|
"If
there were any doubts in people’s minds that
democracy in India was still in its early
stages, they must have vanished after the
verdict of the Bihar assembly polls. Cutting
across barriers of caste, religion and region,
people turned up to give Nitish Kumar a
well-deserved victory," writes Pankaj Vohra in
'Hindustan Times'.
Many including me after the unpredictable sweep
of a political party other than the one led by
invincible Lalu, consider this a big win for the
democracy of India. When we all including
pundits of psephology and political science had
lost faith in ushering the change in the
interest of Bihar through democratic means after
February fiasco, people of Bihar proved an
ultimate win of democracy and perhaps of
righteousness.
But should the people take so much time, the
full fifteen years to do that? Should a state or
a country suffer for so many years’ freeze on
all good that could have been done and progress
made with good or even with average governance?
Why can’t this be avoided or the loss to the
people be minimized?
Many including me personally feel that there
must be some reengineering of our political
systems so that a state does not fall behind
with respect to others because of inaction built
in a political system through constitutional
changes. With the absence of national and
democratic political parties strong at center as
well as in all the states, the states are liable
to be run by regional strong and autocratic
characters such as Lalu or for that matter Jyoti
Basu. If Lalu was behind the backwardness of
Bihar, was it not that West Bengal fell behind
with respect to other states because of Jyoti
Basu, who couldn’t be replaced earlier because
of his personality or perhaps the party
discipline? Should we consider Lalu’s choice of
his wife as chief minister after he couldn’t
have kept the chair because of his involvement
in scam of history as democratic? Was it not an
authoritarian decision of a political boss who
never allowed anyone in his party to oppose his
decision or will? When all media and
intellectuals in West Bengal went on writing
volumes about the deteriorating industrial
atmosphere leading to flight of business from
the state because of the policies of Jyoti Basu,
the system didn’t or couldn’t change him to
avoid the situation. Should not the system take
care of the situation that is harmful for the
people of the state?
Perhaps the way of avoiding the situation may be
to limit the term for a person to head the
government to just five years. And with
technology and management, five years are good
enough to get executed any good project that one
wants for the people. Moreover, it might be made
mandatory to continue and complete all the work
undertaken by the previous government unlike it
happened in UP where even projects such as Taj
Expressway and flyovers in Noida were abandoned
on flimsy grounds by the new government. I am
sure that must be reason for the limit of two
terms- 8 years at the most for the president of
USA. It must be the same for the party president
and other offices too. The philosophy must be
one of giving chance for a change that normally
brings new ideas and urgency.
Another solution may come through building-in a
system, where an effective small group instead
of an individual takes important decisions
collectively.
I know all the ideas are having some pros and
cons, but the nation must avoid a situation
where a state chief or a party president becomes
an autocratic king and the people suffer and
suffer for so long. And the intelligentsias must
debate and decide a foolproof system. The system
must eliminate the possibility of Rabri Devi,
Mayavati, or Jayalalita type of ruling of the
state by proxy or as queen in name of democracy.
Let the democracy be real and win.
|
Discussion on this topic is now
closed. |
Return to previous Page |
