iMOL
 
 
Silence is not an option when things are ill done - Lord Alfred Dennings
Google
Web imol
 
 

 

 

All Categories

·

 

Samy Vellu's attack dogs 7 (Highlights)
Survey

 

MIC Elections 2009
Kampung Buah Pala Issue (The High Chaparral)
.What's Happening ?
 
 
Representatives
Member of Parliament
List of Tamil Schools
Selangor
W. Persekutuan
Perak
Johor
P. Pinang
Pahang
Negeri Sembilan
Melaka
Perlis & Kelantan
 
 
Tamil Song Lyrics
Quote
midb

Malaysian Indian Minority and Human Rights Violations Annual Report 2008

Teaching Maths & Science in English?

 

 

How much is too much democracy?

Times of India, Ashok Kapur | Dec 21, 2011,

Mahathir Mohammed, the respected former Prime Minister of Malaysia and now an elder Asian statesman diagnosed some of the ills that seemingly afflict democracy in India. He recently addressed a gathering of national leaders, leading citizens, intellectuals and media personalities in the capital at a Leadership Summit organized by a leading national daily. The deliberations at the summit were broadcast live throughout the country.

He has ascribed most of the current "problems" facing us to the reason that we have "too much democracy". He added that we need a "strong" Central leadership to overcome the present difficulties and restore some "order" so that unhindered progress can take place. The overdose of democracy holds back India from emerging as one of the leading players on the world stage.

Mahathir's diagnosis is negated by recent experience of the modern nation states the world over and the lessons of history. One does not have to delve deep into history to draw the appropriate lessons from it. The last century itself is replete with examples of nations that broke up and disintegrated because they limited the practice of democracy in order to enforce "discipline" and attempted to bring about rapid economic growth.

India is a federal republic with one of the most liberal forms of democracy. The Constitution was aptly described by Pt. Nehru, one of its main architects as a strong federation during normal times but with provision for converting it into a unitary structure in times of emergency. The Founding Fathers were visionaries with great foresight. They realized that for a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual society, a federal structure was the only viable form of government.

A liberal democracy is the bedrock of federalism. The history of twentieth century world that we live in brings home this stark lesson to all of us. Nation upon nation, all federal republics that limited democracy in favour of "strong" central leadership broke apart and could not survive as unified states. Ethnic and linguistic minorities and regions seceded, often violently and at great human cost. Paradoxically, a "strong" central leadership invariably proved counter-productive.

The example of former Soviet Union is a well-known. Also falling in the category of failed states are former Republic of Yugoslavia, Indonesia and nearer home, former East and West Pakistan. All these were federal republics that experimented with variants of democracy. They convinced themselves that somehow too much democracy is not good for their people and it must be limited for people's own sake. The leader knows best what is good for his "subjects".

Thus, both the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia practised 'socialist democracy' or 'democratic centralism'. Admittedly, the ideology was suffused with idealism, all in the name of "the people" and their beloved fatherland. Full guarantees were extended to all minorities and regions-but only on paper. Believe it or not, the Constitution of the former Soviet Union had conceded even the right of "secession" to the various ethnic regions.

Indonesia similarly experimented with "guided democracy". The central leadership imposed their will on far-flung islands comprising several dozen major linguistic and tribal groups, with deadpan uniformity. They had virtually no voice, not to talk of role in governance. They were completely alienated from the central leadership. One cannot say with certainty if the final act in the Indonesian tragedy has played itself out. It may yet break up further.

Pakistan's case is all too well known to merit detailed analysis. The Army Generals who overthrew a civilian government experimented with "basic democracy" as they felt that universal adult franchise was a luxury that Pakistan could ill-afford. Democracy was limited to selected individuals who were supposed to be literate in the 3Rs. The federal unit of East Pakistan was reduced to the status of a poor cousin. Like Indonesia, Pakistan's tragedy may be still unfolding, looking to the situation in the federal unit of Baluchistan and other federal provinces.

