WHY MUST INDIA REFORM STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES OF POLITICAL PARTIES

 

    Reforms in political parties, though critical, are unlikely to sustain on their own in absence of reforms in other sectors.   India has to explore comprehensive reform in all institutions of state and society in quest of a vibrant society and robust state. 

    I am posting a video of a panel discussion on "Reform in Political Parties". Keynote Speech was delivered by former Chief Election Commissioner of India Shri S Y Qureshi, with other speakers being eminent academic Professor Balveer Arora, Parliamentarian Dr Kalanidhi Veeraswami and  another eminent Indian academic from Cambridge University with roots in Kolkata, Prof Samita Sen. The event was organised by a Kolkata based entity Tillotoma Foundation on my suggestion. 

I have been examining the role of political parties in the entire governance process from the perspective of national security for quite some time. Nevertheless, I have been conscious of the need for a wider discussion on the subject. This seminar appeared a good platform but I believe that search for a comprehensive perspective should not be confined to ideas of only eminent speakers and contributors in this seminar. I have noticed that a large number of people, including many personal friends,  do go through my blog and send me detailed comments  on WhatsApp. But they have avoided posting those on the blog. I shall appreciate a break in this tradition to welcome few comments on the blog. 

 PERSPECTIVE:

 Ever since I have started observing, studying and researching the subject of national security, I have become increasingly convinced that reform in political parties would be the most critical variable for a robust national security strategy of democratic India. I have written extensively on this subject in my unpublished research work but I had placed a write up on my blog in November 2020. I had also dealt with this subject in my NDC dissertation captioned “..Governance as Bedrock of National Security “ in 2016. In January 2020, during a lecture at JNU, I had emphatically argued that merit driven dynamic and competitive, and neither discordant nor hereditary and oppressive, political parties and corporate sector could emerge the  two most critical variable of a robust national security architecture. This would require lot of innovation. 

    Unfortunately, the strategic community of India has been extremely circumspect in discussing the idea of stronger and effective national security strategy for  the country. Sadly, malicious elements hiding within India's own bureaucratic and security establishment, have been crushing and killing powerful ideas, innovations, initiatives as well as patriotic talent that aspires and attempts to bring about major break through in any sphere. Recently, a media channel has discussed issues like suspicious deaths of several scientists from Homi Bhabha and Vikram Sarabhai onwards to suspicious death of even former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri in Tashkent to recent killings and attempted killings of several scientists. The rot is probably too deep. Even the popular and decisive Prime Minister of India, who has received a resounding mandate from the people twice,  has not been able to push through major strategic restructuring of institutions despite showing a powerful resolve in this direction. 

Rationale for A Conference on Reform in Political Party System:

Before this conference I was asked from sections of media about the rationale  behind a discussion on this subject. I had conveyed the following in writing:  'all great societies and states have advanced by their ability to identify key challenges of their times and explore effective and viable solutions with a high level of sincerity and integrity. Political competition in democracies all over the world has been breeding such levels of conflict that are retarding optimum governance and security output of these societies. Primary cause of such conflicts appears insufficiently or deficiently regulated political competition. 

    Such problems in Indian democracy appear far more acute. Over the last four decades a democratic India, which is expected to be driven by merit and competition, has unfortunately lagged far too behind a similarly sized opaque and authoritarian China, which has to rely to a fair extent on loyalty and coercion. Such an anomaly is reflective of serious underlying disorder in Indian democracy. Primary cause of such disorder appears inability of political parties to act as aggregators of public interest and  aspirations as well as their failure to throw up powerful ideas and initiatives towards collective and comprehensive advancement of India. In many instances, political parties appear monoliths controlled by despotic leaders or dynasts driven by a narrow partisan agenda to capture power. While the process of elections cannot eliminate role and relevance of people entirely but these are increasingly losing focus and priority.' 

I had gone on to add that "election process is increasingly appearing war through ballot among rival (or a plethora of ) political parties...... In today’s competitive and increasingly integrated global order, such a scenario presents serious threat to national security of India." I had also maintained that "in an era, where advantages in trade and technology can be used as lethal tools depredation, strength and resilience of a political system depends to a great extent on the agility of its institutions and quality of leadership these are able to throw up. While political actors may have their own challenges and constraints, intellectuals and guardians of society have a moral obligation to agitate on such issues with a degree of integrity and throw up an impartial perspective." 

