Mobacratic Democracy

 Mobacratic Democracy

Finally, everyone seemed satisfied when Anna Hazare declared an end to his fast on August 28th. As many panelists pointed out, for the common people, Anna’s agitation was not just about the Jan Lokpal Bill but an expression of frustration and anger against widespread corruption, particularly among politicians, and the inability of both past and present governments to address it with genuine concern and sincerity. When politicians were criticized from all sides, it was natural for them to react defensively rather than respond calmly. However, as elected representatives of the people, they should rise above the situation and demonstrate leadership rather than joining the fray in retaliation.

This was evident when Sri Mani Shankar Aiyar, typically a sober and sensible person (at least when not in political mode), condemned Anna’s movement—not even considering it a movement but rather a brutal agitation—as “mobocracy.” He expressed satisfaction that the supremacy of Parliament had been established, and he intended to celebrate the triumph of democracy over “mobocracy” (CNN IBN, August 27th night with Rajdeep Sardesai). However, in a fitting retort, Mallika Sarabhai remarked that it was indeed a victory of democracy over the mobocracy inside Parliament, which visibly irritated Mani. His repeated challenge to Civil Society members, particularly Kiran Bedi and Arvind Kejriwal, to contest elections and speak from within Parliament, seemed foolish to me. In another program (Aap Ki Adalat on India TV), Hazareji aptly responded to such questions by pointing out that, given the current state of elections, where more than ten crores of rupees are spent by each candidate (a conservative estimate, in my opinion), he wouldn’t even recover his deposit. The way candidates are selected and given tickets in each party is well known to everyone. Caste, money, muscle power, and family connections are the primary factors in getting a ticket, and no other qualifications seem to matter in Indian politics today. Given this reality, it is absurd for politicians to challenge Civil Society or others to contest elections. We all know how many thousands of crores of rupees (estimated between 3,000 to 5,000 crores by the DMK alone) were spent in the recent Tamil Nadu elections (April 2011). Even in Marupalli, each vote was bought for Rs. 200 by both DMK and AIADMK, and in urban areas or VIP constituencies like Tiruvarur, the amount distributed was even higher. Knowing these facts, Mani’s challenge not only appears foolish but also exposes the arrogance of politicians.

Sri N. Ram of The Hindu, disagreeing with Mani, pointed out that it is not Parliament but the Constitution that is supreme. He emphasized that public opinion and pressure from all sections of society play a crucial role in a true democracy. Lord Meghnad Desai also noted that Anna’s movement, conducted in a peaceful manner, contrasted sharply with other agitations, such as the Gujjar protests in Rajasthan, where public property was damaged and politicians ultimately yielded to demands.

Anna’s movement not only provided a platform for the common man to voice his discontent with corruption and the political system, but it also exposed the lack of credibility among politicians in various ways. The government’s and the Congress party’s responses to Anna’s demands, and the way they handled the situation, should serve as a lesson for the government and every political party, rather than an opportunity to preach to Civil Society. Since Indira Gandhi declared the Emergency and fractured the Congress for her vested interests in the name of serving India, the credibility of politicians has diminished considerably. The demands of Civil Society may seem extreme, but their credibility is not the criterion for making laws and governing the people. Politicians, on the other hand, must constantly prove their credibility, which has been increasingly questioned over the past several decades. There are exceptions, but the way politicians have conducted their politics, parties, and governments often amounts to “mobocracy” under the guise of a parliamentary majority—a trend that true democracy must triumph over. Movements like Anna’s highlight this reality rather than contributing to mobocracy in a Republic.

Dayanand Bharati 

Gurukulam, August 29, 2011