PATAUDI AND DEMOCRACY

A month ago, a small incident made headlines across the country: the booking of Mansur Ali Pataudi on charges of killing an endangered animal. The issue has already started fading from public memory. However, if Pataudi is guilty – and he knows the truth – he has one of the anwers to the question, “Why do we seem to have the elements of a democracy, without the complete benefits of being one?”

The Pataudi incident can be seen in the context of another seemingly unrelated issue in a different part of the world: Philippine President Gloria Arroyo has been caught in a nasty scandal, with her husband accused of vote-rigging and corruption. In a compelling commentary titled “The perils of pedestals”, Alex Magno says, “There is a palpable –and desperate - sense that the more we change things, the more they remain the same. We elect Presidents and expect them to be superhuman – solving every conceivable problem and delivering the nation from misery and failure; when they fail to live up to such lofty demands, we seek to depose them. When things go right, it’s because leaders are heroes of epic proportions. When things go wrong, we replace personalities rather than reinforce institutions and processes.”

The Philippine example is similar to India’s own challenges: a feudal attitude of wanting a benevolent and wise leader who can “take care” of the people, a hangover of societies that are still coming to grips with democratic institutions to solve our problems. New political arrangements can have all the external appearance of democratic behaviour, but the gaps in the democratic microstructure need to be filled over time only through the painstaking effort of hundreds of thousands of people.

These situations raise important questions about the relationship between democracy and values. Talk of values is skating on the thin ice of social identity, with the danger of falling into the cold waters of cultural chauvinism. Are all values subjective, determined by the specific circumstances of a society, or can some values be considered universal? More importantly, how do values change in a society, and what role do democratic institutions play in changing these values? At the heart of this is the debate about what comes first: values or institutions. Irrespective of the answer, there is no substitute for action. In the proverbial chicken-or-egg conundrum, one answer could be, “Who cares, if you can get an egg, you have started a chain reaction.” And action can only come from the rough-and-tumble of the working of democratic institutions. Building institutions can start the chain reaction: changing values will follow.

What we are witnessing in India is the gradual impact of democratic institutions on values. This is happening at a glacial pace, but getting stronger with each passing year. As our public institutions get more robust, as all stakeholders increasingly look to politics, rules and processes to solve our pressing social and economic problems, we strengthen our democratic structures.

The job is far from done. India’s journey has many miles to go before average citizens believe that we are a truly functioning democracy in an everyday sense. Our institutions need to get stronger, our governance processes need to get better, our citizens need to evolve a common set of values on what it means to live in a democracy. All these are inter-related, and impact each other.

However, while the larger context is about institutions, it is also about individuals. Ironically, the Phillipine example shows the dangers of placing leaders on pedestals, and yet, we argue for the indispensability of leaders – but of a certain type, those that strenghten institutions. We will constantly have to live in the switching shades of the ambiguous relationship between leadership and institutions. Institutions don’t evolve by themselves, merely with the passage of time. They require leaders, men and women of vision and values, of inspiration and integrity. These people move society in a certain direction by taking actions that constantly strengthen institutions. Often, this requires using a personal moral compass where there are few public guideposts. The actions of these leaders create precedents and deepen processes that others can then follow.

The Pataudi example shows the distance yet to travel in our country, in making our institutions above our individuals, to have every one believe that the same laws hold true for all. The gaps in our system today are too vast, the law by itself finds it impossible to indict an opinion leader - anyone with even the tiniest of influence can get away. This will change over time. But, given the nascent stage of democracy that we are at, opinion leaders need to resist the temptation to be above the law. Because the question is, “At what price?” not just to the individual, but to society at large. People make mistakes, laws do get broken. That is not the issue. Unfortunately, in our country, what is pitiable is that our opinion leaders are not willing to say, “mea culpa”, pay the price and serve time for their errors, be it politicians, movie stars or businessmen. What we need is individuals –leaders - to allow the process to work as it must, without influence. If this happens, our faith in our public institutions will get stronger, and we will believe that the due process of law will indeed work for every one.

The Pataudi incident is not just about blackbucks, or the environment. Whether he likes it or not, Mr. Pataudi is about a tipping point of democracy in India, where one individual example can legitimise an entire institution, and dramatically change the perception of the rule of law in our country. And with it, the values of a society, about what it is to live in a democracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The author is founder of Janaagraha. He can be reached at ramesh@janaagraha.org