Key Ideas:

While the conference threw up quite a few ideas towards possible innovations, I had again placed in writing for the conference document that political competition must act as vehicle for promoting excellence in governance by generating powerful choices. Political parties needed to act as credible platforms for this purpose. Sadly, entire political space appears to have generated its own contradictions that are blocking both powerful ideas and initiatives for comprehensive transformation that India needs to pursue a stronger national security strategy. Electoral processes seem to be breeding conflict not only in India but almost universally.  India needs to marshal strengths of its original humanist values and introduce traditions like Vaad and Samvaad to strictly regulate political discourse. Similarly, both entitlement and dynastic succession to leadership level roles must end both in political parties as well as larger corporate, social or other organizations. These would enhance both the quality of political debate as well as leadership that our institutions are able to throw up. 

    Simultaneously, India needs stronger filters to prevent external or internal subversive forces from hijacking its political space and sabotaging rule of law in our democracy .  We must acknowledge that Indian society is seriously different from its Chinese counterpart. Hence, Chinese model of governance, backed by oppressive authority of state relying entirely on benevolence of the ruler, is not going to be effective in the Indian context. 

We also need to be cognizant of the fact that besides strength of our original values, we are also carrying the baggage of decay and distortion in these which had built a momentum much before external invasions. Subsequent Mamluk, Turkish and Mongol or Mughal and even British colonial traditions, values and practices have also left their impact on governance institutions and processes of India, notwithstanding a modern democratic constitution and multiple reform movements that have taken place simultaneously. 

 India’s external security threats and internal governance challenges are far too complex compared to European or even other post-colonial democracies. Existing structures and processes of Political parties appear the biggest impediment to emergence of effective ideas and initiatives to address such formidable governance challenges. I shall not dwell in detail but it has been universally conceded in private and public discourse that they are the biggest impediment to rule of law and transparent governance. These are seriously retarding the quality of social cohesion of India and as well as overall regulatory capacity of Indian state. Winnability being the sole factor, political parties are not able to control the quality of candidates that they induct or the sources from which they accept funds.  Former CEC was absolutely on the dot when he observed that there are no free lunches and every political donation carries a quid pro quo. These are likely to be in most, but not necessarily in all, cases to go against larger public interest. 

While, I have made a comprehensive and elaborate set of recommendation in my unpublished work, here I would be content at mentioning that it is extremely critical to:

i)  streamline internal structures and processes of political parties to throw up high quality ideas and bona-fide leaders;

ii) explore (futuristically and not retrospectively and that too after detailed preparations) fixed but not more than one or two tenures at top positions both within political parties as well as at the helm of government either in State or at the Centre to prevent emergence of well entrenched vested interests;

iii) Segregate political parties contesting polls at the Centre and the state and reduce the total number of political parties to not more than 3 or 4 maximum at each level;

iv) put in a strong eligibility criteria with instituting some degree of qualification and experience (not necessarily academic but including knowledge in public life or administrative, managerial or leadership level experience in any profession) mandatory for Union and State level elections whereas recognizing universal freedom to contest elections at party-less local level bodies; and 

v) devise a clear and transparent process for entry and exit of every individual in political parties; 

While I do not consider these as final words of wisdom, it would be worthwhile stirring some public debate on this subject. Ironically, every effort was made to reach out to all political parties but none responded and nearly all politicians approached on this subject wriggled out except for Dr Kalanidhi. I also maintained in course of my observations, here as well as at every platform, that 'reforms in political parties, though critical, are unlikely to sustain on their own in absence of reforms in other sectors'. I have called for reform in criminal justice system in an earlier write up on the blog. In fact,   India has to explore comprehensive restructuring of all institutions of state and society in quest of a vibrant society and robust state, which alone can provide a solid foundation for a strong national security strategy. 

INDIA MUST EVOLVE THE IDEA OF DEMOCRACY

 India Holds the Key to Future of Democracy?

A diverse, developing and democratic India, despite somewhat lackadaisical performance on most parameters of governance and security, especially compared to its northern neighbour, holds the key to credibility and desirability of open political systems. A stronger India can not only stabilize the global order but also act as the biggest antidote to both Islamic radicalism and opaque authoritarianism. The world’s largest democracy, however, may have to reinvent, or at least remold, many of its key principles and practices of governance. It must do so by refining and strengthening, but not eroding, the core ingredients of democracy such as rule of law, integrity of electoral processes, autonomy of institutions, equality of opportunity, free media and secure common spaces among others. Its ability to build a robust governance-security apparatus, within a democratic framework, can offer a new lease of life to idea of democracy, which seems to be hurtling towards a dead-end, if not an imminent collapse.  

What inspires hope in such potential and capacity of India is its ability to sustain an open and competitive political system under most difficult circumstances. This would never have been possible without resilience of its original and eternal values. Simultaneously, a transformation in governance-security capacity of Indian democracy has become indispensable for defending some of its existential interests and priorities.  What reinforces such belief is the fact that no major state or civilization in the entire human history has ever been able to transform plight of its people, or achieve extra-ordinary advancement, through a political-governance apparatus that has evolved in response to needs of people in different social-cultural and economic contexts.

Westminster model of democracy, notwithstanding its sustenance and strengths in the Indian context, appears incapable of pursuing an ambitious agenda of accelerated and comprehensive transformation that India needs at this juncture. Hence, India has to explore a more advanced version of democracy, that can be captioned as Indocracy, to suit its own contexts, challenges and priorities.

Current Global Context

Sustained economic, military and technological ascendance of China, under an authoritarian and opaque political system, threatens to erode access to security, freedom and equitable opportunities at a much wider scale. This is especially in the context of expanding fissures and inequalities in even some of the established democracies, alongside serious institutional fragility in their counterparts in the developing world. Western democracies largely appear more content at managing their own internal challenges but China has gone on to steadily expand its global influence from Far East, Indian Ocean, South Asia, Central Asia, West Asia, Africa to most parts of Europe and going all the way to critical pockets of South America. It has managed to create pockets of support in many of these states through such non-transparent means that have not only been accentuating steeper inequality but also threatening political openness and transparency at a global scale. Amidst Increasing unsustainability of world-wide American influence and their sharpening domestic divides, such a scenario threatens far larger number of people and societies than what appears at the outset. 

 A closer look at the China’s economic, military and technological transformations suggest that these have been carefully crafted to enhance the cost and risk of US intervention from Far East to most parts of Asia.  China has also significantly bridged the gap, and even acquired some degree of tactical advantages in eventuality of a localized conflict in Asia, through its recent advancements in land, air, under-water, satellite and cyber warfare capabilities. These, added by some of its highly feted short to medium range hypersonic and ISR (Information, surveillance and reconnaissance) weapon systems and burgeoning naval capacity, appear to have created a near impregnable shield for mainland China and areas around it.

Simultaneously, China has forged way ahead of India on nearly all major indicators of national power. In foreseeable future, India may struggle to defend some of its legitimate security interests at a sustainable cost, leave aside matching or containing China. Nevertheless, resilience of an open system, if defended well, can throw up such powerful ideas and dynamic initiatives that can alter such an equation. Simultaneously, Chinese system may still crumble under contradictions of its own opaqueness. The eventual outcome shall depend on the quality of initiatives that the leaders and stakeholders in the two states undertake.

Compulsion for advancement of the idea of democracy further increases with the world-wide erosion in values and norms of democracy and subversion of its key institutions. Simultaneously, various shades of authoritarian regimes have continued to entrench themselves, by rigging the integrity of electoral processes. Such trends threaten to derail the larger process of democratization that had gained momentum since the end of second word-war. Large-scale decolonization, adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDHR), emergence of welfare state followed by stabilization of electoral processes in larger number of states and eventual collapse of communism in Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe, had been nudging the world towards greater respect for human life and human dignity, rule of law, political transparency and accountability. Today, this process runs the risk of losing both momentum and direction. Under these circumstances, ability of India to refine the very idea of democracy can offer a new hope to the world.

Constraints of Indian Democracy:

However, there are serious obstacles and challenges in this direction. India’s political culture is yet to extricate itself from medieval psyche of status-based entitlements and discriminations. Instead of being eliminated by a merit based competitive political system, these have only transitioned to a newer form to creep into political, corporate and bureaucratic institutions to retard their capacity and output. These continue to dent efficacy and credibility of mechanisms to administer rule of law. Hence, overall regulatory capacity of Indian state has remained suboptimal,  hindering  overall governance-security output. Appalling performance on most HDI parameters, a somewhat sluggish and expensive criminal justice system with frequent miscarriages of justice, an archaic red-tape laden bureaucratic structure-albeit with many brilliant minds in its ranks, a poorly regulated and deficiently competitive private sector amidst allegations of crony capitalism, sub-par output of R&D institutions, among others, appear outcome of such governance structures and processes whose integrity has been subverted.

Simultaneously, Indian state has also not been able to transform its strategic psyche despite bitter experience of external occupation and centuries of colonial subjugation. This is manifest in India’s inability to conclude covert war from Pakistan- despite spectacular military victories in 1965, 1971 and even Kargil conflict of 1999. Inability of India’s stakeholders to fathom national security implication of expanding asymmetry of power in favour of China, or suitably respond to the same, reinforces doubt in strategic psyche of India’s policy makers. Despite deeper cultural, civilizational and linguistic bonds with its smaller neighbours, India has struggled to secure their territories from prejudicial use by hostile forces. Inability to develop adequate indigenous defence hardware capacity, despite enormous military threats as well as access to a pool of skilled manpower, India had chosen, until recently,  to remain the biggest importer of armament amidst allegations of sleaze and graft in every defence deal. This only points to a serious underlying malaise. Due to poor governance systems and deficient security mechanisms, many critical programmes on national security continue to get dislocated. Some of the most brilliant minds working on cutting edge technologies or projects that can provide a major breakthrough towards advancement of India in any sphere suddenly face serious harassment and at times get eliminated under intriguing circumstances. These only lend credence to perception that under-performance, inefficiency, corruption and subversion remain inbuilt in many of the institutional structures and practices of Indian democracy. However, these have not deterred multiple instances of exceptional individual brilliance, integrity and quest for excellence under most difficult circumstances. This is the strength of India, if harnessed well, can transform the world. 

Why India Better Placed to Spearhead Innovation in Democracy

Longer roots of a humanist civilization, with probably the earliest traditions of political accountability and transparency, besides success of democracy under most difficult circumstances, make India the best suited to spearhead a major innovation in the idea of democracy. Democracy had evolved in Europe only after wider prosperity had dawned from the wealth extracted from erstwhile colonies of Asia and Africa.  Similarly, democracy in North America or Oceania had followed capture of vast territories with all the natural resources, by virtually wiping out nearly entire indigenous population. Initial development of infrastructure and prosperity, especially in North America, was sustained by unrestrained deployment of slave labour from Africa and other parts of the world.

India, on the other hand, had herself suffered colonization that had pushed large sections of people under the yoke of crushing poverty. Hence, sustenance of democracy amidst such adversities, and the rapid strides that the country has made towards comprehensive economic and social advancement of its people, demonstrates resilience of its original humanist values. Exposure to Western democratic ideals and practices may have acted as a catalyst for resurrection and refinement of its own values but in absence of a conducive ecosystem, an open and accountable political system could not have survived in India. While its serious constraints cannot be overlooked but its success, howsoever modest, inspires hope in its ability to advance the idea of democracy, as well as governance capacity of its institutions, to a much higher stage.

A closer look, from our current perspective, shall suggest that democracy had never been perfect at any stage of its evolution in any part of the world. It has been evolving with every major initiative in response to a challenge. The current crises facing the democratic world  must encourage, and not deter, intellectual explorations towards refinement of the ideas and institutions of representative government in quest of a more humane and secure world. 

A deeper peep into history would suggest that elements of democracy and republicanism were present in some of the earliest political systems in India and beyond. In India it was probably way more advanced than rest, whereas in other non-European cultures it was a little rudimentary. One has to acknowledge contribution of modern Europe and the United States to usher in detailed and comprehensive version of humanist democracy and spread it all over the world. It is equally responsibility of other democracies to carry forward this idea by practicing and not preaching. Probably China and West Asia shall struggle to transition to democracy due to their values and past. China was probably only civilization where peoples’ participation in politics never extended beyond recruitment to civil service and armed forces. Simultaneously, most of West Asia had continued to drift towards despotism and autocracy, notwithstanding strong traditions of egalitarianism and recurrent efforts towards responsive governance under few spirited leaders.

There is very little documented knowledge available about political institutions of ancient India and Indo-Asia. General perception, largely due to literature available from medieval era onwards, suggests these societies were highly stratified and hierarchical. However, a closer look shall suggest that from dawn of first millennium or even Buddhism, nearly most parts of India and Indo-Asia was slowly moving towards a more pacifist, humane and amiable social order, with of course few significant exceptions.  On the other hand, Greece and Rome or most parts of West Asia still lacked the element of humanism. 

Even leftist Indian historians, who have not been entirely charitable towards the past of India, have conceded continuation of democratic republicanism on the Indian subcontinent from the earliest times, probably from the era of Raja Bharat, until the dawn of Buddhism in 6^th century BC or even later. Traditions of Sabha and Samiti have often been spoken of and these appear to have continued, albeit with sustained distortion, until the dawn of British rule. Self-sufficient village republics with traditions of “Panch” confirm these.

The earliest elements of rule of law, as enshrined in Dharmashastras, Dhamrmasutras and down to Kautilyan Arthashastra, also corroborate India’s early tryst with political accountability and restrain on arbitrary authority of the ruler. The decay had set in these traditions with consolidation of agrarian economy and descent of hereditary kingship. These naturally exacerbated with onslaught of Mamluk and Mongol invasions. Despite multiple atrocious traditions like steeper hierarchy and social segregation of medieval era, which appear a later era distortion associated with most agrarian societies, Indian values have remained more humane than most other societies. This is what explains sustenance of democracy and advancements, howsoever, modest under such a political system.   

