Mobocracy cannot replace democracy

Balbir Punj

The Aam Aadmi Party wants the people to take all decisions and claims that its only role is to implement them. This is a dangerous abdication of responsibility that cannot be masked by any number of populist schemes.

Ever since the Aam Aadmi Party has taken over the reins of Government in Delhi, it has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. The fledgling party, after assuming office, has sought to replace democracy with mobocracy, and the rule of law with fiats from its inexperienced and impulsive Ministers who have scant regard for the system. The Delhi Government’s emphasis, so far, has been on populism and not on substantive policy initiatives which can ensure relief to the common man.

Last week, Delhi’s Law Minister Somnath Bharti was involved in an ugly spat with Delhi Police. He ordered the police to raid and arrest some people without following proper procedures. Subsequently, he had a tiff with the media. Incidentally, the Minister, in his earlier avatar as a practising lawyer, had been castigated by a court for professional misconduct. His Cabinet colleague, Ms Rakhi Birla, too was involved in a similar fracas with the police last week.

Recall that both Mr Bharti and Ms Birla are products of a movement that wanted to free law enforcement agencies (particularly the Central Bureau of Investigation) from political control. But after becoming Ministers, both want the police not to follow the law, but to dance to their tunes. This is a classic case of hypocrisy.

To make matters worse, AAP’s dissident MLA, Mr Vinod Binny, has threatened to go on an indefinite hunger strike if the party’s pre-poll promises on water, power and women’s issues are not fulfilled by January 27. Add to this clash of personal egos and ambitions, the ideological confusion that rules supreme in the AAP — and the ugly script is complete.

Noted dancer Mallika Sarabhai, who recently joined the party, has objected to past pronouncements of Mr Kumar Vishwas, the AAP’s resident poet. Also, Mr Prashant Bhushan, one of the AAP’s founding members, has openly called for self-determination in Kashmir. This caused a virulent public reaction and forced the AAP to distance itself from his views. But Mr Bhushan did not seem to have learnt from his mistakes — he went on to advocate that Governments should consult the Maoists on how to curb violence, including the deployment of security forces.

If Mr Bhushan’s logic is extended to other law and order crises, such as a communal riot, for instance, it would mean that locals would have to be consulted before security forces are rushed in. Imagine if a referendum was needed before deploying the Army in Muzaffarnagar in Uttar Pradesh in the wake of recent riots. Can one have different yardsticks for deciding on the deployment of security forces in Jammu & Kashmir, Maoist-hit areas and the rest of the country?

We had the first glimpse of what this sort of consultation would do when the Delhi Chief Minister invited people with grievances to come to him during the Janata Durbar. The Chief Minister himself had to escape by the back door, when the crowds enclosed him. Now a chastened Chief Minister says that the people can post their grievances online. As India prepares for the next Lok Sabha election, this should be a lesson for the people on the implications of populist leaders promising the people that the latter will decide everything and the Government will merely implement the people’s wishes.

This is a basic fallacy which, like Mao’s adventures, could lead the country to chaos. Imagine what Haryana’s khap panchayats, the equivalents of Mao’s communes, would do if they were to direct the Government on women’s rights. Instead of pushing girls to continue education beyond middle school, the khaps would marry them off at age 15.

Similarly, do you give the armed Naga rebels the right to determine what the Union Government should do in that region or surrender Assam to ULFA extremism or even get the Prime Minister to consult with separatist leaders in Kashmir?

Reportedly, social activist Medha Patkar has only recently joined the AAP. Should the Narmada dam’s future then be determined by the ‘people’ she claims to lead? This self-styled total revolution looks absurd. The AAP may dismiss all such criticism as absurd, but experience shows that it is not so. Populism conveniently masquerades as action taken by the Government at the bidding of the people.

But in the AAP’s case, the ‘people’ are just a crowd with different and sometimes conflicting interests. That is why parties that compete for the people’s mandate have to have an ideological unity. Their promise to the electorate should be in specific terms and cover all aspects of life. What happens when socio-economic reforms are subject to approval by the people through mohalla committees? Will the Government ever be able to build roads and railways because that requires the state to acquire and remove existing human habitations? What happens when the small number of affected people refuse to move and block development for the larger good?

Throughout history, this sort of direct democracy has inevitably resulted in chaos and paved the way for a dictator to emerge through a rescue act. The French Revolution, which led to the emergence of Napoleon Bonaparte, is a good example. Similarly, the Leninist revolution was also supposed to be people-oriented but instead pushed Stalin to the forefront and millions died. Mao’s communes ended in disaster and mass deaths.

On the other hand, democracies led by elected representatives has enabled even unpopular but necessary reform decisions to be implemented. It is not always possible to get the amorphous mass, with multiple interests, to willingly consume the bitter medicine it needs.

The AAP may claim that millions are joining the outfit, but political movements are built on comprehensive agendas that touch every aspect of the nation. The loyalty that political parties earn is the result of years of struggle during which they deliver public good. This is possible because good but sometimes unpopular decisions are taken, and they are effectively implemented by the party leadership.

The AAP may have millions on its rolls, but it still has no clear agenda and no plan of action on major issues. It only has one idea of governance: Distribute dole. As the time comes for hard decisions, the party will crumble. In the process, it will also cause enormous damage to the country.

Courtesy : Daily Pioneer