|
|
Dream of a New World Governance |
|
Join
with us in dreaming big. Dreaming of a new world.
Dream of a world where no
direct elections to national parliaments take place. Nor direct
elections to state assemblies. Not even to panchayat councils.
Dream instead of a world
where parliaments come to the streets.
The whole world gets
organized into neighbourhood parliaments of about 30 neighbouring
families. Each neighbourhood of 30 families becomes a kind of a
mini-world or a mini-nation.
Each neighbourhood
parliament has a neighbourhood cabinet, with a neighbourhood prime
minister and ministers for various concerns like health, hygiene,
environment, income generation, children’swelfare, adolescent’s guidance
- and what not - that are relevant at its level.
Each neighbourhood
parliament chooses its delegates to represent them at the village
parliament. It too has its cabinet with a village chief-minister and
village-ministers for concerns that pertain at village level.
Next come the third level
parliaments, panchayat parliaments and their cabinets.
Thus come about
respectively block parliaments, district parliaments, state parliaments,
national parliaments, international regional parliaments and finally the
world parliament (mind you, not United Nations but a world parliament) –
each with its cabinet.
The whole process is
guided by certain principles:
Principle One: Principle of
Numerical Uniformity.
Once you have a certain
number of neighbourhood parliaments you can automatically have a
“village”- parliament; and once you have a certain number of “village”
parliaments, you can have a “panchayat” parliament; and so on.
Hence no big “villages”
and small “villages” and big “districts” and small “districts” and so
on. Actually the present territorial designations like that of block,
district, state, nation and world are any more not in vogue. What we
would have rather are various “tiers” or “levels” of parliaments. Like
first level parliament (meaning neighbourhood parliament), second level
parliament and the like.
Principle Two:
Principle of Smallness of Size.
No more are parliaments
with 500 and more members. It is a small, discerning community at every
level.
(The ideal number of
members here? Said Mr. P. Parameswaran of Kerala: “Not more than eighty
five.” Observes Guruji Rishi Prabhakar: “Eighty five would be too much.
It will still give a lot of scope for majority-minority confrontations.
Why not the scout number, that is, 36?” The neighbourhood parliaments
alone, in that case, can have a bigger number i.e. 30 families and not
30 individuals).
The advantage here:
Everyone knows everyone face to face. And everyone’s weaknesses and
strengths. One cannot go on fooling, as Gandhiji observed, a
face-to-face community for long.
Principle
Three: Principle of Recall.
You don’t need to wait for
five years to call back a candidate whom you “elected” from one level of
the parliament to the next. As you are a small community at each level
of the parliament, you can convene your parliament any time you want and
decide together to send someone else who would explain and represent
your concerns better.
Principle Four:
Principle of Subsidiarity
Subsidiary units get the
focus here. Vitality, dynamism and power are concentrated more at the
lowest levels possible. No business that could be handled at a lower
level is taken to any level above it. Higher levels deal only with those
matters that the lower levels cannot handle.
Principle Five:
Principle of Convergence.
This means once you have
such a network everything converges at the network. Everything is done
through it. This reinforces the structures further and further. Thus
whether children’s programmes, adolescents’ programmes, self-help groups
or what not, everything is referred to neighbourhoods & their
representative networks.
Well, what would be the
world like if this dream were to be realized? Could you detail it out
and tell us? What all would be there and what all would not be there?
Let us hear from you.... |
|
Back to Top |
|
|
|
Good Governance and Institutionalising Neighbourhood
Participation* |
|
Talk at UN |
|
One of our participants in
this round table insisted on participation of people at grassroots in
governance. I want to build on that.
I want to insist that we
take steps to institutionalize people’s participation in governance. We
need to build structures for that.
People are the ultimate
stakeholders in governance. And they are very much interested to help
improve governance if only they can.
Without people being given
scope to involve effectively in governance, no other measure will ensure
good governance adequately and on sustained basis.
This is especially so in
developing countries where, for example, even well-meaning political
leadership often ends up in corruption to keep getting the support of
various power cliques even to ensure the political stability needed for
creating conducive situations for growth transformation.
But people feel powerless.
People, as mere individuals, feel helpless, lost, and unable to do
anything to ameliorate the situations they face. Hence they back out and
appear apathetic.
They need structures of
participation to make them feel that they matter. That their voice
counts, that their participation counts.
People don’t have at
present such structures as would give them an adequate, effective and
ongoing say.
All that they have is the
scope for a kind of a token voice to put a tick mark to choose between
candidates over whose primary choice they don’t have say anyway.
People need structures or
forums to come together and talk effectively. These forums have to be
accessible to people.
There have thus to be
neighbourhood-based units of participation in governance. These units
have necessarily to be small. The bigger a forum gets to be, the more
the small voices get drowned, they go unattended. Then it all becomes a
game of the big to the exploitation and manipulation of the small and
the powerless.
Hence these units should
be face-to-face communities of, say, not more than forty families.
They have also to be
numerically uniform, territorially organized, inclusive communities that
they could be the real voice of the people of the neighbourhood, the
“neighbourhood parliaments” of people. Parliaments, to go by the Latin
root, parlare, are just talking forums any way.
These neighbourhood forums
are to be well linked, well-federated at all levels, even up to the
world level, that people have their mechanism, institution, to interact
with governance powers, other stakeholders in governance, at all levels.
One of the ways we could
effectively promote this would be to insist that the self-help groups of
savings, credit and the like, that are being organized all over, be made
into territory-based neighbourhood groups and then be promoted as
neighbourhood units of participatory governance.
We wan to quote a
success-experiment in this regard. The State of Kerela in India has more
than 1,75,000 neighbourhood units organized and federated already up to
the third level of federation. The same State had also a movement of
planning by people, initiated by the State, where planning began at
these well-defined, numerically-organized neighbourhood forums. Such
forums were also used for experiments in monitoring by people, auditing
by people etc.
One of our participants
here spoke also about introducing good governance themes in school
syllabus. We have a related interesting experiment in terms of
neighbourhood parliaments of children. Children come together in the
above-mentioned type of well-defined neighbourhoods, elect their own
“ministers” and all, and take charge of their neighbourhoods. The above
mentioned Kerela State, India, alone, to cite, has already thirty five
thousand neighborhood parliaments of children federated at various
levels up to that of the State. They had their meeting of the state
parliament of children in the state assembly hall of Kerela. These
children have also very many stories of successful interaction with the
various other stakeholders in governance at various levels. Such experiments need to
be replicated all over the world. The entire world must be organized
into neighbourhood units of good governance federated at various levels.
We will do well to
remember the neighbourhood is the first possible and viable level of
participation in governance by people. If the very first step happens to
be inaccessible, people have little chance of interacting with
governance at any other level.
*Intervention by
Edwin M. John, Neighbourhood Community Network, India, at Special
High–level Meeting with The Breton Woods Institutions, the World Trade
Organization and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
at United Nations Headquarters, New York on,16 April 2007. edwinmjohn@yahoo.co.in,
ncnworld2000@yahoo.com
|
|
Back to Top |
|
|
|
Governance from Below |
|
Dear friends,
I want to focus on just
one point: Give the reins of governance to the hands of people. And give
it effectively.
