By Patricia Mukhim
The grouse of eight Congress MLAs that they have no access to the Chief Minister and other ministers of the state is disturbing. All MLAs are equal. The CM is only the first among equals and so too are the other ministers. This is actually a governance problem. All powers are concentrated in the CM and his ministers. This is not what a democracy should be but like someone correctly said we are a dictator’s democracy. Veteran journalist Jug Suraiya known for his political jibes says India is arguably the world’s only democracy that thrives on dictatorship. Indian democracy says Suraiya boasts of more dictators per square inch than North Korea, Saudi Arabia and half a dozen South American banana republics rolled into one. Whoever is the CM becomes the actual controller of the government and believes he is running his personal business where Meghalaya is the private limited company. The concept that he derives power from the people is lost on the man. This is visible from the kind of home the present CM lives in (it’s a guarded fortress where only the non-threatening species of visitors are allowed). If this is the kind of home that an elected representative lives in then what is the message? How can the common man reach him? And now we are told that he is out of reach of his own Party MLAs!
But the Meghalaya CM’s behaviour is in consonance with the shenanigans in the Congress Party at this very moment. Rahul Gandhi’s return from a 56 day hiatus is being seen as a moment for his crowning as the leader of the Congress. Political dynasties are part of the Indian democratic dispensation. We have a mother and son team, husband-wife team, and an entire family being elected to ostensibly represent the people but actually to represent their self-interests. This is nothing new. To retain power these self anointed leaders then need to cultivate mercenaries to recapture power during elections and they also need loads of money to buy votes. It’s a vicious cycle that has destroyed the basis of democracy which is governance. Governance is what democracy depends on to deliver on the election promises made to the people. Hence it is about time that we demystified governance.
Governance means different things to different people. The word has in fact progressed from obscurity to wide usage in the last decade or so. Governance is certainly not synonymous with government. This confusion of terms has had unfortunate consequences. A public policy requires the architecture of governance to deliver on. When that architecture is weak, directionless, lethargic, lacks accountability and transparency the problem of “governance” becomes defined implicitly as a problem of “government”, with the corollary that the onus for “fixing” it necessarily rests with government.
Governance is a process whereby societies or organizations make important decisions by determining whom they involve in the process and how they are held accountable. Speaking about governance it is important to ask some fundamental questions such as, (1) Who are the players? (2) Who has influence? (3) Who decides? In our collective minds, we have learnt to identify the players of governance as being elected representatives and the bureaucracy. People or the larger civil society see themselves as being ‘apart’ and not ‘a part of’ that architecture. Hence we have the public relentlessly critiquing the ‘players’ because they don’t see themselves as part of the governance architecture. Regarding influence, it is naturally the power holders who make their presence felt by their VIP statuses and their disdainful attitudes. Such power holders continually drive home the point that people are dispensable except during elections. The bureaucracy think ‘people’ are a pain and consultation means talking to a select few who do not have the faintest idea what they are consenting to. So informed consent is a simply a jargon. The third point about who decides is pretty straightforward after the first two questions are answered. The power holders decide what is good for us and what isn’t. We the people are considered incapable of thinking for ourselves, leave alone engaging with governance.
But governance is not about the government. There are four important sectors of society which have to be involved of which government is only one of them. There is also the business sector, the institutions of civil society (including the voluntary or not-for profit sector), and the media. Most times power is not equally distributed. For instance, under the UPA regime power shifted from the Government to a political party which occupied the largest part of the terrain. Hence Government’s role became insignificant. In some settings, multinational corporations might play a dominant role. In India today power is rapidly shifting to the private sector and some state functions are being transferred to business. This can be painful for a country like ours where the social sectors like Health and Education are still very vulnerable and dependent on state patronage.
Governance fails when the rule of law is absent. But no matter how well written laws are and how well intentioned we may be, the fact is we are still human. And it is a fact of human life that power tends to corrupt. There is a natural human tendency to rationalise mistakes and cover up failure. When that tendency is combined with a concentration of power, you have a lethal concoction. Competition is one way to keep power in check. That’s why competitive, multi-party politics is so important to the health of our society. But a democratic tradition cannot occur in the absence of vigorous public debates on issues of public interest. The Fourth Estate (media) has a very special role to play in this process. A free press is the conscience of society. It is the job of the media to question, to educate and to bring into full public view and for public scrutiny matters which people in authority might prefer, (because of fear or embarrassment), to sweep under the carpet.
In Meghalaya we hear enough of bleating from the powerful about how they are not against freedom of speech or freedom of the press. All they want is “responsible” journalism. So how does one define “responsible” journalism and who should do the defining? In the books of government officials, “responsible” journalism is another word for journalism that extols or praises government programmes and policies. To proponents of this view, journalism that is critical is “irresponsible” journalism, which should be stamped out, crushed, not allowed to germinate, lest the foibles and indiscretions of those in authority be brought to the public’s attention.
News organs should not be threatened or their personnel harassed or incarcerated because of criticism of government officials, even when such criticism is deemed to be unjustified. There are civil remedies available through the courts for libel and slander. Those who feel aggrieved should seek redress in that forum, not set themselves up as judge and jury over their critics. Needless to say, a free press is integral to good governance. It is the torch that brings abuses to light and forces accountability. It assists in counteracting a natural human tendency to abuse power. And those whose skins are so thin that they cannot take criticism have no business to be in public service. For, even in the most enlightened democracies, sometimes the press takes its liberties to the extreme, invading the privacy of public servants. But such is the price of freedom and in a competitive environment where press power is not concentrated in a few hands, the normal give-and-take of commentary and repartee provides for everyone to be heard. The salutary effects of a free press are well worth the the cost of occasional abuse.
The media in Meghalaya, has with all its limitations, served a public cause and been a pillar of governance in ways that are yet to be acknowledged. The fact that the media has been castigated in no less a place than the floor of the Assembly, by an actor who plays a role in governance which is equal to that of the media, is unfortunate. The media owes its loyalty to readers, not to the powers that be and it would be good for media practitioners to bear this in mind always.