Measuring Rud for the Performances

It is acutely pertinent matter to be known,' what must be the parameter to judge the performance of any ruling government. This question also applies with the announcement and manifestos being presented by various political parties while elections. This evolving parameter must be such which could provide a level playing field to the media analysts as well as to the opposition parites in order to making of  their praise as well as their criticizing of the ruling government. This evolving parameter too can help the mindset of the voters as whole or to them sitting in different compartments of society in knowing about performance and fulfilment of their aspirations and on that basis they decide whether they can continue with them or discontinue them. Actually what it does, in the absence of proper parameter of performance, people start analysing governments and political parties in wayward and whims & fancies manner.

If we stick to the criteria of abiding constitution and governing laws, which is generally being followed by all three tier of democratic governments, they are not to be obstructed by judiciaries. However, it is not necessary that media analysts will give their nodding over the whole functioning of any government or voters will go all out in favor of them. Apart from performances of governments, we must talk about political parties, on the basis of their manifesto, their organizational structure and other activities which impress the voters as well the media analysts. But, the ultimate truth is that both are crucial and important for the success of any democratic governance. If we go through the last 65 years journey of Indian democracy, we find there are two mega factors, which have been influencing a lot to the political operation and its behavioural pattern. The first factor is the 'emotive and identity politics' which have been articulated and percolated through the factor of religion, community, caste and sub caste, language and dialect, region and sub region, local culture, dynasty and family background. It has been always easy to unite the people on this line. The compartmentalisation of voters have been occurring in Indian democracy in a big way and it is still going on , which is the most prominent tool to impress the voters. The second factor which directly influence the voters which is still regarded very  impactful, that is the 'populist announcement' or delegating direct economic benefits to the different sections of voters, being provided partly or fully with the help of subsidy provision out of the tax money.

Now the question is, ''do we still want to continue this trend and tradition of Indian democracy or we really want to fix up some glorious criterias under the provision of constitution. Those criterias, which will have a long term sustainable, empowering and net profit gainer to the public or we just want to repeat some cosmetic exercise in alluring voters and meeting the arithmetical requirement of forming government. In the last 70 years or so the fact of matter is that the quality of leadership fleet and in general and the eligibility of contesting candidates in particular have never been taken seriously on the radar of any political party. Neither the constitution has fixed up any criteria for this nor political partes have given priority to this.  Even media is not very serious over this.  So  this culture has been continoulsy prevailing upon in our post independence polity. Therefore, as of now whether candidate projected by parties or the independent candidates, they try to win elections by both hook or crook and thereafter they get ovation in media and they were termed as nothing succeeds like success by them. But, for the neutral analysts, who usually believe in an ideal, progressive and forward going political system, to them these elections results are still dogma. During last 60 years or so, we have found there has been lack of uniformity in the election result and one can never find proper reason to the victory as well as  to the loss. For last 1 or 2 election, what we find, word like good- governance or removal of corruption have been made as the slogans during elections otherwise in all past  elections either it  had been the prominence of one party or influence of one man leadership. Further we have had the populist slogans or schemes, family dynasty, weaker opposition, absence of competitive democracy, multiparty federal politics like that. On the micro level we always have had prevalence of  caste, community, language, culture and dynasty behind the prospect whether of party candidates or non party candidate. Apart from this, the money and muscle factor which have also played a big role in the elections. However, it is pleasing now both these factors have been neutralized by the election machineries.

The convicted persons have been barred for contesing election, but money power still playing a big role in the elections both directly and indirectly. In spite of dominance of identity, populism, money & muscle, the time also tells us that good governance and corruption free administration is buzzing around our public domain, which I think is good sign. But until unless we have a grand, glorious and standard guideline in our constitution for the performance of government and political parties, nothing will happen in concrete form. Though it has been also evident that sounds were being raised for the qualitative change in our system and all. So, our point is that these testing points must not be informal, voluntary and preachy type, otherwise we have same typicality of system, which we were marching on for last 70 years or so, when it  was being seen  the ruling party starts innumerable populist announcement during just six month or one year back to the elections or they start some war like or some fervor of nationalistic feeling in the society. They take the resort of ultra publicity and aggressive election campaign. In the same way opposition parties start populistic kind of manifesto even two step ahead of ruling party, they also start criticizing the ruling party even beyond the proportion and above of traditional limit and thus they tried to gain sympathy of public in the election. One thing, which is very common in our democratic politics that is  the factor of 'pro incumbency' and 'anti incumbency'. If there is pro incumbency, it means people are happy at the government, if there is anti incumbency, people are unhappy at the ruling government. But, arising of these situations are not based on any prescribed parameters rather it is the outcome of some uncertain circumstancial factors. All above mentioned measures being adopted by both ruling as well as opposition parties, which can not be made parameters of an ideal, efficient  and competitive democratic governance. We have to carved out such kind of scientific and ideal criterias which should not have a base of popular clitches or some bare sermon of some sparkling intellectuals. In addition, these criterias must have orientation of constitution and constitutionalism otherwise; it would have no any meaning. Our constitution to some extent is technical, objective too, but not subjective. It is only mentioned in the constitution that political party which get an ordinary majority, they will form the government. This is the final statement and all ideals of democracy are get merged here at this point. Perhaps,we think that it will resist us from any military coup and  ultimately this will be the real success of democracy.