People themselves are the
reason, the legitimating source and the ultimate stakeholders in
governance.
When I say people, I don’t
mean just the more vocal, the more powerful, the upper middle class and
the like, but also, and especially, the poor, the disadvantaged, the
powerless, the people at the base. Mahatma Gandhi would say the well
being of the least is the ultimate test of every thing. Ultimate test
then even of good governance.
We have systems of
governance today, where one needs to be powerful if one’s grievances are
to be addressed.
Ensure that people at the
base remain powerful. People will ensure that governance remains good.
If people are
powerful they won’t need that much of awareness seminars to get
sensitized and make an adequate response. It is in everybody not to
tolerate being taken for a ride, and to ensure one’s place, dignity and
future.
But if people feel
helpless and powerless, no other measure would ensure adequately good
governance on a sustained basis. The powerlessness of the people is the
ground on which a lot of unfairness or corruption breeds.
Power is the ability to
have an effective say. To have an effective say is really to rule. And
people are to rule.
But people cannot have
their say unless they have effective and viable ‘talking forums.’
Talking forums, when translated according to Latin root, parlare,
means “Parliaments”
Until “parliaments” come
to where people are, until they are accessible to people and viable to
be handled by them, people cannot have power, people cannot really rule.
Democracy” is not rule by
people enough if it keeps the talking-forums away from people; if it
does not provide scope to have their say, control, or monitoring.
Democracy now does not
allow people to have their say. All it allows is a ‘token’ voice that
does not give much of content to their choice.
Empowering people is not
just giving people a little more education, a little more skills, a
little more awareness etc. Powerlessness is more of a structural
problem, a systemic problem of even”democratic” nations.
People must have their say
effectively and that not once in five years or so, but on an ongoing
basis.
Building structures or
mechanisms for people’s ongoing and effective voice in governance is not
difficult.
We can start organizing
neighbourhood parliaments or neighbourhood level forums for people’s
participation in governance. These forums could be federated at various
levels, even up to the world level.
When federating and
organizing this way we have to keep in mind certain principles:
|
|
Principle of smallness of size:
When any forum gets bigger, the small voices get drowned, and it all
ends up as the game of the big, and the alienation and exploitation
of the small. |
|
|
Principle of numerical uniformity.
To ensure that everyone gets an equal sense of belonging and nobody
feels disadvantaged as regards distance to decision-making
centres. |
|
|
Subsidiarity: Whatever can be
handled at a subsidiary or decentralized level should not be taken
to any higher or centralized level. |
|
|
Recall scope: Since participating
forums are small, face-to-face communities at every level, any level
can call back its disappointing representatives to the level
immediately above that the whole system remains answerable
ultimately to the person at the base. |
|
|
Convergence: To strengthen the
sense of identity of the neighbourhood units and their
representative structures, ensure that everything that could be done
through these units are done through
them. |
One of the things we could do to speed up the realization of such governance-participation mechanisms for people is to ensure that the present self groups for savings and credit and the like, in hundreds of thousands all over the world, are integrated as neighborhood groups of governance participation.
Another: to get children themselves organized into these neighborhood parliaments that they too help to usher in a new culture of accountable and effective and participatory governance.
Where there is a will and vision, every thing is possible.
Edwin M. John, Neighbourhood Network at the meeting of FFD Civil Society Forum on 15th April, 2007 at Church Centre, UN Plaza, New York.
|
|
Back to Top |
|
|
|
Guruji Rishi Prabhakar of
Sidha Samadhi Yoga (SSY) and Neighbourhood Parliaments |
|
A greater movement than
the freedom movement is slowly unfolding itself in the nation. But as we
see only the individual strokes we cannot see the larger picture being
painted. Father M.J. Edwin is one more person in this picture. During
the time of the Hindu-Muslim riots in December 1992, Poojya Guruji* was
moving towards Delhi to visit each important religious head. It is at
this time he heard of the great work being done by Father in the form of
“Neighbourhood Community Network”, at Nagercoil in Tamilnadu. Poojya
Guruji saw the immense potential of the program and invited Father to
join at Delhi. Father Edwin who had never met Guruji before joined
forces with him to meet many important personalities and explained to
them that working together at the street level was the answer to living
together in harmony and a |
|
|
way of solving many issues
at the root level. This will prevent issues from flaring up as had
happened in then situation.
One VIP questioned as to
who will make all this happen? But the fact remains when a great
visionary sees the possibilities, he does not start with a how as the
ordinary man does, but he simply knows it will happen. Such
Neighbourhood Communities are today already working in many places in
Chennai, Mumbai and mushrooming very fast at other places. Father has
infused even children and women to take part. He can be consulted ...
–Father M.J. Edwin Mobile – 9442648224 /
04652-278223
Networking neighbourhoods is very
important, for interaction amongst residents is the answer to living
life successfully at the micro level and this alone can solve many
issues, rather than wait for the macro level to solve issues for the
common man.
(Taken from Rishi Vani, official organ of SSY,
August 2005 Issue No.10 Volume 6)
Poojya Guruji* means venerable master |
|
Back to Top |
|
|
|
A Participating People* |
|
A
deeper look into the why and how of participation as aimed at by
neighbourhood community networks. This write-up is based on actual
sessions at grassroots neighbourhood communities in Kanyakumari
District. |
|
Animator |
: |
Suppose
your daddy has a niece. And, he is very much attached to her. She is
getting married tomorrow morning. The negotiations of marriage have been
going on for months. But your father has been kept in the dark. Just
this evening, they are coming and giving your dad the invitation for the
marriage. Would your dad attend the marriage? |
| |
|
|
The majority of the people
:
No, he wouldn’t.
|
|
A few others
:
Yes, he would. |
| |
|
Dad becomes violent |
|
Animator |
: |
Most of you say he would
not go and a few of you say that he would. Now, let us ask: even if he
goes, how would he tend to behave at the function? |
| |
|
|
Person I |
: |
His grudge would show on
his face. |
|
Person VIII |
: |
He would be indifferent.
