Narasiah, K.R.A(2009), “Democracy that is more a monarchy: Indian political scene and the American Constitution”, The Hindu, 31 May 2009, p.12.
Once again, the world’s largest democratic exercise is over and the pangs of coalition politics can be seen, where every politician is worried about his/her next generation. Apart from the fact that the spoliation of the democracy is firmly in place, with the coming into play of money and muscle power in spite of the Election Commission’s strict enforcement of the code of conduct, the dangerous trend of dynastic politics is raising its head.
I happened to be in America last year, when the Presidential election was on and had the opportunity to see the process in close quarters. It was true democracy by the best of standards and, when I was wondering how the Americans were avoiding dynastic politics, I came across an erudite description of the American Constitution by an eminent lawyer, Akhil Reed Amir.
What caught my attention was the passage dealing with “America’s First Officer”, which describes the need to have introduced 35 years as the eligible age and the strict adherence to the terms of office for the elected president’s candidature.
“The more likely scenario underlying the age clause involved favourite sons – young men who sprang from famous fathers but had yet to show their own true colours. Instead of being evaluated based on their individual merits and vices, as revealed by a long track record of personal accomplishment and failure, such favourite sons would unfairly benefit from their high birth status and distinguished family name, thus retarding the growth of a truly republican society equally open to meritorious men of humble and middling origin.”
The term of office was necessary as anti-federalist critics then thought that by choosing the dynastic route future American presidents would resemble British Kings, which unfortunately is the case in India! It was pointed out by the critics of that time in America, that, when a man gets the gaddi or gets re-elected from time to time, for life, his greatest object will be to keep it; that is at any cost! Later he would associate his favourite son to take office after him!
President-elect Washington had understood the problem of dynastic power and had drafted for his first Inaugural address: Divine Providence hath not seen fit, that my blood should be transmitted or my name perpetuated by the endearing, though sometimes seducing channel of immediate offspring. I have no child for whom I could wish to make a provision — no family to build in greatness upon my country’s ruins...[No] earthly consideration beyond the hope of rendering some little service to our parent Country...could have persuaded me to accept this appointment.”
How our political leaders differ from this man’s lofty ideal! No Indian political leader would leave the office, sticking to the principle, ‘till death do us part’ and ensure in the process that his/her offspring do get established in their lifetime into positions that will guarantee them the top post in future. Had our founding fathers of the Constitution thought of this, they would also have invoked such clauses as terms of office for the high political posts.
But, unfortunately, we have inherited a democracy that is no lesser than a monarchy, where the sons automatically become the next power in the event of the incumbent ceasing to be so due to natural causes! It is also worth noting that none of the first seven presidents of America wanted to stand even for re-election! They also had no biological heir. Rutherford B. Hayes had a son, but declined to stand for re-election and simply walked away after finishing his term! Can this happen in India? Our politicians are seeking cabinet posts for their offspring in the name of democracy and want to establish a dynastic rule. So how can we call our election a true democratic affair?
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
Once again, the world’s largest democratic exercise is over and the pangs of coalition politics can be seen, where every politician is worried about his/her next generation. Apart from the fact that the spoliation of the democracy is firmly in place, with the coming into play of money and muscle power in spite of the Election Commission’s strict enforcement of the code of conduct, the dangerous trend of dynastic politics is raising its head.
I happened to be in America last year, when the Presidential election was on and had the opportunity to see the process in close quarters. It was true democracy by the best of standards and, when I was wondering how the Americans were avoiding dynastic politics, I came across an erudite description of the American Constitution by an eminent lawyer, Akhil Reed Amir.
True republicanism
What caught my attention was the passage dealing with “America’s First Officer”, which describes the need to have introduced 35 years as the eligible age and the strict adherence to the terms of office for the elected president’s candidature.
“The more likely scenario underlying the age clause involved favourite sons – young men who sprang from famous fathers but had yet to show their own true colours. Instead of being evaluated based on their individual merits and vices, as revealed by a long track record of personal accomplishment and failure, such favourite sons would unfairly benefit from their high birth status and distinguished family name, thus retarding the growth of a truly republican society equally open to meritorious men of humble and middling origin.”
The term of office was necessary as anti-federalist critics then thought that by choosing the dynastic route future American presidents would resemble British Kings, which unfortunately is the case in India! It was pointed out by the critics of that time in America, that, when a man gets the gaddi or gets re-elected from time to time, for life, his greatest object will be to keep it; that is at any cost! Later he would associate his favourite son to take office after him!
President-elect Washington had understood the problem of dynastic power and had drafted for his first Inaugural address: Divine Providence hath not seen fit, that my blood should be transmitted or my name perpetuated by the endearing, though sometimes seducing channel of immediate offspring. I have no child for whom I could wish to make a provision — no family to build in greatness upon my country’s ruins...[No] earthly consideration beyond the hope of rendering some little service to our parent Country...could have persuaded me to accept this appointment.”
Striking contrast
How our political leaders differ from this man’s lofty ideal! No Indian political leader would leave the office, sticking to the principle, ‘till death do us part’ and ensure in the process that his/her offspring do get established in their lifetime into positions that will guarantee them the top post in future. Had our founding fathers of the Constitution thought of this, they would also have invoked such clauses as terms of office for the high political posts.
But, unfortunately, we have inherited a democracy that is no lesser than a monarchy, where the sons automatically become the next power in the event of the incumbent ceasing to be so due to natural causes! It is also worth noting that none of the first seven presidents of America wanted to stand even for re-election! They also had no biological heir. Rutherford B. Hayes had a son, but declined to stand for re-election and simply walked away after finishing his term! Can this happen in India? Our politicians are seeking cabinet posts for their offspring in the name of democracy and want to establish a dynastic rule. So how can we call our election a true democratic affair?
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
No comments:
Post a Comment