part of the country, in a district, town or a locality, people are coming out on to the streets to voice their protest and assert their demands. Will it be possible for the courts to decree mass politics out of existence, out of fear o f the people? The history of democratic struggles in India is witness to the fact that such ill-advised measures will not silence mass protests and movements.

Prakash Karat is a member of the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).