|
|
Person III |
: |
He would limit his
involvement to the minimum. |
|
Person IV
|
: |
He would be fuming. |
|
Person V |
: |
Every little thing could
make him burst out and pick up a quarrel. |
|
Person VI |
: |
He would look for an
opportunity consciously or unconsciously to take revenge and teach them
a lesson. |
| |
|
|
Animator |
: |
Why should he behave like
that? Shouldn’t he rather be happy that they have spared him all? The
trouble of negotiations and have called him to enjoy just the fruits and
to have a good dinner and a good function? |
| |
|
|
People |
: |
No; no! |
|
Animator |
: |
Why? |
|
Person VIII
|
: |
Because he was not a party
to the decision. |
|
Person IX |
: |
Because he was not
consulted. |
|
Person VII
|
: |
Because he was not given
importance. |
|
Person IV |
: |
Because he was not treated
as a person. |
|
Person V
|
: |
Because he was treated as
an outsider. |
|
Person VI |
: |
Not as someone who
belonged. |
|
Animator |
: |
Is it your father alone
who would feel like that? Or just any person? |
|
People |
: |
Anybody at all. |
|
Animator |
: |
Even the least and the
poorest? |
|
People |
: |
Yes, very much. |
|
Animator |
: |
That
means it is something in the very nature or the essence of being a
person to seek to involve, and to seek … |
| |
|
|
Person I |
: |
to be given importance. |
|
Person II |
: |
to belong. |
|
Person III |
: |
to be treated as a person. |
|
Person IV |
: |
to be consulted. |
|
Person V
|
: |
to be a participant. |
|
Person VI |
: |
to be a person. |
|
Animator |
: |
Shall we then say: To be a
person is more than just being a human? |
|
People
|
: |
Yes. Very much. |
|
Animator |
: |
Could
we stretch a bit further and say that to be a person means to be a
participant? |
| |
|
|
People |
: |
True. |
|
Animator |
: |
In that case, would you
say that to be a non-participant is to be a non-person? |
|
People |
: |
Sure. |
|
Person IX |
: |
He becomes a “nobody”. |
|
Animator |
: |
Would anybody like to be a
“nobody”? |
|
Person X |
: |
Not at all! |
|
Person V |
: |
Everybody is made to be a
somebody! |
| |
|
Sick and
violent |
|
Animator |
: |
Now,
let us come back to your dad again. Like everybody, he wants to be
somebody and he is treated as nobody. And he rages from within. And what
happens if he continues to remain in that state for long? |
| |
|
|
Person II
|
: |
He would get sick. |
|
Person III
|
: |
He would have blood
pressure. |
|
Person IV |
: |
He would have heart
attack, rheumatism, ulcer, and what not? |
|
Animator |
: |
Shall we say people who
are treated as non-persons end up as a sick society? |
|
People |
: |
Very much true. |
|
Animator |
: |
And also a violent
society? |
|
People |
: |
Definitely. |
|
Animator |
: |
Now, let us return to your
dad again. Would he want to be consulted on everything, or only on
certain things? |
| |
|
| |
|
Where I’m
affected |
|
Animator |
: |
Let me put it this way:
Suppose someone in Abbeville in Louisiana in America wants to have a
shave, would your dad like to be taken into confidence? |
| |
|
|
People |
: |
No. |
|
Animator |
: |
In what areas would he
like to b e consulted then? |
|
People |
: |
In areas where he feels
involved. |
|
Person IX |
: |
In decisions that affect
him. |
|
Animator |
: |
And what are the areas
where the decisions affect him? |
|
Person V |
: |
Decisions at home. |
|
Person VI |
: |
Decisions relating to
relatives. |
|
Person VII
|
: |
And relating to people he
feels close to. |
|
Person IX |
: |
Village-level decisions. |
|
Person I |
: |
Panchayat-level*
decisions. |
|
Person II
|
: |
Block-level decisions. I
mean, Mandal**-level. |
|
Person III
|
: |
Decisions at district
level. |
|
Person IV |
: |
At state level. |
|
Person V |
: |
National-level policies. |
|
Person IV |
: |
Even world-level decisions
for that matter. For example, when a decision was made to have war in
the faraway Gulf, it left certain villages in Kerala starving. |
| |
|
|
Animator |
: |
So, your dad is affected
by so many forces over which he has no control? |
| |
|
Social alienation |
|
Animator |
: |
Actually called the predicament of the modern man. What they call social
alienation. Modern man feels he is an outsider. Such a lot of things
happen without his being able to do anything about it. He feels
helpless. He feels it is somebody else’s world where he is nobody, where
he is not someone who matters. He is sick in varying levels. |
| |
|
|
Person II |
: |
Can anything be done to
bring the modern man out of this predicament. |
|
Person III
|
: |
It seems so impossible. |
|
Person IV |
: |
It appears to be man’s
fate. To be condemned as a helpless person. |
|
Person V1
|
: |
Condemned to be in pain.
To be sick. |
|
Animator |
: |
That is
the dilemma. We want a world wherein everyone matters and is respected.
And we cannot ensure a situation wherein everybody can be participants
in decisions that affect them. |
| |
|
| |
|
One minute, one
issue |
|
Person VII
|
: |
Could you explain more? I
don’t seem to get it that clearly. |
|
Animator |
: |
Let us
take the situation at the village level. I know a village which has some
12,000 people. And the decisions that are made at the village level
affect the participants. And, naturally they have to be consulted. And
suppose you give them one minute each to express them. How many hours
would you need? |
| |
|
|
People |
: |
Two hundred hours. |
|
Animator |
: |
How many days does that
make? |
|
Person IV |
: |
Nearly eight days. |
|
Animator |
: |
So, if everybody sits in a
general body for eight days and nights without going to sleep, without
eating, without working, etc., you can give one minute each to comment
on one problem. But neither do we have just one problem nor is just one
minute enough. So it becomes… |
| |
|
|
People |
: |
Impractical. |
|
Animator |
: |
What then is the way out? |
|
People
|
: |
??? |
| |
|
Make us a
committee? |
|
Animator |
: |
What happens often is some
people say, "It is not possible to consult everybody; so, make us a
committee; we will run the affairs for you". But, what happens along the
process is that these people become "the village", they become "the ones
who matter". And, others? |
| |
|
|
Person IV
|
: |
Others become nobodies. |
|
Person III |
: |
Become non-persons. |
|
Person XI |
: |
They become second-rate
citizens. |
|
Person IV
|
: |
They become alienated. |
|
Animator |
: |
Now, let us ask again:
does anybody like to be a second-rate person? Would you like to be one? |
| |
|
|
People
|
: |
No. |
| |
|
Vs.
marginalization |
|
Animator |
: |
What happens then to the
majority of the villagers? |
|
Person |
: |
They too would end up the
way your dad would. That is, indifferent, apathetic, uninvolved,
quarrelsome, etc. |
| |
|
|
Animator
|
: |
What then do we do to get
out of this situation and thus to give everybody the satisfaction that
he is not left out? That he is not marginalised? |
| |
|
|
Person I |
: |
Why not we organize people
into small groups? |
|
Animator |
: |
Go on; let us see how that
solves the problem. |
|
Person I |
: |
Suppose we have
Neighbourhood Groups or Neighbourhood Communities of about 30 families? |
| |
|
|
Animator |
: |
What is the advantage? |
|
Person V
|
: |
Then, everybody will have
a chance to be listened to. |
|
Person III
|
: |
Then, everybody can have a
chance to be a participant. To be consulted, to be involved. |
| |
|
|
Animator |
: |
But, doesn’t that limit
the concern to a smaller area. |
| |
|
Neighbourhood Sabhas, Gram Sabhas |
|
Person I |
: |
But the neighbouring
groups can be networked. |
|
Animator |
|
How? |
|
Person I |
: |
Neighbourhood Communities
can begin discussing their own problems among themselves. And whatever
they can solve at their level they can solve then and there. |
| |
|
|
Animator |
: |
And for problems they
can’t solve? |
|
Person I |
: |
These Neighbourhood
Communities can each have a governing body which could become the
representative general body for the village. |
| |
|
|
Person II |
: |
A kind of Gram Sabha or
village assembly. |
|
Animator |
: |
And, then? |
|
Person III |
: |
Each Gram Sabha, in turn,
can have a governing body which together become the Panchayat Sabha.
