Rebel with a Cause
By: Geo (July 27th, 2008)Democratic systems derived from British democracy have the system of recognising a official opposition to the ruling party. The traditional role of the opposition can be classified under three broad headings:
1) the voice of the voiceless,
the opposition expresses the view of a significant section of the electorate and helps to ensure that concerns of the various groups and other interests not represented in government are not forgotten or trampled upon.
2) alternative to the ruling government,
the oppostion constantly reminds the electorate that there is a viable alternative to the incumbent government. One that has a real or imagined potential to improve the quality of life of the people and let them realise their aspirations.
3) and official opposition.
this role flows out of the first two. This is the most popular and also the often confused role. The opposition has the duty to oppose the government in power, but to what end? The ultimate purpose is to persuade the electorate to vote out the incumbent government and put the opposition in power so that it may pursue the policies it believes are best for the nation. For this purpose the opposition attacks the government’s policies and nature, which it believes not to be in the national interest. In this role, the opposition protects the society from the excesses and corruption of power that innately exist wherever executive power resides. In carrying out this duty, the opposition endeavours to challenge every abuse of executive power; bureaucracy and red tapism; issues of breaches of human rights; waste of public funds; and exposes all these for public or parliamentary criticism and control. This is essentially a watchdog role and is vital to check executive excesses and stimulate democratic debate.
In the new globalized world however, there is strong recognition of universal human freedoms and rights, the concept of good governance is rapidly gaining a foothold, and the exercise of executive power, and of course, the role of the opposition is subject to new tenets. A fourth role which has evolved out of the recent global political and economic realities is a critical partner in nation building. Governments are enjoined to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights and freedoms and oppositions are expected to make room, space or allowance for cooperation and consensus building.
Under this new dispensation, the opposition must exercise circumspection in opposing government. This is particularly relevant to circumstances where there are eminent threats to the peace, security,democracy and psyche of the nation. The national interest, usually very difficult to decipher, should be supreme at all times. It is however not easy to decide on which issues consensus is necessary and when not to oppose in the national interest.
When politics (a temporary cementing of social relations with the focus on usurping authority or power) creeps in, the opposition stoops to the level defined by Tierney, a commentator, about a century ago, when he contended that “the duty of an Opposition is to propose nothing, oppose everything, and to turn out the government”.
Tierney’s definition is what we have seen been played out before our eyes for years and years together and more so in the times of coalition governments and still more so on Tuesday, 22 July, 2008 during the no confidence motion put up in the House of the Peoples of India.
Seems that on this count, India is still not ready to understand and think with the new globalized world. Local politics, casteist, religious and communal calculations, regional equations, personal vendettas and pure ideological differences overshadow national interest. India is poised, but poised to remain in its current saddening state for few more years. India is shining, but for the wrong reasons. India is emerging, surely, but the process will take a very long time.
When the UPA government was willing to take steps for cooperation and consensus building, and also take all necessary measures in collaboration with the opposition to protect the interest of sovereign India, in the light of the impending energy requirements, the opposition should have dialogued. However, they chose to go for the kill to gain the seat of power. When things started evolving contrary to expectation, they started resorting to tactics and pressures that have shamed India and its system.
The situation called for the emergence of a hero who could salvage the situation, albeit at a personal cost, and happen it did. Somnath Chatterjee, the speaker of the Lok Sabha, defied the party directive (whip) to step down from the constitutional position that he held. They voiced in a televised interview that they did not bother much about the constitution of India vis-s-vis the constitution of the CPI(M)! Somnath’s stepping down would have certainly jeopardised the confidence motion, especially looking at the way things transpired during the motion.
It was a time when an individual needed to stand up against a system, especially because it had begun to flaunt its rot. It was a man against a party, putting at stake 40 years of association with his party. He cared not. He did what was right in view of national interest, true to his constitutional position.
I wish more Indians were made of stuff like that. People who dared to risk their all to stand for their convictions. Of course an increasing section of society does seem to go against the society e.g. gays. But they rebel for their own selfish interests, for their own gain sake. They are rebels without a cause. But Somnath Chatterjee does look like a rebel with a cause.
But he could dare to do that having seen the constitution in a new light. All the years he was in the parliament, he viewed at policies and measures from the perspective of the ‘Left’ benches. But in the four years as a speaker, as a custodian of the constitution and its provisions, he perhaps gained a fresh insight and light into the spirit of the constitution and the intentions of the constitutional fathers and also a fresh perspective on what was national interest. That’s what compelled him to rebel against a party as staunch as the CPI(M), despite the cost.
Often, like the politicians, we sit on the benches and make our calls for most of our lives based on our limited understanding and the perspective of the truth we have received sitting in the limitations of our life. But a glimpse of the truth, a fresh insight sitting in the seat of the custodian, a new understanding after imbibing the spirit of the moral law giver and the spirit behind it, will surely compel and propel us, so convincingly, that we will stand against the whole system if need be to profess and protect the truth. Anyone can rebel, but to rebel with a cause, you also need something more, something that I have read about and also seen in the disciples of a Jesus.
Kudos to Somnathda. And kudos to everyone who will ‘Rebel with a Cause’.
Tags: BJP, Congress, Opposition, Politics, Somnath Chatterjee
July 29th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I am sorry to state the comment, but I would like to express, “most of us don’t have character based values in lives, and so the majority of people are not able to stand against what is not right.