On the other side the various activities of political parties, the structure and outline of their organizational set up being monitored by election commission get unnoticed. But, ironically the commission has only one canon, that is people’s representation act, not more than this. This peoples representation Act is also not complete in itself. Fact is that, in order to create a full proof system in the country, in a way EC is handicapped to initiate major reform and govern the various activities and whole functioning of political parties. That is why all political parties have a culture and tradition of carrying populism, sectional appeasement and overall vote bank kind of politics and electioneering strategy. In this context until unless we have a broad parameter and qualifying criterias or benchmark for the performances of governments over several fronts and functioning of political parties, we can not have a healthy and pure development of democracy in the country. It is attentionable here that the word good governance and omission of corruption in public life demands a broader change in the existing system and set up which ultimately sets the tone and tenure of ruling government and also the political parties, sitting in power or in opposition.

Element of parameters

To my mind, the foremost criteria for any political parties must be the quality of contesting candidate. This quality means not only the academic ability rather all elements related with public leadership like candidate's perception regarding his constituency’s geography, society, economy, human resource, natural resource  and one who have full comprehension of the problems which his constituency has. Only those person should be given nodding for fighting election who have better character, honesty, image, morality, vision of socio economic planning  and one who have plan to bring changes in all class and categories of citizen . The person who is very alert for the problems of his constituency and possess a broad sensitivity for their public. This is very irony; we almost submerged the quality criteria for the candidate. We have formed and framed  this decomcracy , a kind of formal cracy which is not people cracy rather a representative cracy, the representative who does not have capability of bringing changes in lives of millions of people. In  India, political parties pick up their candidates as per the whims and fancies of their top leader, keeping in mind the caste and community equation of the consitutency and how long he has hold the flag of his party, how much money and muscle he has, these are the criterias of deciding of candidature. Under all above mentioned criterias there are very few people who fulfills it.

This is very necessary that let constitution  fix up a parameter for all contesting candidates whether projected on the part of political parties or contest as an independent. Today we have become alert over the muscle element in the electoral politics and now we have barred the convicted persons from fighting election also becaue law already has come in the operation and Lalu Yadav has already become first vicitim of this. But we have to understand what is the actual definition of a leader. To me a leader is who, who can carry on his supporters or followers on the rightest track for their betterment and also can lead from the front. Only that person can be like this, who is very uncomplicated, qualitative, educated, communicative, honest and sensitive. But in practice what we see only that person uses to be leader who has money power, muscle power, caste base and community base  and near & dear to party leader like that. Till today the conception of a leader revolves around a person who is a so called common man, semi educated or under educated and flag bearing persons whose caste and community suits his constituency or a person who possess crores of rupee and can present it to the top leaders of party. Our intellectuals keep saying various political parties the culprit for this, but  I think that this is not a kind of fault, being committed by political parties, it is basically the defects of constitution, which has not mandated above presecribed qualities. These qualities criteria and reform can not be brought by the political parties, because their solemn aim is how to get maximum no. of votes and off course the number of seats. If we fix up better statutory criteria, definitely we have a better persons among the winning candidates and thereafter the minister will have a more efficiency and all proceeding of legislative houses would be more genuine and peoples oriented.

The second parameter must be the functioning pattern of political parties. Nothing to mention here that the pattern of forming organization, principles, membership of every party follow either the path of identity politics or the style of populism. The reason is that, the level playing field of our democratic politics has not been framed under a qualitative guidelines of constitution. Few months ago our judiciary had given many instructions to the political parties, which were in regards to transparency in the funding of parties, regarding organising caste and community rallies, regarding disqualifying muscle men and convicted persons in the politics and enacting right to information in the political parties. But political parties did not take these instructions positively because they would be exposed out of these measures and so they tried to deter these. The question is if all these things would have been brought under constitution and as per the spirit of constitutionalism, these things would not have been there. After all it took a long time in banning convicted politicians for contesting election for six years.

We need a fundamental overhauling of the functioning of our political parties, whether it is over their membership, over screening of candidates, whether it is over the training, orientation and employment of their party cadres or for the promotion of leaders in timebound manner, whether over promoting policy research in the party for bringing good governance, whether it is for reporting of mass problems or the better solution of big social and national problems, for all these we need a broad constitutional parameter so that parties can be given a professional outlook and full of modern, broad, judicious and inclusiveness approach rather their indulgence in negativism, identity oriented politics, dynasty, money and muscle oriented and their bent up towards cheap populist measures. whenever  political parties of countries are out of power, they never take interest in good governance oriented policy research, rather they are more indulged in making data of the caste and creed supporter and more active towars negative, non issues and instant popularity giving measures.and when these parties come in the power they heavily depend over burearucrats who don't have to be accountable to the public. The ruling party workers don't report the public problem correctly rather they are more involved in making recommendations for transfers, promotion, contract, admission etc.The question is why this is so? Because we have not yet drafted and crafted  a module under constitution which can create better criterias and parameter for both the candidates and political parties.

Last but not the least, I vehemently support a penalizing criteria for the voters too who accept bribe, gift and graft for casting their votes in favor of any candidates.