Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/
At the outset, let me confess that I am a Shekhar Gupta fan: in fact, I so loved his editorials, that when he resigned, I dropped the Indian Express which I had been reading from my school days. However, as he now lambasts the BJP for its management of the Covid pandemic – with words like ‘shambolic,’ I wonder: how can any journalist who aims to be ‘factual,’ fail to hold us citizens partially responsible for the mess we are in?
We refuse to wear masks. And when a policeman looms large on the horizon, we quickly hoist it to half-mast. Come on, if we cover our mouths and noses, how do we breathe …
We hesitated to be vaccinated in January-February. From doctors down, a large section of us equated vaccines to imminent death. Come on, why should we be guinea pigs …
We love our WhatsApp. We merrily forward everything, from recipes for immunity boosters to ‘Very Important’ declarations that the black fungus infection has nothing to do with steroids or sugar levels. Come on, where do we find the time to run fact checks …
We insist on attending weddings, funerals and religious festivals. Social distancing? What’s that?! Come on, our cousins will never forgive us for not attending their weddings; god will never bless us if we skip that rite …
We expect the government to run a welfare state: as though we are a Scandinavian country. But we are also for private enterprise and profit making – or, profiteering to be more precise. Come on, paying bribes at government hospitals for everything from admission to medicines is nothing new: selling remdesivir on the black market is just an extension of that …
Come elections, we ignore performance, corruption, health infrastructure and education. All we want is our freebies. Come on, cash for votes is an accepted part of a campaign …
Yes, the BJP grew complacent; yes, the BJP failed to corner the global vaccine supply in advance; yes, the BJP did not anticipate the exponential demand for oxygen …
But the BJP is now in course-correction mode.
Now, tell me, what about us?
—Preetha Kannan
Decreasing participation in the electoral process reflects growing discontent in a liberal democracy. In democracies such as India, turnout amongst the population eligible for voting was just above 50% (58%) in 2009, continuing on a downward path from 62% in the 1998 general election. Low voter turnouts often represent cynicism against the process and a belief that things won’t change.
This kind of scepticism is built on the years of experience where people have heard campaign promises and went out to vote for the candidates of their choice but only to be let down when it comes to the representation of their voices.
Economic elites and organized interest groups often dictate policies, even in countries where political scientists believe “liberal democracy” exists. Preferences of citizens or even majority groups have a minuscule impact on policies. If majoritarian choice would have impacted policies, then the bottom 50 percent’s share in total national income wouldn’t have been lower than the top 1 percent’s share in total national income.
The rise of Narendra Modi in the 2014 Indian election wasn’t just a result of the incumbent government’s loss, but it signified a belief that the majority of citizens echoed. There was a broad perception that the country needed a leader who can correct the system. Arguably for the second time, parliamentary election in the state became about one person. The poll recorded a 66% voter turnout, the highest in Indian democratic history, and a significant 32% increase in total votes cast compared to the 2009 election.
The concerning part for liberal democracy was that citizens whose voice in policies were restricted were using their democratic rights to elect a leader who they believe would be more powerful than the elites and the system. This belief itself goes against the fundamental ethos of liberal democracy, in which a leader shouldn’t subvert institutions at his whims and fancies, hence safeguarding democracy.
The disenchantment with the current system doesn’t just reflect frustration towards income inequality but also the power consolidated by elites in the guise of “liberal democracy.” The egalitarian sentiment that pushed liberal democracy to the forefront was somewhere hijacked by the self-interest of the elites and from the belief that their wisdom, even if tangentially different from majoritarian choice, represents the true interest of the state.
There has always existed a paradox concerning liberal democracy when it comes to the role of elites. It is unrealistic to assume that including every citizen’s choice without interacting with current institutions would make policies more efficient or robust. Such restrictions make democratic institutions by design elitist as policies require a significant degree of expertise and consensus. Also, these same institutions safeguard the rights of minorities from a majoritarian vote.
At the same time, these institutions are supposed to represent citizens’ choices, and the more it insulates itself from their demand, the more would be the rise of anti-institution or anti-elite sentiments.
Sooner than later, the rising anti-elite sentiments and cynicism towards institutions help leaders with authoritarian tendencies threaten democracy by rising through the same democratic process. This transition of “liberal democracy” to “illiberal democracy” paves the way for strongmen to capitalize on the perception of cleaning the corrupt and inefficient system to co-opt or terrorize opposition, media, and business houses under the guise of pursuing a public objective.
These leaders become authoritarian by deploying selective investigation and charges, choking financial funding of opposition parties and media, and promoting loyalists to co-opt independent institutions. There seems to be a convergence of illiberal democracy with liberal authoritarianism in the current form of political institutions.
Capitalist globalization explains the path of convergence of the authoritarian regime and democracy. The impetus on trade integration and financial mobility provides more leverage to international institutions and further constrains the preferences of domestic actors.
It has forced governments to follow elitist policies across the world rather than cater to weaker sections exposed to globalization. While for authoritarian regimes, this meant liberalization to a certain extent, for democracies, it made decision-making even more undemocratic. In democracies, it made systems more unresponsive towards the demands of citizens because of international pressure. It further undermined the credibility of institutions and political climate and fueled anti-system sentiments. The concept of crony capitalism that is generally attributed to authoritarian regimes has now become part of democracies. The growing inequality helped business houses strengthen their control of political systems while the distance between elites and majoritarian class grows.
