Rise of the Right

I am not a historian. As a layman, here are my views on the worldwide rise of the right presented for comments by those who have a better perspective of history:

Humans have a need and tendency to organise themselves into larger and larger groups. These have to be hierarchical as is evident from the very fact that the word anarchy has come to mean the opposite of organisation.  Hierarchy implies graduated disparity of power which becomes immense between the top and the bottom.  Also power essentially means the capacity to do harm or good.  This is because the highest coercive powers as well as the treasury belong to the topmost level.

Thus for continued existence of the group and to alleviate suffering that such concentration of coercive powers may bring about in people at the top, a group needs checks and balances.  This may be done by a spiritual guru or a council of ministers.  These may have gradually weakened over time and ceased to be effective. Their breakdown led to revolutions that replaced monarchies with democracies in which people themselves could directly exercise a measure of control over the rulers in the top echelon.

Then came along the Indutrial Revolution. It once again disturbed the rather unstable equilibrium that had been attained.  Mass production of goods at affordable prices brought about unprecedented wealth.  But most of it was concentrated in the hands of owners of factories with only minimal amounts trickling down to the large workforce.  This unprecedented accumulated wealth in the hands of a few has given them the power to manipulate the masses and the democratic process itself.  This is done in collusion with callous politicians and / or religious heads who never before had the support of such power ever before simply because such wealth never earlier existed in the history of mankind. And it has become possible for them to abuse this power because unfortunately the collective wisdom of humans has not grown proportionately to be able to withstand the temptations and threats posed to them through this money power.

And this seems to be the reason behind the tempestuous growth of right wing politics all over the world.

Constitution vs Theocracy, and Proportional Representation

Democracy and theocracy cannot be compatible.  While democracy relies upon equality before law and equal say in political decisions, theocracy doesn't.  As we know a theocracy is a state that is governed by a government that derives its authority directly from a religion, usually invoking the authority of a religious deity and basing their laws on religious texts.  And no religion accepts a non-believer or a person with a different faith as an equal to be given the same rights as its followers.  And then again, almost all religions discriminate against women and also people with differing sexual orientation, that is, LGBTQ.  And thus a democracy by definition has to be secular.  Needless to say that this is a proposition that will be enthusiastically accepted by people of religious groups that form minorities but is likely to be resisted / resented by the religious denomination to which the majority belongs.

But then, since democracies decide things like elections or referendums by numbers, the majority gains an upper hand in these decisions.  And this is the fundamental irony of democracy which may enable a politician, who is so inclined, to use democracy to finish off democracy!

Naturally, the question arises as to how to prevent this from happening.  And one answer that immediately suggests itself is that instead of relying on a first past the post system, a democracy must necessarily have a system of proportional representation where each party gets seats in a legislative body in the same proportion as its percentage share in total votes cast and counted.  This also implies that elections have to be fought by parties and not individuals as individuals can shift their loyalty if they so choose.

In this context, I would like to draw your attention to an earlier post by me where I have advocated a reform of the current electoral process.  You will find it here - https://anil-upadhyaya.blogspot.com/2014/04/people-or-chunks-of-map.html.  Please read this post before moving on to the next para.

Once it is accepted that elections are to be fought by parties and not individuals, and then individuals are to be appointed by parties, a few more much debated issues get resolved.

The foremost is the ability of the parties to keep criminal and ill-qualified people at bay as in this system it is parties and not people that win elections.  Because of this, professionals qualified to do justice to the tasks that will be handled by them in the legislative bodies can be identified and appointed by the parties.  It may be noted that all this is not meant to preclude people with lower or little qualifications from politics itself.  They are welcome to form and run political parties if they so wish, but legislative and ministerial positions must be occupied by people who can do justice to them.  These people need not have affiliations with political parties but must possess the requisite qualifications that may be laid down by law.  This will take care of the complaint that while we prescribe requisite qualifications for even such inconsequential posts as peons, those at the very helm are not required to have any.

In fact in this system one may make it mandatory for people desirous of working in legislatures, to acquire prescribed qualifications carefully designed for such tasks.  New courses can be introduced in universities for this purpose.

This reform alone is not capable of solving the fundamental problem of political funding which is said to be the mother of all corruption.  This problem can ba partly alleviated by making rallies illegal.  These are a huge sink of funds for political parties.  Simultaneously we should create a broadcasting corporation that gives equal / equitable access to all parties to reach out to the masses.  Of course, this will be only a small beginning and this topic of political funding deserves separate and serious attention.

Musings On The Current Farmers' Agitation

Many columnists are writing in favour of the three Agriculture Acts that farmers are vehemently opposing.  They feel that these are steps in the right directions.  The Acts allow private players to purchase from the farmers so the competition can ensure better prices for the farmer.  These also remove ceilings on stocks of essential commodities, earlier put in place to discourage hoarding. These steps, in the opinion of the protagonists,  would eliminate wastages, ensure efficiency and get the farmer better remuneration for his produce in an open and competitive market not limited to their geographical location.

