Citizen's report on Governance and Development
Reporting on the National Social Watch Coalition's Kerala release of Citizen's report on Governance and Development 08-09
a place to collect all the (very few) comments on others blogs, sites etc...
Alrighto, herez a spot report. Others who were present, please feel free correct wherever they feel I am BSing.
It was a real good one hour odd, especially since the speakers were scholars who actually did have substantial things to say, and with passion too, and perhaps more importantly, also knew when to stop. A refreshing change from some of my past experiences with events like these full of pompous and boring old men who love the sound of their own voice.
I came in late while John was talking of the report and was explaining its content. Most of it I think is explained in rest of the mails in this thread and so am not going in to it. The voluntary, non-funded nature of the report should indeed urge all of us to contribute in any small way that we can.
Professor Patnaik's keynote was remarkable for the depth of its broad social context while also being peppered with anecdotes that could have come only from someone who has observed both power and policy making at such close quarters, but with a scholar's eyes. Some of the issues raised by him were the nature and impact of the economic reforms of the last two decades, how the executive has been denigrating the role of the legislature, the need for accountability and the nature of judicial activism.
He talked about the complete neglect that the executive has shown to more than a few parliamentary committee reports and the fact that treaties with substantial impact were being signed by the executive and then being presented as a fait accompli to the parliament, contrasting it to other democracies where parliamentary sanction is required before such treaties could be signed. His role around the NREGS scheme had given him the opportunity to deal closely with a lot of MPs across the political spectrum and he found them to be much more sensitive to the issues on the ground like the agrarian crisis, compared to the actual people who take the decisions but are not accountable like the MPs are.
Perhaps his most interesting (controversial?) take was on the nature of our judiciary and on judicial activism. His broad idea of our judicial system was that it was by and large populated with good people but who are completely unaccountable to anyone. He talked about the whole 'messiah complex' behind judicial activism as being a reflection of their middle class roots and their imbibing of the same values. In fact in many cases, judicial activism was a direct 'middle class hijacking' to use his words.
He also talked of the nature of judiciary's own pronouncements becoming law in our country comparing to other democracies where legislature always has the final law making power. He recalled a meeting attended by both our Supreme Court judges and a US Supreme Court judge, where the latter talked about the role of the judiciary being completely limited to interpreting the laws formulated by the Legislature and even when any flaws were found in the laws, the role of the judiciary was limited to sending it back for clarifications, and on how this idea was dismissed by our judges.
Professor Oommen's talk which followed threw up some shocking facts and stats which should make us all pause for a moment on the trajectory of our system. Only 173 MPs being participants in law making, 40% of the laws being passed with less than an hour of debate, and a law like the SEZ-law being passed with less than two hours of debate are nothing short of shocking.
He talked of participatory democracy's failure and attempts like the 73rd and the 74th amendments to the constitution to address those. A funny moment was when he talked of an MP who passed it asking him what actually the content was. Regarding the report, he mentioned the need for a bigger focus on the methods, ways and implementation of local self government - of how it means a decentralization of the three Fs - functions,finance and functionaries and on how it gets diluted in intend and content.
His final and very eloquent point was about the inherent instrumental and also the innate value of democracy and freedom - of how democracy is a tool in our hand but also that it is something which is valuable in its own.
The final talk by B.R.P. Bhaskar was a must listen for the know-nothing, think-nothing but still pompous dudes and dudettes who abound both in the south Delhi and some now even in our own news media. In the very short time that he took, not only did he give a dispassionate analysis and his own opinions, but he had the candor to talk of the failure of events like this to have impact and the need to address that.
He talked of how democracy was being increasingly reduced to elections, which are but a very small part of a democratic polity and on how, in his judgment the quality of the democratic processes has actually reduced compared to times like the 60s. Of why talking about the 'world's largest democracy' is irrelevant without talking about the content of it. He then expanded on the points regarding the judiciary, of how it has usurped the right to appoint itself, something not in constitution and on how the other branches of the government lacked the will to put the necessary controls and bring that back.
The self-critical point he raised last was I think the biggest takeaway. He referred to the fact that Prof. Patnaik mentioned that he had not seen the report released in the previous years as an indicator of the failure in spreading the message to the people at large in the ways that was still being relied on - through the methods of mass media.
here are the snapz - http://tinyurl.com/citizens-rpt-kerala
I had two questions noted down and had figured I'll ask it second, after some senior people in the audience asked their questions but since there was no 'first question', there was no second one either :-). Let me just note it down here.
1. RTI was undoubtedly one of the best things to happen in the recent past concerning our governance mechanisms. The next concentrated effort, IMHO, should be directed against transparancy on the finances of the registered political parties - how do they raise money, from whom, where do they spend it? That there will be stiff resistance should be accounted for beforehand - I remember the person behind Karnataka Election Watch (http://kew2008.wordpress.com/) talking of being called 'anti-national' for his efforts down the same path by a national party spokesperson. What are the concrete efforts that the civil society at large can take on this regard?
was the 'substantial' question.
2. Has the televising of parliamentary debates been a contributor to the decline of standards in parliament? The great Andy Grove of Intel had once called out American Senators for 'playing hollywood' for the consumption of TV audiences instead of working for public interest. Isn't that true, and to a much larger extend for us too with bland rhetoric and sloganeering substituting for policymaking?
was the more 'miscellaneous'question.
Comments (0)
Leave a comment...
To leave a comment on this posterous, please login by clicking one of the following.
