Interesting! And good methodology too.
But I have some issues: now '(1) On bio and financial info of its elected leaders available to the public' does not signal anything. There is this whole system of 'benami' where someone totally unrelated can hold the person's assets. Almost all politicians resort to this and just knowing what organisations that relatives are associated with, will not solve the prob.
Step 3 will indicate connections to corporate houses or interests. But problems with democracy are more than just crony capitalism, isn't it? For instance, take the TN politicians' skewed arguments on backing the rebels in SL. That is detrimental to democracy but how do you explain their affinities by looking at just their corporate associations.
I also have a more fundamental problem: seriously how would you define a working democracy? Would simply holding elections periodically and getting people to cast their vote at gun point, like is done in Kashmir, suffice?
I do not think transparency amounts to anything much in countries inSouth Asia as we have a different idea of private life etc.
But I have some issues: now '(1) On bio and financial info of its elected leaders available to the public' does not signal anything. There is this whole system of 'benami' where someone totally unrelated can hold the person's assets. Almost all politicians resort to this and just knowing what organisations that relatives are associated with, will not solve the prob.
Step 3 will indicate connections to corporate houses or interests. But problems with democracy are more than just crony capitalism, isn't it? For instance, take the TN politicians' skewed arguments on backing the rebels in SL. That is detrimental to democracy but how do you explain their affinities by looking at just their corporate associations.
I also have a more fundamental problem: seriously how would you define a working democracy? Would simply holding elections periodically and getting people to cast their vote at gun point, like is done in Kashmir, suffice?
I do not think transparency amounts to anything much in countries in
--------------
Response
"There is this whole system of 'Benami' where someone totally unrelated can hold the person's assets. Almost all politicians resort to this and just knowing what organisations that relatives are associated with, will not solve the prob."
I have thought a lot about 'Benami' problem though in an entirely different context. My understanding is that it will get solved with digitization and changes in election process procedure. The problem of 'benami' will be sorted when the parallel economy of black money is reined in. And that will happen over a period of time. There is no instant solution and this one requires a more top-bottom approach. When the Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax and CBI are run by the right people or let us say procedures are followed and Ministers do not have the authority to change the course of investigation. Current organization structure gives the ministers too much of power, the departments are run more at the mercy of politicians, hence making it difficult to curb the Benami and the black money problem.
I have thought a lot about 'Benami' problem though in an entirely different context. My understanding is that it will get solved with digitization and changes in election process procedure. The problem of 'benami' will be sorted when the parallel economy of black money is reined in. And that will happen over a period of time. There is no instant solution and this one requires a more top-bottom approach. When the Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax and CBI are run by the right people or let us say procedures are followed and Ministers do not have the authority to change the course of investigation. Current organization structure gives the ministers too much of power, the departments are run more at the mercy of politicians, hence making it difficult to curb the Benami and the black money problem.
I will make no claim that these measures will end the corruption but definitely compared to current levels it can be curbed by 90 per cent or more with just tweaking the reporting and appointment structure. This is why I am not for the lokpal bill for now but rather a tweak in the system for better authority and responsibility.
"....For instance, take the TN politicians' skewed arguments on backing the rebels in SL. That is detrimental to democracy but how do you explain their affinities by looking at just their corporate associations."
This is a problem of power play and aspirations. There is a famous story that we all have been told: There was a farmer. He had five sons. They were always fighting. To teach them to stick together he gave each one of them a stick and asked them to break it. And they all managed to do so. Then he bundled the sticks together and asked his each one of his sons to try and break it. None of his sons' were successful at the task. Hence, the moral that if you stick together then no one will be able to break it.
Now our dear politicians/leaders have taken this story to their heart and have re-written it the other way round. So they try and break the society on any possible ground and keep people in the dark in any way possible. This helps them keep in power. The part that is upsetting is that media, the fourth estate or the watchdog of democracy, is actually colluding with these politicians. While it is easy to break, compartmentalize and rule its tough to build a nation. For now I am short on ideas, on how can we fix this problem. Ultimately it will come down to people who choose and to those who decide to serve the nation as its leader.
"I also have a more fundamental problem: seriously how would you define a working democracy? Would simply holding elections periodically and getting people to cast their vote at gun point, like is done inKashmir , suffice?"