And, then, progressively, mandal sabha, district sabha etc. |
| |
|
|
Animator |
: |
Good let us see. Go on. |
|
Person III
|
: |
We could go further this
way to the levels of the state and nation. |
|
Person IV |
: |
And, then, to continental
or regional and global levels. |
|
Person V
|
: |
Not only that. We can also
have "Ministers" throughout. |
|
Animator |
: |
Come on. Let us hear more
about it. |
| |
|
Ministers every where |
|
Person V |
: |
Nowadays we have
"ministers" only at state and national levels to represent |
|
Person VI |
: |
That means? |
|
Person V |
: |
We
should have "Ministers", say, for education, health, environment,
finance etc. in each neighbourhood community. These people should form
separate ministries at the village level for each of these separate
concerns. That is, under a village-level minister for a particular
concern. And they should be further networked. |
| |
|
|
Person VI
|
: |
Then, we will have a
situation like the one the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, Shri Krishna Kant
wanted? |
| |
|
|
Animator |
: |
What did he want? |
|
Person VI
|
: |
That everybody at the base
should have a role each. |
|
Animator |
: |
You mean you would like to
have an alternate government this way? |
|
People |
: |
Yes. |
|
Animator |
: |
That is for the whole
world? What would such a world be like? |
|
Person I |
: |
A world without frontiers. |
|
Person II |
: |
A world wherein everybody
would be a person. |
|
Person III |
: |
A world of co-operation. |
|
People |
: |
A world of participating
people. |
|
|
|
Back to Top |
| |
|
|
|
Where People Are in
Governance and Eradicate Poverty |
|
"Can
poverty be eradicated in India?" We addressed ourselves to this question
in a symposium conducted by Health Action, the monthly magazine of
Catholic Health Association of India.
The symposium was held in Secunderabad in 1996, in preparation for the
special 100th issue of the magazine, under the title, "Poverty: the
Ruthless Killer". It was inaugurated by the late Mr. Krishna Kant, who
was then the Governor of Andhra Pradesh who later became the
Vice-President of India. The participants were experts and scholars from
some of the leading institutions of the country, who have been
specializing on the subject. What did these specialists have to say in
response to our question?
"Poverty is very much eradicable" they said. "Not only that; it should
have been eradicated long time back. We had everything required to
eradicate it".
Then? "What was missing was the political will to eradicate poverty".
Political
will
What was this
"political will"? To put it simply it just means: those who have the
power didn't have hunger and those who had hunger didn't have the power.
Hence, the urgency to remove hunger was missing among the power circles,
the circles that govern.
A statement made by Prime Minister Vajpayee makes an intriguing
illustration. He said they would eradicate poverty in 20 years (Or is it
30? I don't recollect clearly. I didn't seem to have taken it seriously.
Well, why should I when they themselves don't mean it? Anyway let us say
it is 20 years.)
Why 20 years? Why not now? The answer: For Prime Minister Vajpayee, it
is not that urgent a problem. For him, it is one among the many problems
that along with others could wait. It is as if saying "Well, we know
poverty exists, But what could we do? We have more urgent problems to
attend". He doesn't feel the pinch of the hunger of the poor.
Suppose the Prime Minister's next meal is not assured. What would be the
number one problem that the Prime Minister of the nation would address?
Naturally it would be his own hunger.
But when it is the hunger of the millions it becomes for the one in
governance, a distant problem, a problem that could wait.
This is what would keep happening if power is with the abundantly fed.
Could we ensure that power on the other hand is with people who have
hunger? Could we ensure that it is the people at the base who do the
governance?
It seems very much possible.
Tools of
Power
For the poor to exercise
power thus and for them to govern, the requisite is that the tools
whereby power is exercised in societies and nations go to the poor, to
the people at the base.
And what is power?
I would give a practical definition: to have power is to have one's say
in such a way that what is said matters. I say, "Let it be done", and it
is done - that is power. It is to have in other words an effective say.
How do you exercise this power? The answer should be simple. If power is
having an effective say, the first thing to assure yourself is to have a
forum where you too have your say. You need to have "talking-forums".
Hence the role of parliaments in democracy. The root word in Latin for
parliaments is parlare and it means to talk. Parliaments are
talking forums through which people exercise their right to have an
effective say.
You could see various such talking forums in democracy. Like Rajya Sabha*,
Lok Sabha** Legislative Assembly, and Legislative Council.
What is even more important are the parliaments that are not even called
parliaments. I mean the electoral constituencies. Each electoral
constituency is a parliament where people, though in a token way, and
though just once in five years or so, do the talking.
This way every citizen being equipped with a parliamentary constituency,
a legislative constituency and a panchayat constituency, is supposed to
be powerful. But is he?
Bigger
forums & Smaller people
One hitch here comes from
a very simple principle: the bigger the forum you have, the bigger a
voice you need to get across and the smaller voices get lost. Our
constituencies tend to be too big for the "small people".
Say for example one Mrs. Nirmala from below-poverty-level family wants
to get herself heard in the parliamentary constituency of Nagercoil, in
Tamilnadu.
Will it be possible for her? The parliamentary constituency will be too
big a forum that she gets lost. She becomes powerless. All she could
have is a token voice -- once in five years -- by way of choosing a
candidate. Even then, as the constituency is so big she wouldn't even
get to see the candidates, let alone talk to them.
And while trying to choose the candidates, at times she is left with no
choice at all -- none of the candidates is satisfying. A choice between
the devil and the deep sea. She is not strong enough to field another
candidate by herself either. That is for her too big a game to handle.
She ends up feeling helpless, alienated and frustrated. She could wait
for next five years. But next time around may not mean any better
prospects either.
The system is such that those in power, with the immense visibility and
vast resources of money that come to them through various manipulations,
keep entrenching themselves in the positions -- putting down every
threat to their power. Mostly Mrs. Nirmala will be condemned to choose
between the same persons, or their
progeny, for many more elections to come.
This happens every time when the talking forums are too big: the small
voices get totally lost. |
|
Back to Top |
|
|
|
Neighbourhood Parliaments &
Networks |
|
What is the way out?
The
option would be to make the parliaments small and accessible to small
people. Something along the lines of what Mr. M.P.Parameswaran of Kerela
Shasthra Sahitya Parishat proposes as a new election system. Let me
explain his proposal in detail adding some of my own mix.
For him, we should begin the election at the level of neighbourhood
parliaments of not more than eighty voters: Those elected should form
the village parliaments; and village parliaments elect the panchayat
parliament, and they in turn elect the block parliament, and this way
come about District parliaments, State parliaments, and National
parliament.
Even the parliaments at levels other than that of neighbourhood should
not have more than about eighty voters. The reason: We want to ensure
that these parliaments are face-to-face communities that allow members
to get to know one another's strengths and weaknesses better.
As Gandhiji remarked, one cannot go on fooling for long a face-to-face
community.