A "strong" central leadership is the soul mate of limited democracy. And such leadership almost invariably passes on to the armed forces of the modern nation state. The generals and the air marshals assume charge in the name of "order and discipline". They have an in-built disdain for the "bureaucratic state" and the "bumbling democracy". They buy themselves a one-way ticket to power till such time as the state collapses under their heavy boots.

The aforesaid are but some of the few examples of large federal states that experimented with limited democracy and failed. The malady does not discriminate, and seems to afflict smaller states as well. It appears to be endemic to the region. Sri Lanka has just survived a brutal civil war and is barely intact. Afghanistan is a house divided against itself between the Pashtuns and the Uzbecks, held together for the time being against the common threat from Taliban.

Burma is apparently a paper entity and a geographical fiction as a nation. Some of the longest

civil wars of the last century, largely forgotten by the outside world have spilled over to the present century. The state is fighting its own minorities who have, de facto, carved out for themselves their own sub states-the Kachins, the Karens and the Shans. Their respective territories are 'no go' zones save for the Burmese military in large numbers.

Among these disintegrated and disintegrating states one can witness the solitary splendour of a standing and functioning federation with a liberal democracy. There are no prizes for guessing the right name. And this has been possible as the basic democratic structure of the state has not been disturbed, whatever the provocation. Not that we have not been afflicted with our own set of centrifugal forces. But we have contained them through dialogue and discussion. A liberal democracy is the most resilient form of government.

Unity in Diversity is the lofty principle of the Indian society and a federal democracy is its actual form. A limited democracy and its counterpart of "strong" leadership is the antidote. The latter tries to impose a certain Uniformity in Diversity which has proved to be a recipe for disaster. This is the abiding lesson of the history of the last century.

Much is made of the fact that Indian democracy is much too "noisy" for orderly progress and a marketable brand. But the argument overlooks the fact that debate and discussion are the essence of good governance, as conflicting ideas and varying opinions get churned and what emerges is often the optimum solution. As someone rightly said, what may sound noise today is the music of democracy in the long run. Solzhenitsyn was right-the only alternative to debate and discussion is the Gulag.

Mahatir Mohammed's prescription for India, with respect may, paradoxically enough, turn out to be a remedy worse than the disease. Indeed, it may prove fatal for the health of our federal democracy.

(The author is a retired IAS officer)

 
FMT

Dr M, in India we have bad roads but true democracy

December 21, 2011

Last week, Dr Mahathir gave a speech in India which stirred one Indian activist to retort in an open letter to the doctor.

COMMENT

By Siddharthya Swapan Roy

Dear Dr Mahathir,

A couple of days back I woke up to newspaper reports which quoted you as saying that India’s democracy is a hindrance to its development and, if we did away with the nuisance of democracy, we will become developed.

Well, sir, it is heartening to see your concern about India’s future, especially now that our own elected government has orphaned us. To read that someone from the outside cares about our development sounds so very nice.

But you see, sir, your (apparently) good intentions notwithstanding, your advice to Indians is, well how should I put it… ill-advised.

I’m not really sure if you know much about the history of our nation. Don’t get me wrong.

Going by facts like the general absence of news from Malaysian newspapers; the absence of anything but song and dance in your electronic media; the absence of bookstores that sell knowledgeable books (for example, ones from which you can learn about history and not how to get rich in six steps); the abundance of malls and the stark absence of libraries; the abundance of coaching centres that can make masseurs, air hostesses and a host of quick-fix technicians and the relative absence of centres of higher learning especially in the social sciences; and, above all, the fact that this insanely consumerist and hedonist Malaysia was made under your tutelage, makes me doubt your knowledge of the history of India or any nation for that matter.

So allow me to apprise you of the story of our independence.

We won independence from colonial rulers waging a long and tortuous battle. A battle that sought to replace a discriminatory, unjust and violent regime that had enslaved huge populations with one which was based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

India was home then, as is now and as will always be, to an immense diversity of people who spoke different tongues, prayed to different Gods, wore different clothes and had different political beliefs. These diverse people said to each other that – we, despite our differences, will strive to live and flourish together and make a sovereign nation which will be democratic, socialist and secular.

