The Autonomy is for India

ahmadb#24 you write ``Majority-minority problem will always haunt the present-day citizens of Pakistan, unless we adopt an alternative, creative, and more humane approach.``

Agreed. It will take time, I think, but we are bound to see greater respect for minorities if current trends continue. The mullahs and the ethnic-chauvinists present too negative an agenda for them to gain any lasting or widespread following.

Thanks crb#28, shammi #27, ASK #26, macgupta #22 for your discussion on intra-party democracy vis-a-vis India, Pakistan and the US. This is not an issue that one finds discussed much in the press in either of our countries, I think. However, I am sure that anyone reading your posts would walk away with a better understanding on some important questions of our times. I will take the liberty of trying to summarize what I have understood from this discussion:

1. Intra-party democracy is an important element of a democratic system.

2. The primary system in the US provides a greater degree of intra-party democracy than India. In the US, even non-party members can vote in party primaries. India in turn has a greater degree of intra-party democracy than Pakistan (the reason explained next).

3. IPD (if I may shorten the term) was prevalent in the Congress from early on and never really had the time to take root in the Muslim League. This may possibly be attributed to (a) the much longer period that the British - and their undoubted strong influence in promoting democratic traditions - were in what is now India; (b) longer period for Congress vs. Muslim League to develop IPD. (c) the role of the election commission in India which is promoting audits of party finances and otherwise encouraging intra-party democracy.

4. While IPD exists still in the Communist Parties and in BJP, it came to an end in the Congress during Indira Gandhi`s time. BJP was rewarded for this with broader national support, while Congress and it`s back-office politicos were ousted. The recent rout of the long-standing party in power in Mexico can also be attributed to greater intra-party democracy practiced by the winning party (I think someone needs to educate our politicians on the importance of intra-party democracy to success in elections).

The above summary is of course no substitute for the posts themselves.

Tahmed

Some people might present an overly pessimistic picture, but the reality is that internal democracy does exist within parties in India though not at such an advanced state as US. I have particularly seen examples of selecting candidates by majority vote within parties during the municipality elections, village Panchayat elections and even at the district and state level. However at the apex, it seems that such examples of democracy are less frequent. For example Congress though highly democratic at the district level, tended to accept the people of Nehru dynasty unquestioningly. However there are several examples when there was a vote of confidence within Congress party in the events of disagreements like the one held between Sitaram Kesri,Sharad Pawar and Pilot a few years back. BJP also seems to hold some kind of party elections to choose its party leader. At the local level, the process is more democratic within BJP in my opinion. I am fully in favor of complete democracy at all levels within the party.

You also raised another question of why democracy could survive in India. Actually democratic institutions were deeply entrenched in India in the form of vilage Panchayats for centuries. Secondly the more appropriate question would be whether India could have survived without democracy. With a multitude of religions and ethnicities, it was impossible to keep united such a large country without giving political representation to all the groups. Had there been no democracy, I doubt if India had survived. Democracy is not a form of government but means of survival for us as a whole. Actually in a multi party democracy, by ensuring a distribution of political power and proportionate representation,the aspirations of diverse ethnicities to participate in the sharing political authority is more or less met. In a true democracy, all the various groups realise their mutual interdependence and convergence of interests by choosing to progress collectively. India still has miles to go in that direction.



Sincerely

Anil

Any response to your article should be based on three considerations. One, what type of autonomy and autonomy in which field are we talking about. Two, is the stage set for a paradigm shift ie. has Indian polity matured to an extent that it can judiciously make use of autonomy to drive the nation`s growth. Three, what kind of a new socio economic order does this type of setting envisage.

The proper starting point for answering the first question can be looking at the Indian Constitution. If my highschool civics does not fail me, there is a union list,state list and concurrent list in the Indian Constitution which demarcates the areas on which center, state and center+state can legislate respectively. Let us examine the effect of increasing the share of states in the revenue by modifying these lists. Some of the states like Gujrat, Maharashtra and Southern states may be able to rein in the fiscal deficit and increase the development fund for their respective regions. But in the short run, this will mean that less money is spend by the center to develop infrastructure of poor states like Bihar, Orissa which are the storehouse of India`s mineral wealth especially iron ore+coal. Any slowdown in these basic heavy industries which are the backbone of the industrial structure will have repercussions on the growth of rich states beside increasing the economic disparity in the country. In short term such factors may lead to the migration of labor taxing the resources of the rich states and affecting their progress. Greater level of economic disparity may disturb the existing socio-economic equilibrium causing a lot of unforeseen problems such as the rise of separatist elements. Hence owing to the mutual interdependence of the Indian states it may be in the collective interest to invest in poor but minerally rich states for a more equitable distribution of wealth and sustained collective economic progress. I realise I have touched only one aspect of the problem but a detailed discussion may be too lengthy for me to write. Meanwhile we may discuss using above questions as the guidelines.