Recall-facility
And what do we do when
someone whom we elected at one level of the parliament to the level
immediately above it, fails to represent the concerns of the people who
elected him? We should then have recourse to call back facility. The
members will come together in their parliament and by a majority
decision call back the representative/s and depute some others in their
turn.
We must also ensure that the guiding principle for the
functioning of this network of representative parliaments at various
levels is subsidiary. This means that whatever we can get done at lower
level is done at that level and not taken to any higher level. The
higher level parliaments are to take up only those matters that the
parliaments at levels lower to them are not able to handle.
This way we could ensure vitality, dynamism, sense of belonging,
partnership and fulfilment at the lowest levels where they are very much
needed.
To help this process each parliament beginning from the one at the
neighbourhood is to have its own "ministers" i.e. President,
vice-president, secretary, joint secretary, treasurer and "people
responsible" for various concerns felt at the particular level.
We would also need the principle of convergence. This would mean:
Whatever could be routed through these parliaments at various level are
routed through them. That means, once you have, say, neighbourhood
parliaments, every government scheme should function as if the
neighbourhood parliaments are the channel through which everything is
directed.
Self-help groups, choosing beneficiaries for various schemes,
allotment of loans and subsidies, implementation of certain projects
etc. should have the neighbourhood structures as the pivot around which
everything revolves.
Possibilities galore
Whenever I used to present
the above concept in seminars I used to ask the participants to do some
buzzing with those seated nearby on what would be the benefits of having
such system of parliaments that start from the neighbourhoods and reach
through representative networks up to national level, and where
principles of subsidiarity, convergence and the facility to recall
representatives are exercised.
The following are some of the advantages the buzzing groups usually
report:
“No room for corruption”
“Everything will be transparent.”
“There will be justice.”
“There will be equality.”
“Politicians will be accountable.”
“People will have control over governing processes.”
“As vast majority of the people are poor, the concerns of the poor will
be better addressed.”
“Poverty will be eradicated.”
And they go on and on like this. Sometimes they conclude saying,
“Kingdom of God will be here.” Or, “The paradise will be here.”
But is all this only a dream?
Fortunately not. The winds are in favour.
Favourable
winds
For
one thing, the CPM-led government of Kerala initiated such processes in
half of its panchayats. They have neighbourhood sabhas where people come
together, assess their situation, identify and prioritize the problems,
and make goal statements, time-bound plans, budgetary statements etc.
The plans made at these ayalkootams*** are consolidated at village
sabhas and then are taken to the panchayats.**** The government allotted
40% of its planned expenditure to be "governed" by panchayats.
Once the funds were allotted at panchayat level the above
neighbourhood parliaments & village parliaments could continually
involve in processes like community monitoring and social auditing. And
social auditing is much more than the routine one that checks if
vouchers tally. Singh Committee set up to study ways and means of
strengthening panchayat system has suggested the integration of such
neighbourhood sabhas into panchayat raj structures.
This social auditing through panchayat structures has also made a
sensational beginning through right to information provisions in the
state of Rajasthan.
Madhya Pradesh government has created history by providing for call-back
scope in panchayat raj structures.
UNICEF along with the Central Government is promoting Convergent
Community Action (CCA) in some fifty districts throughout India as a
pilot project in the direction of governance by people. Some friends are
working for a constitutional amendment related to these neighbourhood
sabhas. Certain voluntary organizations and even universities take keen
interest. In short wherever I go, I find a lot of enthusiasm for the
concept.
Said the late Mr. O.V. Vijayan the famous novelist of Kerala: "This is
the only way out". And many share the view.
Still some may continue to have doubts
regarding its efficacy & scope. All we could tell them: be visionary
enough to have faith, walk in faith and you will see the deserts bloom.
And one-day we shall see people taking charge, and taking reins of
governance in their hands, and eradicating poverty.
*Rajya Sabha, in India, Parliament of the States
** Lok Sabha in India, Parliament of the People
***ayalkootams stand for neighbourhood assemblies
****Panchayat stands for mostly inter-village governance unit.
|
|
Back to Top |
| |
|
Neighbourhood Parliaments as the Integral
Solution |
|
Grassroots Participatory
Communities and Networks* |
|
The
Predicaments
1.
Among the predicaments in the modern
socio-economic and political scene we note the following:
1.1. A sense of helplessness
among people:
People
feel cheated, pushed around, let down. They don't know whom to approach
and how to effectively get things done.
1.2. A sense of
alienation:
Not
just economical alienation but also socio-political and cultural,
wherein one feels one is a nobody, but a chaff pushed around by forces
over which one has no control - a feeling like: "Anything could happen
to anybody in this world without I being able to do anything about it";
Or a feeling where he says, "It is not my world; it is someone else's.
It is the world of big shots."
1.3.
A sense of depersonalisation:
People feel they cannot afford to
be persons.
To be a person is more
than just to be human.
To be a person is to be
somebody. It is to be counted, to be taken into account, to be taken
seriously, to be consulted, to belong, to be integrated, and to find
one's place as someone of worth.
To be a person is also to be a giver and contributor and not just be a
recipient.
To be a subject and an agent rather than be just an object and a
faceless unit of a vague crowd.
To be a person is also to
claim to be a participant, a participant in everything that affects
oneself.
1.4 Growing loss of credibility of
political parties:
An unsettling question that raised its
head in various ways during the elections that just got over was: Can we
continue to trust political parties to ensure the health of the nation?
Or, to put it differently: to ensure the well being of the people of
India?
We saw unimaginable types
of criss-crossing, alliances and betrayals of trust by parties and party
leaders of various hues. Even "ideologies" were thrown to winds.
The situation made
political thinkers wonder if there was any more any relevance left in
the very concept of political parties. Some called it, "The End of the
Party".
Wrote Amrita Abraham in
Indian Express commenting on '96 elections: "It seems likely to go down
in history as the terminal phase of the party system we have known since
1957".
The answer is not, yet
another party. Not even another ideal leader taking reins from the
existing parties. Given the present structure and arrangement of things,
every party runs the risk of encountering the same problems. And every
leader, of getting submerged by the pressure of ground realities in the
parties.
1.5. Loss of control over
market forces:
Letting
the market "liberalised" ends up with a situation where no market is
left for the vast majority of people. A market controlled by a few could
also mean poverty and loss of personhood for the vast majority.
1.6. Loss of faith in
democracy itself:
Democracy
appears in the minds of many as a road that leads nowhere. It is not
seen so much as the scope given to people to exercise their will to self
direction, but as a wasteful exercise that ends up bringing power to the
big and the rich leaving the rest weakened further and further.
1.7. Inadequacy of
panchayat structures:
Panchayats*,
no doubt, are a step in the right direction. A step towards
decentralisation. It brings quite a lot of power to forums supposedly
more accessible at lower levels. But as forums of participation they are
not small enough for "small" people to handle. And as along us the
participatory forums continue to be big, only the big shots will have
their say and their game. The small and the poor could really continue
to feel alienated.
