since 1947 we the indians that is bharat wasi are a democratic country, atleast officially.
the supreme law of land that is indian constitution prescribes and we adopt the parliamentary system of democratic governance. the population on territorial basis elects the the represantatives who constitute the house of represantatives that is lok sabha. there is another house comprising of the representatives of states, the units of federation that is there to protect the federationalism and interests of states.
the governement is formed by political unit{s} having majority in the lok sabha and consists of ministers who are the mambers of parliament.
by the system in vouge democracy was allowed its due in best possible way in a country like ours. both the legislature which is the law making body and the executive which goerns the nation consists of peoples representatives.
the government which is responsible directly for governance and to act as a leader and facilitator in framing the laws is directly responsible towards lok sabha in a continuous manner and to public directly atleast once in a five year period.
but all that is supposedly and constitutionally and not necessarily in practice.
since the very begining of republic the role played by extra constitutional bodies and individuals can be identified. with a little difficulty during nehru period and more easily later.
but by any standard the UPA government formed in year 2004 brings a disguinshed era of dedemocratisation of governance. the constitution of government under leadership of dr.man mohan singh and not under smt.sonia gandhi brought down the well established principle of authority and responsibility equilibrium of political leadership.
now the authority to rule was handed over to dr.singh whereas the responsibility to win elections was left to smt sonia gandhi. so the performance and polity of government need not be oriented to prove worthiness of prime miniser in council as long as party leadership of smt gandhi can have its good image amongst the electorate. this had never happened in indian polity and nor was ever intended. no one would have ever thought that loyality and/ or academic knowledge may bring you to lead the cabinet even without contesting the direct election instead of leadership of population.
but the outcome of this division of formal authority and actual responsibility has caused the emergance of informal authority overlapping formal one; deeply undermining the the democratic principle.
now the role of parliament under leadrship of government to bring the legislation has more or less been usurped by the non state actors. the super cabinet of national advisory council and its role in framing and formulating the policies of governance and in legislative issues is a dangerous and alarming trend for democratic set up of governance. it is the duty of parliament to legislate. it is the government which is primarily responsible to propose the legislation before parliament. NAC has in many a cases relieved government of legislative formulation. it prepares the draft which is placed by government before parliament.
if the government wish to include civil society and experts in certain area of legislation it should be brought through wider consultation through parliamentary committees which may be asked to propose legislations on their related areas. any non democratic and non state body however honourable should not be allowed to take over functions of elected representatives.
the honourable prime minister is a technocrat. so it is natural that he may be at ease working with bureaucrats and technocrates. that is easily reflected when one look at the number of non political people having status of a minister. during recent times when planning commissions role itself is very justifiably questionable, its activism has damaged the democratic face of governance. even the best of media without minding what message are they conveying publish the photographs of chief ministers holding hand of deputy chairman planning commission at his door. day by day not only finance commission but also parliament has itself been undermined by the usurption of powers by planning commission. now the executive ministries lead by ministers responsible towards parliament and people are being given targets fixed by the babus of yojna bhawan.
another aspect is the civil service activism. the fundamental of a bureaucracy in a democracy is principle of annonymity and responsibility. the minister takes all the responsibility of his ministry and the bureaucrat remains annonymous. a bureaucrat is supposed to serve the political master irrespective of his personal political belief or affiliation.once this principle is undermined not only the democratic governance but also the existance of bureaucracy is in geopardy. the political activism of bureaucrates in recent times is not a good omen. just one example is sufficient. the recent utterances of union home secratary against government of west bengal and very recently against the leader of opposition in j$k assembly are absolutely political in character and undemocratic.
when ever a vaccume is created the dust tries to fill the gap. since parliament with a weak opposition has been silent ,the democratic set up of governance is continuously being weakend.
this is the time to awaken and civil society to start asking who is governing us. in any case democracy is best government principle.
the supreme law of land that is indian constitution prescribes and we adopt the parliamentary system of democratic governance. the population on territorial basis elects the the represantatives who constitute the house of represantatives that is lok sabha. there is another house comprising of the representatives of states, the units of federation that is there to protect the federationalism and interests of states.
the governement is formed by political unit{s} having majority in the lok sabha and consists of ministers who are the mambers of parliament.
by the system in vouge democracy was allowed its due in best possible way in a country like ours. both the legislature which is the law making body and the executive which goerns the nation consists of peoples representatives.
the government which is responsible directly for governance and to act as a leader and facilitator in framing the laws is directly responsible towards lok sabha in a continuous manner and to public directly atleast once in a five year period.
but all that is supposedly and constitutionally and not necessarily in practice.
since the very begining of republic the role played by extra constitutional bodies and individuals can be identified. with a little difficulty during nehru period and more easily later.
but by any standard the UPA government formed in year 2004 brings a disguinshed era of dedemocratisation of governance. the constitution of government under leadership of dr.man mohan singh and not under smt.sonia gandhi brought down the well established principle of authority and responsibility equilibrium of political leadership.
now the authority to rule was handed over to dr.singh whereas the responsibility to win elections was left to smt sonia gandhi. so the performance and polity of government need not be oriented to prove worthiness of prime miniser in council as long as party leadership of smt gandhi can have its good image amongst the electorate. this had never happened in indian polity and nor was ever intended. no one would have ever thought that loyality and/ or academic knowledge may bring you to lead the cabinet even without contesting the direct election instead of leadership of population.
but the outcome of this division of formal authority and actual responsibility has caused the emergance of informal authority overlapping formal one; deeply undermining the the democratic principle.
now the role of parliament under leadrship of government to bring the legislation has more or less been usurped by the non state actors. the super cabinet of national advisory council and its role in framing and formulating the policies of governance and in legislative issues is a dangerous and alarming trend for democratic set up of governance. it is the duty of parliament to legislate. it is the government which is primarily responsible to propose the legislation before parliament. NAC has in many a cases relieved government of legislative formulation. it prepares the draft which is placed by government before parliament.
if the government wish to include civil society and experts in certain area of legislation it should be brought through wider consultation through parliamentary committees which may be asked to propose legislations on their related areas. any non democratic and non state body however honourable should not be allowed to take over functions of elected representatives.
the honourable prime minister is a technocrat. so it is natural that he may be at ease working with bureaucrats and technocrates. that is easily reflected when one look at the number of non political people having status of a minister. during recent times when planning commissions role itself is very justifiably questionable, its activism has damaged the democratic face of governance. even the best of media without minding what message are they conveying publish the photographs of chief ministers holding hand of deputy chairman planning commission at his door. day by day not only finance commission but also parliament has itself been undermined by the usurption of powers by planning commission. now the executive ministries lead by ministers responsible towards parliament and people are being given targets fixed by the babus of yojna bhawan.
another aspect is the civil service activism. the fundamental of a bureaucracy in a democracy is principle of annonymity and responsibility. the minister takes all the responsibility of his ministry and the bureaucrat remains annonymous. a bureaucrat is supposed to serve the political master irrespective of his personal political belief or affiliation.once this principle is undermined not only the democratic governance but also the existance of bureaucracy is in geopardy. the political activism of bureaucrates in recent times is not a good omen. just one example is sufficient. the recent utterances of union home secratary against government of west bengal and very recently against the leader of opposition in j$k assembly are absolutely political in character and undemocratic.
when ever a vaccume is created the dust tries to fill the gap. since parliament with a weak opposition has been silent ,the democratic set up of governance is continuously being weakend.
this is the time to awaken and civil society to start asking who is governing us. in any case democracy is best government principle.