Sincerely

macgupta #22 So, from your description I think one may conclude that India in fact did have inner party democracy to a larger extent than Pakistan. As for the military not taking over the government in India due to the large size of the country, that is probably one factor. I dont think it fully explains everything though. I think our (Pakistani) politicians themselves have (with few exceptions) tended not to nurture democratic traditions in the country. It seems to me that the nurturing of democratic traditions in India is one of Nehru`s great contributions to India (the other is the formation of IITs, which has paid dividends a generation later).

I think in Pakistan we must make inner party democracy a part of the constitution if we are to achieve it in any reasonable time: there is no one among our politicians today who anyone would confuse for the statesman one would need this purpose. So, it falls upon our military, ironically enough, to institutionalize certain key elements of democracy in Pakistan before it leaves power.

Eventhough some parties in India do have party elections, I don`t think they go through a process similar to the US in deciding who should be the party candidate from a constituency. (I just want to differentiate between the process of electing party officials and letting them decide the party candiadates for consistuencies and directly electing the party candiadtes.)

They may have some party meetings where these decisions are made, but it is nowhere near as representative or democratic as in the US. In some states in the US, during the primaries almost any citizen (regardless of their party affiliations) can vote. Nor there is (in India) the coverage associated with primaries here in US.

In the US the primaries are very similar to the real final elections; there is publicity, people go and vote and the newspapers publish who won the primaries and by what margin.

I belive having primaries (if some how we can afford it) will take a democracy to the next step. It will decrease the personality cult now associated with many parties in India.

I am sure if one major party started having this the others will follow through. May be it is a worth while cause to contribute towards the first primaries. I think once people and parties get the hang of it a way for funding it would be found.

(Its amazing the impact the primaries have had in Mexico.)

---

Tahmed321 #20:

My knowledge of Pakistan is mostly from reading Chowk, Dawn and Jang. I am still in the learning phase. So can`t really comment on the last of your

query.

cheers

crb

Re: Tahmed321 #20

``(a) how did the party primary system emerge in the US? through court decisions, or as a result of social changes like an increasingly influential free press? and (b) what is the process through which party democracy can be expected to evolve in India and (c) why did democracy take root in India and not (yet) in Pakistan despite the fact that inner party democracy does not exist in either country.``

ANSWERS:

(a) I think it was a combination of court-rulings and greater transparency afforded by the press

(b)The Congress party had excellent practices for inner democracy from much before Independence through the late 60s. It was only when Mrs. Gandhi destroyed what her father had carefully built that inner-party democracy in the Congress began to wane resulting in several splits. The nadir was during the Emergency, and in her term as PM from 1980-1984. The lack of inner-party democracy manifested itself in the electoral routs of the late 80s and the 90s that the Congress is suffering from even today. By contrast, the BJP HAS inner-party democracy and no cult of personality (unlike the Congress which deifies the Nehru-Gandhi family). The electoral success of the BJP has a lot do with their inner functioning and a semblance of fair play in party politics -- that is why the BJP is more disciplined and has not experienced any splits (something that has happened quite frequently with the Congress), and is able to hold together a complex coalition. The communists also have had much better inner party democracy - although their influence has been very provincial (Kerala and Bengal). In summary, I believe that the electoral `market` has rewarded parties that do have some measure of inner-party democracy (e.g. BJP, Communists, Telegu Desam) and has penalized others that do not (e.g. Congress, Shiv Sena).