1.8. Lack of adequate channels to ensure:
Lack of adequate
channels to ensure that helps reach those who need them most rather than
those who influence most. Influence, of course, takes various shapes
leaving those without the wherewithal to influence desperate.
1.9 Disorientation among NGHOs:
Non-Governmental
Humanitarian Organisations (NGHOs) too seem, of late, to develop a
tendency to empower themselves rather than empower the people. They too,
in growing number, tend to become another set of middlemen dividing
people and slowing down people's process of empowerment.
1.10. Over-dependence on bureaucrats:
In the absence of
people's own viable structures for participation in decision-making, a
good lot of the decisions are left to bureaucrats and politicians. But
even the well-meaning bureaucrats who initiate relevant programmes and
processes leave themselves and people frustrated when they get
transferred and someone not sharing their ideals and commitments
succeeds and turns the whole process upside down. And they get
transferred often enough depending on the whims of the various
politicians.
1.11. Inadequacy of trade unions and
similar organisations:
Though such advocacy organisations have
indeed played and continue to play and will continue to play a great
role you cannot expect them to handle the ordinary nitty-gritty of
day-to-day decision-making that living as a people involves. Again, each
such organisation with its specialised emphasis and being open only to
special interest sections could neither be universal in its concerns nor
speak on behalf of all.
1.12. Monopolising and alienating trends of the
media:
Media tend to be
more and more monopolistic accumulating vast communication power in the
hands of just a handful. Traditional values of media ethics, based on
right to information and the role of public opinion, are giving way to
commercial considerations.
Of equal seriousness is
the media-created situation where people are made to be more passive
recipients than agents of communication. They become so to say objects
on the receiving end of "messages" aimed at them by those in or with
power, rather than subjects who decide together in partnership.
The Media communication,
in addition, tends to play the role of an escapist ritual preventing
them from facing up to the painful fact that the world is slipping from
under their feet and lulling them to inaction.
2. The dream
We need to bring the world back to people.
And by people, we mean not just the moneyed and the powerful, but also
the vast majority of those who are poor and voiceless.
They too must feel that it
is their world. And the world, being theirs, must respond to their
needs.
This means the poor, the
people at the grassroots, must have their say and what they say must
carry weight.
And when decision-making
power is shared or decentralised this way, the people will be able to
circumvent the various problems listed above and live with dignity and
peace.
3. The Why and How But how to bring this about?
Our assumption is that
people do not have their say because they do not have adequate and
viable forums to express themselves.
The present participatory
forums are too big. And this seems to be the crux of the problem.
And, the bigger the
forums, the bigger the voices you need to have to get you heard. Bigger
in terms of volume, back up provisions, etc. When the forum on the other
hand, is small, any small person can express himself and be heard. He
will also feel at home there. The forum, being small, can afford to
listen to his problems however small they might be. He will feel that he
too is somebody. He will also feel competent to affect the course of
decisions made there.
The forums we have now,
i.e. parliamentary constituencies and assembly constituencies, are so
big that you need to be really big, even to be seen throughout the
constituency let alone be listened to.
And thus "big people" with
big voices get elected for parliaments and legislative assemblies. And
end up having governments of "the big", by "the big", and for "the big",
leaving the small and the poor helpless. Even the panchayat wards for
that matter, as we mentioned earlier, aren't small enough for such small
people and are thus inadequate.
The solution then lies in
going beyond panchayats** and setting up forums that are even smaller
ensuring that the small do talk, and in networking them in such a way
that what they talk matters.
And the participatory
provisions should be such that they talk not just once in five years but
throughout, having a constant monitory and directive role over the
course of affairs that affect them.
4. The Proposal
Our proposal along this
line is: Grassroots Participatory Communities and their networks.
We need to know what we
mean by the words.
What is a community?
Or what are the characteristics that make
a mass of people into a community?
We need to have
consensus on this. Some of the guiding principles are:
1) A community is not a
crowd. It is not a transient aggregation of passers-by. Community has a
certain amount of permanency.
2) A community presupposes
commitment to one another. And this commitment is actually the most
identifying factor.
3) A community has a
shared vision. Consensus on objectives holds the community together. In
this sense, a community works together.
4) A community means its
members feel with one another. A community, devoid of feelings, is not
yet a community. It may be just a task force.
5) A community celebrates
together. It brings imagination, feelings and art to play in the
collective affirmation of persons and events and mysteries of life.
6) A healthy community
heals not only by the explicitly therapeutic programmes it offers, but
also by its process of affirmation and the strength of relationships.
Community is an antidote to alienation, loneliness, insecurities, and
the resultant psychosomatic problems.
7) A liberating community,
consequently a healing community is a participating community.
Participation in decision making is what makes a mass into a people.
When people decide together they become conscious of their dignity as
partners in progress, as subjects and equals and not just objects and
the ruled.
8) A community that is
empowering, hence liberating and healing makes its members not only to
decide on the choice of various solutions proposed but also to see the
problems together. Knowledge is power. A community that has been enabled
to identify the problems and constantly to evaluate them is an empowered
community. Few will dare to exploit that community.
9) A community that is
effective is necessarily small. This follows from our earlier
principles. A big community can neither offer powerful relationships nor
scope for participation.
10) A community that
intends to have wider macro level impact ensures linkage with other
similar communities through representative structures at various levels.
This ensures not only the smallness of the community and the wider level
effective action but also effective grassroots participation for the
various campaigns undertaken.
These communities have to
begin from grassroots. We need to have small neighbourhood communities
of about thirty families at grassroots that include all and leave out
none.
These communities are to be a kind of mini panchayats**. And just as in
panchayats, everybody who resides in a particular area will be
considered a part of the community whether one is actively involved or
not. And participation is to be the hallmark of these communities.
Participation levels
differ. One can be a participant just by being a recipient. Surely, this
is not the type of participation we aim at. We rather want people to be
agents of their well being.
Levels of this
agent-participation can also differ.
We can have people
participate just at the level of implementation while a few others do
the planning.
Or, a step further, we can
have people participate at the level of decision-making, while someone
else has offered the various alternative solutions.
A step or two still
further, we can have people begin participating at the searching for
various alternative solutions to the problems identified and presented
by others.
We have the ultimate level
of participation when the people are involved not only in finding
solutions to problems but also in the very process of identifying
problems. When people involve themselves in the very process of
identifying the problems they will tend to be more equipped, thus more
empowered, to handle vicissitudes that arise while implementing a
decision, than those who just hop in to make a decision while
alternatives have already been found.
The same way those who
were associated with the very process of identifying the problem tend to
be more capable of coming up with further creative and still more
relevant solutions than those who were limited to what others have
reported about the problem.
And Networking should be
at various levels: Neighbourhood Sabhas lead to Gram Sabhas and
successively to panchayat, mandal***, district, and state, national and
global links.
Such a network could be an
alternative political structure that could demand that the government
provisions be routed through them. Such a network could also mean –
1. Structures for people's
response to and co-operation with government programmes.
2. Structures for people
to help themselves.
3. Answerability and
fixing of responsibility by people themselves.
4. Infrastructures where
benefits go to those who need them most as per the high-risk scores
concerned.