The challenges of globalization aren’t limited to income inequality but extend to cultural insecurity felt by the majoritarian community due to immigration. When national policies don’t address these insecurities, it ushers majoritarian class towards populist leaders who exploit the cultural diversity issues to gain power.
—Ritubhan Gautam
The Prime-time debate anchor adjusts his spectacles as his three guests, spokespeople for BJP, Congress, and SP incoherently argue over the dead bodies in the Ganga. The anchor finally interrupts saying “Please don’t talk over one other”. He then proceeds over to try and question the BJP leader about the bodies of people found floating in the Ganga. With no reasonable or logical answer to the question left, the BJP leader then proceeds to use the modern-day Brahmadanda, the best weapon that a politician has today that can swallow any weapons or questions thrown at them and can deflect any sense of responsibility
King Kaushik, enraged by his defeat at the hands of Maharshi Vasishta, undertakes a Tapasya for several years to please Lord Shiva. Lord Shiva, pleased with his penance, bestows upon him the knowledge of celestial weaponry. King Kaushik, now known as Sage Vishwamitra goes to Vasishta’s ashrama with the powerful weapons to destroy Vasishta and his hermitage. In the ongoing fight, an enraged Vasishta brings out his Brahmadanda, a powerful wooden stick blessed with the power of Brahma. The Brahmadanda which has the ability to thwart any weapons, consumes all Vishwamitra’s weapons including the Brahmastra, leading to Vishwamitra’s defeat.
As the BJP leader says “Please do not make this political”, the anchor and the other spokespeople go on the defensive. The anchor does not question the BJP leader about it anymore. The other spokespeople, fearful of the consequences of being accused of “playing petty politics” or it’s hindi version “Logon ke maut ke upar aap apne political rotiya sekhne mein lage hue hai”, do not question the BJP about this anymore and the debate goes on to a different topic.
This political Brahmadanda isn’t in the sole ownership of the BJP. It has been used numerous times by spokespeople of ALL political parties. Every time there is a State-made-disaster (And yes, the disastrous handling of the 2nd wave of the pandemic is the responsibility of the Modi govt and all the state govts), we see the Central or State ruling party spokesperson on TV debate pulling out their own “Do not make this political”.
Brahmadandas to divert all the attention of the people from the actions (or inactions) of the government. In the recent past, we have heard this from every single government who mishandles a crisis, may that be a pandemic related one, or otherwise.
Dead bodies in the Ganga in UP and Bihar – Don’t make it political.
Post poll violence in Bengal – Don’t make it political
Infants die in Rajasthan due to negligence – Don’t make it political.
Oxygen Shortage in the country and lack of medical infrastructure – Don’t make it political.
Covid Spread because of lack of testing in Telangana – Don’t make it political.
Entire Families getting Wiped out in Rural India – Don’t make it political.
Everywhere!
It’s understandable that with the pandemic affecting the country the way it is today; it would be both a waste of time as well as inappropriate to just have blame games and shouting matches on TV. But, unless a sense of accountability is imposed on the rulers and administrators of this country, the situation will not improve. Nor will they really care.
Remember, POLITICAL is the only way the people of India can make the rulers of this country answerable to us. To Quote Mr. Shekhar Gupta, “In the minds of the political parties in the country, 2 + 2 are 4 votes”.
We the people need to start being more political.
—Ameya Karnad
We have banged the Central government enough for the Vaccination Drive failure. Knowing Modi, he is a good administrator. He has demonstrated it time and again. If he gets an idea right, I don’t think there is any chance of failure on deliverance. The issue is about getting the right idea accepted and implemented. He has the capability of delivering the worst of ideas in the best possible ways. So much to say about his deliverance capability.
Having said that, I am sure that Modi and his machinery has been doing enough behind closed doors to ensure ramping up supplies of Vaccines (eerie silence on the same). Most of the media and experts have said enough about the high figures of Vaccine availability quoted by the Government being absolutely wrong and over-committed. But one thing we should appreciate, as mentioned above, if decided, Modi can find innovative ways to do it.
But is the State Government ready to Vaccinate at that scale. What is their readiness? The Loopholes in the State Vaccination drive are not exposed so far, due to lack of availability of Vaccines. There is no chaos at Vaccination Centres as there are no Vaccines.
But if the states are given say Crores of Vaccines, are they ready to Vaccinate the masses. If you ask me, the answer is a big No. All states are happy criticising the Centre for the mess. Will they act CRY BABY if they are dumped with Vaccines. Say – if Maharashtra is given 10 Cr Vaccines will they be able to Vaccinate the whole population in a month or two.
What’s the capacity of each state to Vaccinate per day? Has anyone thought about it?
I see a situation where-in, in July, States will have Vaccines and will not be able to Vaccinate people quickly. They won’t have medical staff and Vaccination Centres to do so. They will again blame the Centre for giving to many at one time.
Who will suffer – the people? Whom will the Media support – does it really matter – when the common man is suffering because of the lackadaisical approach of the State or Centre.
Better to question the States now: what is their readiness for Vaccination? How many doses can they inject per day?
You need to gather data now and ask the questions to the State Governments now – so that they are prepared for the same. Else the Common Man will continue to suffer.
—Dinesh Prabhu
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram