The Third Force in Governance –The Indian Experiment

When India was under foreign rule of Britain, governance was in the hands of a single force, that of the then ruler. There was no serious debate about this singularity of the governance force  as the whole country was engaged in driving out  the foreign rulers  rather than worried about ruler.  

The dawn of Independence in 1947 and the adoption of parliamentary democracy for India  gave rise to the duality  feature  of governance viz . ,a  legislature comprising elected representatives of people and an executive comprising a cabinet of ministers responsible for the day to day administration. The Constitution of India clearly defines the respective duties and powers of these two wings of governance aided by an independent Judiciary to interpret and settle the occasional differences and transgressions on the part of the dual forces. The point to note is that the legislature and the executive have been performing their respective functions unbiased by any ideological leanings, whether it was a single political party commanding the majority in Parliament, such as the Congress in the first two decades, or later when coalition governments were formed participated by multiple political parties as widely different as the ends of the right-left spectrum. And yet, both the legislature and the executive were accountable to the people, the former through periodic elections and the latter through the ministers.

The General Elections in 2014 has introduced a  new element in India’s governance. A major socio-cultural movement like the RSS has entered the fray, albeit not directly through participation in the elections but by guiding and supporting a political party and influencing its plans, programs and agenda. There is the feeling that its influence has even spread   in the choice of cabinet ministers, some policy formulation and implementation, appointment of heads of academic and cultural bodies, etc... This may be called the third force in the governance of India and is an additive to the traditional dual forces envisaged in the Constitution.   As our Constitution did not envisage such a third force, its emergence particularly without electoral accountability would tantamount to  a first time experiment in the practice of constitutional/ parliamentary democracy.  It therefore appears that there is an urgent need for an extensive debate and discussion among legal and constitutional experts, political scientists, etc. in order that this new force should gain legitimacy and validity. 

What mandate?

The Times of India on 4^th July carried a centre- page article by Pavan Varma, M.P (@PavanK-Varma) which basically addresses the arrogance of authoritarianism among the current powers that be. Wondering whether this will lead to the declaration of Emergency once again, a la a recent statement to similar effect made by L.K.Advani, the article mentions the high propensity of Indians for sycophancy and hero worship of those in power.

Is this the reason or a near about fait accompli situation of having elected to Lok Sabha a single national party with a huge majority with hardly any opposition? Whoever thought that such majority in the Lok Sabha is only an administrative majority and not a legislative majority which includes a majority in Rajya Sabha as well and which then could be used to pass appropriate legislations towards bringing in reforms?

The not so moral alternative route of promulgating ordinances on important reforms like acquisition of land for speedy industrialization and discarding debate and discussion in the House does not portend good democratic governance. There is also a growing feeling that any opinion not in square with the overall policy of the government would be disposed of under an attitude of “either my way or the high way” like the sudden discovery of the negativity of the social media vis -a- vis the PM’s blog or tweets.

The last General Elections put an end to the scam-a day government of the UPA reflecting the anti- establishment mood of the electorate. The experiment of coalition governments only resulted in the different parties pulling the developmental juggernaut in different directions, notwithstanding the common minimum programme inked by the parties before taking oath of office.

The new dispensation of another coalition government cobbled by the NDA is different in that it has within it one single national party with a whooping majority in the Lok Sabha. This naturally aroused a lot of expectations by the people, particularly as the single large party had in its election manifesto and campaigns promised good governance free of corruption and inclusive development.

Now, the new government and most of its critics (not the opposition political parties) admit that dramatic results like economic development through conducive policy for foreign investment, etc. is too early to happen since it still has to cope with less than the required majority in the Rajya Sabha. The oft-cited reason of clearing the mess created by the previous government has washed well only so far and the people in general will not be impressed any more

Is economic development through facilitating the setting up of industries to make (things) in India the panacea of all our ills today?  Investment in social sectors like eradication of famine, mal-nutrition of children and women, basic education and public health are prior requisites. But the government does not seem to think so since the PM during his frequent visits to foreign countries asks the people there ad nauseam to invest in India in the manufacturing sector.

 Be that as it may, can economic development be not brought about without changing socio-cultural identity of India? Many of the initiatives taken by the new government appear to indicate that the changes in socio-cultural aspects of Indian life are their first priority.

It began with the reverse proselytization of members of some minority communities followed by banning the sale and consumption of beef and desecration of some places of worship. In most of these, the ball was set rolling by some obscure M.Ps or party ideologues and the government not only had not taken them to task but turned a Nelson's eye when the thing actually happened. Next, the institutions of higher education and social and scientific research came under attack, where many a "head" literally rolled and was replaced by persons of identifiable ideology acceptable to the ruling party. Even the regulatory bodies like the Film Censor Board were not spared. The joke going round is that no chief of these institutions dare leave his chair even to answer the call of nature, lest the HRD ministry would send a replacement

The justification given by the party spoke-persons in the media is that this government has come to power on the basis of the clear and huge mandate given by the people in the last elections. The mandate, to be sure, was for clean governance and development, sans coalition of ideologically differing political parties as promised by the candidates, particularly the prime ministerial candidate. It was not certainly intended as a carte blanche for meddling with the socio-cultural fabric and mores of this great country or to usher in changes affecting the daily life, like right to worship or the dietary preferences of the people.

Is there a way to let the powers know this or do we have to wait till 2019?