5. Effective functioning
of panchayats.****
6. Scope for people at the
base to derive utmost benefit out of every penny allotted for them by
Government and other agencies.
7. Better spirit of
working together, better participation and better self-reliance.
8. A permanent scope for
watchdog role by people at various levels.
9. Scope to undertake
economic self-help programmes like thrift societies and income
generation projects at various levels of the network. *****
10. Freedom for people
from the middleman role of politicians, bureaucrats and even NGHOs.
11. A new role for
NGHOs i.e. as catalysts and empowerers and assistants at peoples'
empowerment and liberation process
5. Viability
Fortunately
various efforts are underway throughout the world to bring about such a
movement and structures of empowerment from below. Basic communities of
Latin America are well known and they are being adopted in various other
parts of the world.
As joint efforts of the
Government and UNICEF, programmes like Urban Basic Services for the poor
(UBSP) Community Based Nutrition programmes (CBNP) Convergent Community
Action (CCA) etc. are being promoted. So too the Prime Minister's Urban
Poverty Eradication Programme. They are all along the lines of what we
envisage. In Kanyakumari District too we have more than 10,000 such
grassroots groups in various stages of formation and networking.
Mr. M.P. Parameswaran of
Kerala has even called for a new electoral process based on such
networks.
And so too are initiatives
like the resource mapping efforts by people at the base as done recently
in Kalliassery panchayat in Kerala by KSSP.
Said recently an Urban
Poverty Eradication (UPA) official in Kerala: "We must get in the next
five years a constitutional amendment to integrate these neighbourhood
communities in the national civic setup".
We shall wish all such
efforts Godspeed and hope for a world that is in people's hands.
*Keynote address by Edwin
M. J. at the National Consultation on Grassroots Participatory
Communities held at Chunkankadai,Kanyakumari District, south India on
22nd July 1996.
**Panchayat, in India,
stands for an inter-village governance unit.
***Mandal stands for an inter-panchayat block.
.**** Recently, a whole
lot of planning from below process was implemented through neighbourhood
community networks in the half of the panchayats of Kerala.
*****It provides also
scope for an alternative marketing network where the communities
themselves become sale outlets.
|
|
Back to Top |
|
|
|
America Was Not Meant to Be a
Democracy (NoamChomsky) |
|
Question:
The video (“Manufacturing Consent”)
mentions that 20 percent of the population that goes to college and
holds important positions within the capitalist democracy – these are
the sections of the population that need to be brainwashed under
freedom. Do your books address this 20 percent of the population, trying
to strip them of their illusions, or whom are you addressing?
Noam Chomsky:
The 20 percent figure is
not mine. It is a standard notion in political science called the
“political class”, the class that is actually active in public and
economic affairs. This roughly constitutes about 20 percent of the
population. From the point of view of the propaganda or the doctrinal
system they are a different kind of target than the rest of the
population.
Remember, the United
States is not a democracy – and has never been intended to be a
democracy. It is what is called in the political science literature a
polyarchy. A polyarchy is one in which a small sector of the population
is in control of essential decision-making for the economy, the
political system, the cultural system and so on. And the rest of the
population is supposed to be passive and acquiescent. They are supposed
to cede democracy to the elite elements who call themselves (rather)
modestly the “responsible men”. “We are the responsible men and we take
care of the affairs of the world.” The rest are sometimes called a
“bewildered herd” or a rabble or something like that. Actually, I am
quoting Walter Lipman, the leading figure in US journalism, and a
leading public intellectual of the 20th century.
This goes right back to
the constitutional system. The system was designed that way…. It is not
exactly what you learn in school. But if you read the debates of the
constitutional convention, which are much more revealing than the
published documents, you find that the main framer, James Madison
(1751-1836), who was very lucid and intelligent, understood all this
very well. He was a democrat. He wanted to have a kind of democracy in
which the primary role of the government – I am quoting now – “is to
protect the minority of the opulent against the majority”.*
That is the
fundamental role of the government. What he (Madison) called “the
permanent interests of the country”, are those of property owners and
that they must be protected. He was thinking very concretely. Remember,
this was in the 18th century and the model they had in mind was England
and the question of the English framework of the constitution kept
coming up. And Madison pointed out that if in England the general
population had the right to participate freely in the political system,
then they would have to institute the kinds of programmes, which we
nowadays call agrarian reforms. They would want to take over property
and have it used for the general population, not concentrated
in the hands of a small number of wealthy. And, of course that is
intolerable.
The US system was designed
so that power was to be placed in the hands of what Madison called “the
wealth of the nation” - people who are sympathetic to property and its
rights and will not allow infringement on them. The rest of society is
supposed to be fragmented and broken up so they do not do too much.
Well, that is the form of
system. A lot of things have changed in the last couple of hundred
years. Franchise has extended unions; and popular groups have formed;
and many things have changed. But the main structure of the system
remains about the same. Going back to the question, the decision making
class has to be indoctrinated into the right forms of belief. They have
to understand the permanent interests of the country, the rights and
needs of the opulent and powerful. The rest of the people – 80 percent,
it is just a rough number and not to be taken seriously, has to be
distracted so that they do not interfere.
There is a huge industry
that is devoted to this, developed primarily in the more democratic
countries – England and the United States. That is where the industry
developed – it is called the public relations industry. The advertising
industry is a part of it. Their concern is to distract the public. Alex
Carey, an Australian, in a scholarly analysis of corporate propaganda,
wrote a book called “Taking the risk of democracy”. When you have a
formal democratic system, when people have won right after years of
struggle, like the right to vote and participate in elections, you have
to take risk out of democracy by ensuring that there is very little
substance to their democratic choices.
This is done by organizing
the world so that the major decisions are not in the public arena. And
by imposing on the people – I am now quoting from manuals of the public
relation industry – a “philosophy of futility”*. This is done so that
the attention of the people is focused on the superficial things of life
like fashionable consumption.
From infancy children have
drilled into them, from television, advertising and in every possible
way, that they have to have a “philosophy of futility” as far as serious
decisions are concerned and that they have to perceive themselves as
passive consumers. It does not really matter what you know about the
world. The less you know the better.
That is the model. It does
not work, but that is the model. The rabble never accepts this. It
continually resists and struggles against this. That also requires the
use of other techniques to try and control people. The elite media are
mostly directed to the small decision-making sector people who make
choices in decisions that run the society. They have to be properly
indoctrinated by not just the media but by the education system and
everything else.
The true mass media that
go to the general audience, they mostly distract, making people pay
attention to something else – popular music, purchasing.It is not
surprising that indoctrination and propaganda should have reached their
highest forms in these societies. In the 20th century, in particular,
these are largely contributions of the US and England. It grew out of
the First World War when England had what they called a Ministry of
Information, which was to convince the US – meaning primarily educated
Americans and the intellectuals – that they better get into the war with
England. The Ministry concocted all kinds of tales. It brainwashed the
educated elite, including famous people like John Dewey, magnificently.
The population of the US was mostly pacifistic and did not want to get
involved in European conflict. Others like Adolf Hitler were impressed
too.
Who am I talking to?
Mostly the 80 percent. The 20 percent do not want to hear about this.