(c) I really do not know why -- but here are two theories:

Theory 1 - The struggle for Pakistan by the Muslim League was not a mass struggle/movement (by deliberate design by Jinnah -- Jinnah abhorred Gandhi`s use of unconstitutional, mass-movement methods), whereas the Congress movements were all mass movements (e.g Non-Cooperation Movement, Dandi March to break the salt laws, Quit India Movement, etc.). Thus, the constituents of the Congress had greater exposure/opportunity to experiment with participative, grassroots democracy lasting over 30 years before 1947. (Infact, Gandhi called off the Non-Cooperation Movement in the 1920s after the killing of a few policemen by mobs because he felt that he had overestimated the ability of Indians to launch a civil, peaceful struggle. I believe that he said something like ``I do not wish to see the slavery to the British be replaced by slavery to a non-representative Indian``). Thus, by the time of Independence the Congress Party was far more committed to democractic functioning than was the Muslim League. By contrast, Pakistan went from the Lahore Resolution to a nation state in a mere 7 years -- insufficient time to cultivate democratic functioning at the grass roots level within the party and the country. The people who lived in what became Pakistan had not been acclimatized to grass-roots democracy, as the rest of British India had.

THEORY 2:

Westminster style democracy and the associated institutions (educational, judicial, law and order machinery, civil service) is a gift of the British, and since British rule came relatively late to what is today Pakistan (NWFP 1850s, Punjab 1849, Sindh, Baluchistan, etc.) compared to Bengal, Bihar and UP (1750s), the latter provinces had greater opportunity to absorb, learn and acquire the trappings of law-based governance (although British rule in India was hardly democratic). The fact that Calcutta was the capital of British India for almost 150 years has also helped.

re: tahmed321

The election commission of India had ordered the parties to submit their expenses to independent auditing and also asked for intra-party democracy in the last few elections. Unfortunately, the first order was ignored by most parties. Threats of disqualification haven`t as yet been carried out as disqualifying a major party will rob the electorate of an option. Maybe an example should be set in a small regional election through the disqualification of a major party which will send a message to all parties. The second is more difficult to implement as it involves taking away the freedom of political parties to have their own organizational structures. Even today the Congress does have elections to the AICC, CWC and for party office bearers. Unfortunately, more often than not these turn into sham exercises with infighting leading to factions asking for the ``high command`` to resolve the dispute. The ``high command`` itself goes through a unanimous vote with people in ``smoke filled backrooms`` deciding the outcome. The only parties that religiously go through intra-party elections are the communist parties. The only way to really resolve this issue is for the media to make this an issue. This will happen only if some maverick politician like John McCain rakes up this issue or some watchdog organization springs up to take the challenge. Certainly an idea worth exploring.

Even the American primaries aren`t that transparent. In New York the Republican leadership was trying to prevent McCain from being on the ballot! Intra-party democracy is a difficult task as it depends on the party membership. Constructive media criticism with follow-up can surely help as in the case of McCain who eventually made it to the NY primary.

Ashish

In response to tahmad321 (Reply # 23)

Dear Ahmad:

Your statement: ``I dont think splitting a country (a huge one like India, a middle one like Pakistan, or a small one like Belgium) into more such countries will solve anything.``

Comment: A good response! I wouldn`t say anything, however. Fragmentation would not solve the problem at least in the case of India or Pakistan. For example, how would we divide Sindh into the Sindhi and non-Sindhi parts? It is a serious, yet non-serious proposition! Tolerance is a better proposition. What kind of tolerance, under what kind of rules? This is a problem problem that needs to be resolved with great care.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. If not evident from my post, I don`t believe in the fragmentation of Sindh, let alone Pakistan. Majority-minority problem will always haunt the present-day citizens of Pakistan, unless we adopt an alternative, creative, and more humane approach.

kinc #21 you dsy ``A real solution to a country where minorities are not represented and fanatic people rule is to split country. ``

I dont think splitting a country (a huge one like India, a middle one like Pakistan, or a small one like Belgium) into more such countries will solve anything. The solution to the minority-majority problem lies in developing human resources so people learn to live with each other in a civilized manner (as has happened gradually in Europe, excepting Balkans, and as happened in the US over the past few decades). And with literate people like you need to take the lead in such efforts rather than coming up with meaningless solutions like splitting countries or calling for an Ataturk.

klnx, dream on !

In reply to tahmed : The following is all based on somewhat vague memory, so take with a pinch of salt.

I believe that the Congress party in India had party elections periodically until sometime during Mrs. Gandhi`s rule.