We did not anywhere say that we want to be Malaysia or for that matter China or the US.

In India, no one is above the law

We want to become a nation with a system that treats all its citizens as equal unlike your country that officially accords special rights to Malay Muslims calling them first-class citizens while relegating thousands of people of Tamil, Chinese and other ethnic origins.

Despite the fact that they have known no other land than Malaysia as their own, you denigrate them with the tag of being second-class citizens.

We try to work towards having a system wherein a person will grow according to his merit and hard work earning what she or he has rightfully earned.

You may be surprised to know that here in India making cartels based on identity, even if under the name of a holy cow called “Bumipuetra” or son of the soil is looked down upon by most of us.

Here, promoting the selective interests of one’s self or that of his kin is called corruption and nepotism and not, as you call it, development.

We are in fact fighting tooth and nail to arrest the scourge of corruption and (you’ll be shocked to know) get the guilty punished.

Here in India no one is above the law and many a times powerful public figures go to jail for being corrupt or subverting the law.

Now that we are at it, sir, I’m sure it would be interesting to know what the minorities of your country have to say – especially the jailed and beaten ones – about the development-democracy debate.

In fact, sir, your idea of development is largely at odds with many of us here.

Development is no substitute for values

What you did to the tropical forests and water bodies of Malaysia (that is, raze vast acres of them into oblivion to make way for big-buck oil palm plantations and piggeries and so on) would cause huge outrage among many of us who are looking for sustainable development.

We are yet to be unanimously convinced that making cemented roads – however broad, lining them with buildings, even if glass-covered and glossy, and putting cars on them, however fast – is a substitute for our valued bio-diversity.

Many of us are very convinced that displacing huge populations of native people for useless things like racing tracks is a blot on the word “development”.

There are many of us who find it a shameful and cruel hypocrisy that while your country has abundant and openly advertised sex tourism, it still whips women for being licentious!

Thanks to the culture of reading here, many of us know of your penchant for cruelty in your personal career.

A career during which you enacted despotic and violent acts at times in the name (your contorted version of) Islam and at times in the name of security and national interest.

We could recount how you rose to power annihilating huge numbers of your opponents and stayed there for over two decades, continuing your devious rule using tactics and schemes which are far beyond Machiavelli.

Many of us know about your vile Internal Security Act, which you used to crush political opposition – jailing them and putting in place a frail and near-sham democracy and placing the entire nation under a one-man rule of Umno for over two decades.

You will note that I have used words like “most of us”, “many of us” and have tried to stay away from absolute claims.

Misconstrued understanding of ‘development’

Besides the age-old Indian practice of accommodating different opinions, it is meant to recognise that there are people in this country, too, who think like you and will have applauded you for saying what you did.

They, too, think that roads are all that important and not the humans who walk on them or the ones who sleep beside them.

They have misconstrued the word development as development of personal wealth and that this “development” is a holy cow and everything including the rights and lives of fellow humans is of lesser priority.

Their money power helps them buy a lot of print space and electronic bandwidth so they may appear like the majority, but thankfully the truth is they aren’t.

The majority of us recognise and are willing to admit – and even discuss at length – that there are problems in our nation – including bad roads.

But they’ll quickly add that we intend to solve those not by lessening democracy but by ncreasing it.

The author is a freelance writer and activist based in Maharashtra.

 

 
 
Disclaimer: The views expressed by the authors and comments on this website are the sole responsibility of the writers themselves. The writer will take full responsibility, liability, and blame for any libel or litigation that results from something written in or as a direct result of something written in a comment. The accuracy, completeness, honesty, exactitude and factuality of the articles and comments are not guaranteed by imol.
Send mail to sound20 [at] gmail.com If you do not wish any of your writing republished here or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 1998 imol