However, the farmers are apprehensive that there may not be enough competition amongst procurers, logistics providers, processors and marketers to ensure that the farmers get a good enough price.  Recent news about Adani Agri Logistics emerging as a measure player in most aspects of Agri Logistics adds fuel to their apprehensions.  Such apprehensions about lack of competition lie at the core of the present agitation and the farmers' demand for a guaranteed minimum price.

The corporate sector has always been wary of free competition and has tried to erect and enhance barriers.  When the economy started opening up in 1990s, a so called Bombay Club had come up to oppose it.  The government at that time didn't succumb totally to pressures and in about two decades time, everyone was upbeat about how Indian businesses were becoming world class and could confidently meet international competition.

However things seem to be headed for an U-turn now.  We are again afraid of competition as seen by India's refusal to join RCEP and reversion to 'Aatmnirbharata.'

It would seem that the aversion to competition is not limited merely to one's own sphere of enterprise but generally to new upstarts trying to break into their economic strata and enjoy privileges that come with it.  How else can we justify the fact that the few Indian unicorns that have come up have been able to do so only with the support of venture capital from abroad, including a neighbour country that is not so friendly?  That a financial system that has lost lakhs of crores to scamsters and bad debts, could not provide venture capital to budding entrepreneurs even to the tune of a few hundred crores?

All this seems to be the fallout of a system of crony capitalism that has evolved over the years through a nexus between businessmen and politicians.  This system has raised entry barriers in both the spheres, business as well as politics, and it works to the detriment of the public at large.  Public has become increasingly wise to the machinations of this closed group and is absolutely unwilling to take any proclamations by these two powerful groups at face value.

The difference between bonafide capitalism and crony capitalism is competition.  In the absence of competition, capitalism turns toxic. It is for this reason that competition is something that Governments are supposed to enforce.  But for governments to honestly do that it is important that role of money in elections be brought down to minimise politicians' dependence on business, and that is where the crux of the problem lies.

Congress too practised Crony Capitalism and it fell because it could not cover it up with a façade of nationalism.

And farmers are not willing to trust the markets being opened for them precisely because of a suspicion whether competition will truly be there or not. And hence the demand for a guaranteed minimum price.

Has our democracy turned into an oligarchy?

Our current political class has realized that they rule the country together.  The division into ruling party, coalition members, outside supporters, and opposition is just a matter of detail and share in the exploits of power. 

With this tacit understanding their focus is on keeping entry barriers high so the group can remain intact.  This is done by raising election expenditure to absurdly high levels and then spending even beyond these limits.  Why bother: It will be made good!

The other focus point is to ensure that no one is able to challenge them or throw them out for their licentious behavior befitting oligarchs.  And this is why they stand firmly together when it comes to institutions like Lokpal that can do so.  It is indeed surprising in the utmost that this glaringly plain truth is not appreciated by public at large.

Such blindness is fostered amongst electorate by covering their eyes with blindfolds of religion, region, caste, class and what have you.

Throw away these blindfolds before you lose vision altogether.  See things for what they are and change them if you can.

A Letter to Fellow Indians

My Dear Fellow Indians,

Our hearts must swell with pride and eyes with tears of gratitude and joy as we watch the ever growing numbers of those whose prime objective is to become the prime minister of the country, purportedly for  serving us better.  They come in great variety - big leaders with small parties, small leaders with big parties, small leaders with small parties, big leaders with big parties that are afraid of them, et al.  Oh dear leaders, you have such big ambitions!  Well to serve the country better with!

We, the working people, know well enough what happens when you get a job that you are not equal to. Your health suffers, your family suffers, and you take to the job portals vehemently looking for a change. Most of our beloved leaders know well enough, or we so hope, that the job is much too demanding and not exactly a bed of roses. Of course, all this holds only if you intend to perform. They do know pretty well that they will be stepping into shoes so big that their eyes may be below lace level and their nose close to that stench left behind by the previous wearers / occupiers.  And yet, all this knowledge only seems to add fuel to their determination.

There is another variety who are so much afraid of this stench that they would forever keep away from this race and only look for someone else who can better put up with it and clean it up rather than add to the grime.  Dear old chap, if you wish to clean it, you have to step into it, with a broom like the one that Gandhi wielded when cleaning the community toilets.  Keep it up, dear angry young man, AAP sahi raaste par hain.

At times, I too feel tempted to jump into the fray.  After all, what would the nation, or at least my grandsons, say when they find out that I kept watching from the sidelines when the country needed me most!  

What say you?

Yours etc.

A.K. Upadhyaya

(Mee too)