Actually this is a very good question but few, to my knowledge perhaps no one asks this question. But its simple:
Any country where a government can be changed by means of non-violence and consensus building through voting fulfills the basic criteria of "democracy".
A "functioning democracy" will be the one where the elected government has the authority to frame the laws of the land and the only way to challenge them should by either changing the government or by challenging it in the court of law that the new law is against the basic tenets of the country's foundation. This little criterion is important because thoughPakistan and Thailand Turkey
There are three prime examples good elections are: During the General Election inIndia , when Dr Karan Singh fought an election with AB Vajpayee in Lucknow , which though Vajpayee won but the margins were too narrow despite Lucknow Bellary
Now comes theKashmir part. To allow secession, is out of the question its like removing the stick from the bundle. Everyone has too much to lose in such a situation. There are no gainers except the person who appoints himself or herself as the ruler/leader etc.
"....For instance, take the TN politicians' skewed arguments on backing the rebels in SL. That is detrimental to democracy but how do you explain their affinities by looking at just their corporate associations."
This is a problem of power play and aspirations. There is a famous story that we all have been told: There was a farmer. He had five sons. They were always fighting. To teach them to stick together he gave each one of them a stick and asked them to break it. And they all managed to do so. Then he bundled the sticks together and asked his each one of his sons to try and break it. None of his sons' were successful at the task. Hence, the moral that if you stick together then no one will be able to break it.
Now our dear politicians/leaders have taken this story to their heart and have re-written it the other way round. So they try and break the society on any possible ground and keep people in the dark in any way possible. This helps them keep in power. The part that is upsetting is that media, the fourth estate or the watchdog of democracy, is actually colluding with these politicians. While it is easy to break, compartmentalize and rule its tough to build a nation. For now I am short on ideas, on how can we fix this problem. Ultimately it will come down to people who choose and to those who decide to serve the nation as its leader.
"I also have a more fundamental problem: seriously how would you define a working democracy? Would simply holding elections periodically and getting people to cast their vote at gun point, like is done in
Actually this is a very good question but few, to my knowledge perhaps no one asks this question. But its simple:
Any country where a government can be changed by means of non-violence and consensus building through voting fulfills the basic criteria of "democracy".
A "functioning democracy" will be the one where the elected government has the authority to frame the laws of the land and the only way to challenge them should by either changing the government or by challenging it in the court of law that the new law is against the basic tenets of the country's foundation. This little criterion is important because though
There are three prime examples good elections are: During the General Election in
Now comes the
As for the state itself, there are two levels of problem there. One a consistent external fuel and second that our leaders don't accept mistakes and then try to correct them.
Omar Abdullah's point that Army should be kept to barracks or their authority should be curbed in places where they do not have any operations is correct by all standards but that is the problem no one is listening. I think a similar step of limiting the Army's role in north-east is also important. For such situations, I think it all comes down to leadership and how the states are being handled. Too many mistakes were done at the time ofIndependence
"I do not think transparency amounts to anything much in countries in South Asia as we have a different idea of private life etc."
Agreed. But we did change a lot. And this concept will also change albeit with a lot of time. One of the disadvantage of being in the public life and being given the responsibility of using power is that there cannot be any of a private life and one shall always be under scrutiny. The politicians can accept it now else they will have to accept it 50 years later, provided democracy remains and the country does not disband itself.
Continued to
Omar Abdullah's point that Army should be kept to barracks or their authority should be curbed in places where they do not have any operations is correct by all standards but that is the problem no one is listening. I think a similar step of limiting the Army's role in north-east is also important. For such situations, I think it all comes down to leadership and how the states are being handled. Too many mistakes were done at the time of
"I do not think transparency amounts to anything much in countries in South Asia as we have a different idea of private life etc."
Agreed. But we did change a lot. And this concept will also change albeit with a lot of time. One of the disadvantage of being in the public life and being given the responsibility of using power is that there cannot be any of a private life and one shall always be under scrutiny. The politicians can accept it now else they will have to accept it 50 years later, provided democracy remains and the country does not disband itself.
Continued to
No comments:
Post a Comment