They already know what truths they are supposed to believe. But the
general population is much more open, inquisitive, concerned and wants
to act to change the world.
(Taken from Frontline) *Emphasis ours |
|
Back to Top |
| |
|
Neighbourhood Parliaments and
Governance by People |
|
Participation on the way-out?
The
much-touted word, “participation”, is fast loosing its glamour among
social change agents. True, the concept had its heyday. In a world where
only a few people determined the destiny of the world and where a vast
majority of people felt alienated – socially, economically and in
various other ways – the concept of a world where everybody is an equal
partner in decisions that affect one, held its appeal.
The dream is still valid. But the problem is one of the meanings and
connotations the word evoked in the minds of certain people. And the
meaning, theoreticians of semantics would say, is not in the word, but
in the minds of the people - Right?
The word, participation, itself tended to give, in the minds of certain
people, a
secondary role to people at large. “Participation for what?”;
“Participation with whom?” Such were the questions they asked.
Certain ill-oriented governments too could walk away, giving people
just a token role at nearly the fag end of the implementation of
programmes, and still boast that they ensured the participation of
people!
Such aspects of participation as getting the people themselves identify
the problems and solutions, involving them in decision-making, etc.
could easily be overlooked.
Hence, the search for a more powerful
word that would represent with more impacts the all-inclusive ideal of a
participatory world.
Governance in!
The
incoming ruling deity in this regard is the word governance. Here, the
people - especially the presently disadvantaged - are not just to
“participate”. They are rather to “govern”.
That reminds me of a dictum of Thomas Moore, who once served as the
chancellor of the British Government and authored the much-maligned
Utopia. Utopia represented the vision of a more just and humane world,
which for those not adequately concerned about such values were too
idealistic. Thus, the word, utopian, became along the process a synonym
for the impractical.
Thomas Moore, had a very thought provoking statement when it comes to
governance.
Government: plot of the rich
Governments,
in his view, are a plot by the rich. Nobody needs to ask, “Against
whom?” Naturally, it could only be against the poor.
What really is the modus operandi of this plot? Or the trick on which
the plot is based? It is simple: just make the tools of governance
unreachable to the poor.
The tools of governance in a democracy are the various decision-making
forums like parliaments – House of Lords, House of Commons, Rajya Sabha,
Lok Sabha, Legislative Assembly, and Legislative Council etc. – where
the fate & rights of the people are mostly decided.
A clever plot ept refusing accessibility to those who needed most the
backing of the decisions of such forums.
Big
constituencies for big voices
The plot was to make the electing constituencies too big to be handled
by the poor and get elected. Thus governments ended as governments by
the rich, of the rich, and evidently for the rich. It is not hunger,
nutrition, health, clothing, and such basic issues of the poor that
preoccupied such governments of the rich but rather the concerns of the
rich. Like making profits, more comforts, status in international
realms, the most up-to-date gadgets, and the like.
And the plot was so effective that the people could be kept poor even
after years and years and centuries and centuries of “democratic”
governance.
What if instead the hungry and the poor are made to govern? Naturally,
the first issue they will address will be the hunger of the people.
Would it be possible to make the hungry and the poor govern? Is it
possible to bring them too to parliaments, so that what they talk
matters?
This would need redefining the scope of parliaments.
Parliaments must come to where people are, rather than make the people
go to the parliaments. Parliaments should come to the grassroots, to neighbourhoods in streets where people live.
They must also be of the right size for the "small" people themselves
to participate. The bigger the forum the more difficult the small voices
would find to get across.
Forums for
direct democracy
These
parliaments at the base, again, should allow scope for direct
intervention by people.
The pity is people talk only indirectly in the
existing parliaments. That is, except for a token intervention during
elections, people do not have parliaments where they can talk directly.
This is not enough. People must have the scope for intervening directly
at least in some forum on an on-going basis.
The gram sabhas as provided in the Panchayat Raj Act are supposed to
offer this scope for direct participation by people. But gram sabha as
provided in the above mentioned Panchayat Raj Act is supposed to be
normally an inter-village affair, where “all the eligible voters” are to
participate and as such it is unwieldy for participation by people.
Suppose a panchayat has 6,000 voters or even 500 voters for that
matter. How do you get all of them to discuss together seriously in a
gram sabha? It could end up as a mere token exercise. It could even lead
to violence and bloodshed in unmanageable crowds.
Neighbourhood Parliaments
A better option is the neighbourhood parliament system as has been
promoted now in some 215 panchayats in Kerala, India. Here the
parliament begins at base in the neighbourhood sabha or "ayalkoottams"
of 50 families each.
Each of these neighbourhood sabhas offers scope for participation.
In each of these neighbourhood forums, people come together to assess
their situation, to prioritise their problems, to make goal statements,
to evolve micro-plans, to budget, to fix monitoring standards, etc. They
also involve in the social auditing of the programmes launched by
panchayats and other government structures.
These neighbourhood parliaments are networked through their
elected representatives at the village parliaments called "village
sabhas" (and they in turn, could be networked at the level of panchayat
parliament). And panchayat committee is supposed to be accountable to
these parliaments. Beginning from the neighbourhood parliaments, eachThe
Predicaments
level has its own office bearers.
Strengthening this provision is the Kerala government’s effort to
converge as much as possible all its action at the level of these
neighbourhood sabhas. In one district in Kerala i.e. at Malappuram,
there was also an effort at having such parliaments at the levels of
block and the district.
Kerala government has further made it a
point to integrate the self-help groups that are promoted throughout
India, within these neighbourhood sabhas. In fact, in Kerala they are
called Neighbourhood Groups rather than by the usual term, self-help
groups, thus emphasising the territorial orientation of these groups.
Children's
neighbourhood parliaments
Kerala has also started, by way of
bolstering these structures, parallel parliaments for children or "Kuttikalude
Sabha" in some panchayats, beginning from the level of the neighbourhood.
These children, who include adolescents below 18 years, have been
showing greater involvement, turning out with sharper analysis and more
concrete and specific proposals and steady monitoring. Similar
experiments by children are undertaken in other countries too with
remarkable achievements.
Elections as if people
matter
Mr. M.P. Parameswaran of
Kerala Sasthria Sahithya Parishath has called for new election system
that involves such various levels of parliament. For him the election
should start at the neighbourhood parliaments. Those elected at the
neighbourhood parliaments will form the village parliaments. These in
turn would send elected representatives who will form elected
parliaments at the level of the Panchayat. Thus, it will go on at the
levels of the block, the district, the state, and the nation.
The parliaments elected this way at each level are not to have
more than about eighty persons at any level. Such parliaments could turn
out to be face-to-face communities where members will be known for their
worth and where it will be pretty difficult to go on cheating for long.
Parliaments of such size could also make viable a call back
facility wherein if more than half the number of people at any level
find that their elected representatives are not functioning properly
they can be called back and new representatives elected.
Being small in number, members can meet together more easily. The
election this way would be economical too.
When such structures are evolved, we can definitely look forward to a
situation where people are really in governance not just indirectly but
also directly. (2001)
Edwin M. John |
|
|