Need For A Concrete Futuristic Perspective

Need for refinement of democratic institutions have been felt for far too long in many societies. Today democratic  institutions in most societies have been breeding conflict, fracturing social cohesion and inducing economic under-performance. One can blame deficient institutions for this purpose but absence of social trust, declining common space due to unbridled privatisation are equally responsible.  While Western democracies can live with these discords, most in the developing world shall struggle to advance with these contradictions. India, facing determined hostility from its two nuclear armed neighbours, alongside pressure with serious domestic governance challenges, has its task well cut out.  It needs serious transformation in its governance and security capacity, to defend some of its existential interests. This is not possible without major restructuring of its institutions.

North America and Europe can scale down their engagements in Africa, Asia and parts of even South America and Oceania. Segregated by two Oceans- Atlantic and Pacific- and still enjoying substantial technological and economic superiority over China, United States can nestle in its isolation, whereas Europe can find a new equation with China, despite latter continuing with consolidation of its global influence. India, facing a permanent border dispute with China and civilisational war from Pakistan, shall struggle to handle the emergent equilibrium. So will many  other major democracies in Asia and Africa, whose resources, markets and even sovereignty appears under stress. A comprehensive modification of democratic political and governance instruments and processes, as per their own requirements and realities, shall be unavoidable for both their masses and elite.

The scope of such institutional restructuring has to cover structures and processes in political parties, civil -service, criminal-justice system, corporate sector, healthcare, elementary education, institutions of higher research, municipal and civic governance, media and civil society entities among others. The newer processes must foster higher quality of collaboration and competition with higher degree of fairness to get the best out of people. Democracies must protect the universal access to security and opportunities for sake of its own credibility. They may have to, simultaneously, explore newer strategies and techniques to manage internal conflicts and external non-military threats. It must be done at minimal material and human costs. A tangible progress in this direction can stretch ingenuity and genius of Indian scholars and capacity of Indian state. 

Conclusion

Democracies have been in turmoil for a long time. There are valid reasons to believe that Reaganomics and Thatcherism pushed them in a wrong direction, which multiplied their challenges with unbridled privatization in a globalized world. Extreme inequality, either among nations or within societies, especially in a globalized world, has seriously eroded regulatory capacity of most states and particularly democracies, as they have to withstand sustained pressure from various competing forces. Their ability to administer rule of law fairly and impartially or ensure equitable access to opportunities have come in doubt.  

Transparency and participative nature of open societies have also made them more vulnerable to subversion. A closed society can be misruled by a few people but subversion of an open society by multiple forces can generate virtual chaos and confusion. A poorly regulated political or corporate competition, emergence of mega cartels, an inefficient or expensive criminal justice system, especially in a globalized world, can enhance such vulnerability to subversion from both internal and external quarters. In absence of a major initiative and innovations to bolster institutional capacities of democracy and create simultaneous opportunities for leadership, the very idea of freedom, liberty and equity can face a serious setback. Democratic states probably require far stronger institutional as well as social safeguards against subversion. Democracies can be potentially subverted by many whereas authoritarian states monopolies right to subversion only by the rulers. 

Rise of powerful mega cartels and power centres within open societies, amidst increasing global clout of opaque and authoritarian states, controlled by smaller and cohesive groups, further enhances vulnerability of open societies. Their transparency and freedom can be more prone to malicious abuse. Hence, democracies need to innovate themselves internally as well as collaborate with their counterparts  to build a more conducive external ambience. This may undermine competitive trade in short run but will have substantive gains in long run. However, in absence of a larger culture of trust, progress towards democratisation shall be an extremely difficult proposition.  

At this stage of history, the very idea of democracy needs liberation from the shackles of Western orientations and moorings. Expectations and requirements from representative government in India and other post-colonial states differs from their counterparts in the developed world. These states  need not merely optimize governance and security output of their institutions but also enhance the quality of freedom, dignity and comprehensive security accessible to their people. An Indian model of democracy or Indocracy can attempt answering key challenges in this direction by carefully fusing its own humanist values with the scientific principles of Western democracy. Legislative and formal processes shall be inadequate for such transformation. A stronger synergy between the state and society, backed by a credible leadership shall be critical. The entire process shall not only inspire democracies in the developing world but can also offer few useful lessons to their counterparts in the developed world.

********************