One of the attractions of the BJP if you were willing to overlook its nastinesses was that it did have party elections.

I also seem to remember that with the rejuvenation of the Election Commission, inner party democracy became more important; with the EC threatening to disqualify parties that did not hold party elections.

Regarding the big question -- why did democracy take hold in India -- I think it was simply because it was so much larger that coups and suspensions of the Constitution have much greater risks for the perpetrators. It is the positive side of having so many separatist movements that Pakistanis fondly hope will split the country.

-arun gupta

crb#19 I think the basic principle of democracy within the party is sound and applies in all countries regardless of the form of government, presidential or parliamentary.

In Pakistan too, we lack the primary system (in other words, democracy within the political parties). This, in my view, has been a major cause for the failure of democratic traditions to take root in Pakistan (so far). If we had a primary system, both Nawaz Sharif and Benazir would probably have been removed from party leadership after they were forced out of office the first time. And we would today have had a responsible democratic government in place, and the military would have had no reason to take power.

I am surprised that India is in the same boat as Pakistan as far as internal party democracy goes. I understand that this was true (in practice, at least) of the US as well until at least the start of the 20th century when political candidates were appointed in the proverbial ``smoke-filled back offices``. The interesting questions to my mind are so much that whether the internal party democracy applies to India (I think the answer is a clear yes), but rather (a) how did the party primary system emerge in the US? through court decisions, or as a result of social changes like an increasingly influential free press? and (b) what is the process through which party democracy can be expected to evolve in India and (c) why did democracy take root in India and not (yet) in Pakistan despite the fact that inner party democracy does not exist in either country.

I would appreciate any thoughts on this from you or anyone else on chowk.

Anil,

A real solution to a country where minorities are not represented and fanatic people rule is to split country. It should have happened at the partition, but many ethnic groups such as Sikhs in Punjab, Telugos in Andhra Pradesh, Muslims in Indian Kashmir, Assam (ULFA), and others realized only after years of oppression by the government.

Just like soviet union, it is going to happen in India, in a matter of time and with few more sacrifices.

I have some thoughts on a related issue.

I was wondering if it would make sense to hold primaries in the Indian parliamentary system.

For people who may not be familiar with the primary system: In the US before the real election

different parties hold their own election to decide who will be the candidate for that constituency. Thus the persons who contest the final election, are not handpicked or chosen

by the high command (as in India) but are rather chosen by the people in that constituency who

belong to that party. The last condition may vary between states.

I wish some bold parties in India adopt this approach. As it happened in Mexico, this

will give a lot of visibility to that party and perhaps others will follow suit.

In the absence of such a bottom up procedure, currently too much power in a party is with the party bosses. Currently, the election of party leaders (or legislative leaders) in Indian political parties is almost a farce.

It seems to me that if the Congress-I (or most parties for that matter) had

a primary system and the Congress MPs were

chosen as candidates through a primary (instead of being picked by the state/center party bosses)

then they would elect a different opposition leader than the one elected now.

I realize that there is big difference between the parliamentary system in India and the presidential system in the US. Are there other democracies

with a parliamentary system that have primaries?

Also, a big concern would be the cost asociated with holding primaries.

I hope someone from BJP is listening. May be then can be a trend setter and have primaries.

cheers

crb

Anil : A well written article. A really thought provoking issue.

Rdesikan #: 13 and SameerJB #: 15 : Thanks for the additional insight.

I agree with Anil that we should move towards more state power. The States doing well should be rewarded for their good

work. I would advocate a slow move towards more economic freedom first. I am not sure if more than economic power will be

that beneficial. After all Shiv Sena was in power in Maharashtra and with that much power they could wreck havoc. We have a

lot of stability because India is so big and we have a a really good constitution. Small states in developing countries are easily

taken over by a bunch of crooks.

The economic competition has already started. When Gates and Dell were in India Chief Ministers from AP, Karnataka

and even UP went to meet them to attract business to their states. A lot of states are opening software export zones and are

competing for business. But we have a long way to go and as they say ``we have miles to walk before we can sleep....``

Faruk

A la Mohajir--a story worth checking out -- in the latest Far Eastern Economic Review--Guiding Lights; Success breeds success in Silicon Valley as Indianbusinessmen share their knowledge

http://www.feer.com/_0010_19/p46innov.html