The Tyranny of Virtue

Democracy is the bludgeoning of the people, by the people and for the people remarked Oscar Wilde. Nothing else captures our present times as well. I also wonder whether the truth as the Buddha sought is in the middle path, to avoid a dangerous polarisation of ideology and practice. For the extremity in virtue is often as tyrannical as the naked wielding of coercive power. Over time we begin to believe what was merely a rhetorical device as part of the dogma of being different and then suffer the same hubris, though born of our rival claims to virtue. The Anna Hazare phenomenon seems to strain between form and content. Often most seem to forget that the form of protest substitutes for our responsibility to examine content of the Lokpal bill in context of existing and proposed legislation; more so the likelihood of creating a short circuit to formal legislative process by civil society. (However ironically the real problem was that it was started by the government when they started the National Advisory Council as civil society with no representation from the  opposition and based on an in-transparent selection.)

The overwhelming movement seems to be less about the Lokpal Bill (which anyway few have any idea about), and more about the enormous disaffection of the general populace with the state of the conomy and the political process. The enormous swelling in numbers does indicate a disaffection but not at anything specific, corruption seems merely an alibi. This alienation of the general populace from the political process is probably a holdall dissatisfaction with the economic conditions, especially inflation, inaccessibility of housing, apathetic local administrations, lack of reforms in state and local machinery, police, judiciary and administration, program and policy inertia by both the government and its opposition etc. The issues vary from region to region and class to class, with the middle class viewing it as the thwarting of their mobility aspirations to the good life when it was seemingly within reach. The bungling of the government and their hubris has made the situation worse and whats worrying are the rival claims from both sides of a polarised argument with no balance.

Nevertheless congruence in action does not mean congruence in means and ends; i.e. just because i too join in the protest doesn't mean that i agree with everything that Team Anna says. The battle at Ramlila grounds is now lost by the formalists who assert parliamentary privilege and legitimacy over the activism of a few. As justice AP Shah rightly stated that "Anna is not civil society and civil society is not Anna". However that is a minor quibble as the issue now seems to transcend the Lokpal Bill and everyone seems to get idealistic over the bandwagon. And the irony seems to be that both sides are erring in favouring an extreme view. I was alarmed when I heard Prashant Bhushan claiming imperiously that this is participatory democracy as against parliamentary democracy and that he would wish that the Civil Nuclear Deal, the Jammu Kashmir issue be all viewed from a referendum system. I cannot imagine the horror of it, and imeediatly dismissed his views as that of an anarchist. It implies the jettisoning of the present system and adoption of a more Swiss style of constant referendums (exemplified by their notorious minaret case this year). The potent combination of ignorance and populism pleads that we play with dangerous currents. It was Jefferson who remarked "If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be....If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed." Being informed is a responsibility as well as an understanding to both sides of a debate and to avoid the perils of handing our thinking to a person and his allies however exalted in virtue.  Kiran Bedi claimed "Anna is India and India is Anna" thoughtlessly reminding us of the worst excesses of Indira Gandhi except that she was now claiming the virtue of Anna makes us impervious to an excess. If it were just Kiran Bedi and Prashant Bhushan making all those alarming remarks it could be dismissed as rhetoric. Annaji himself now claims that after the Lokpal bill he intends to focus on land reform, education and other issues. I am alarmed as I believe that virtue is alone no guarantee to understanding and insight, apart from the prospect of a perpetual petulance and protest.

Indeed Annaji has captured the imagination of a huge swathe of population, and we are grateful that he brought corruption into focus. The bill cannot be passed without re-examining the specific contents of penalties and people to be included and the administrative machinery needed will only aggravate the problem like most of our extant institutions. A compromise is inevitable but even in the horizon of a decade I don't see corruption going away. Because the government was inept in its handling the issue, failed to communicate with its electorate, and exercised more than just state power in imprisoning protesters doesnt mean they are entirely the guilty. Corruption is not there in Delhi ensconced in the Lok Sabha building, exemplified by a khadi wearing politician. It is in our midst especially when we seek the expedient over the right. Not all who hold the candle in vigil on our streets is of a virtuous kind who can cast the first stone. I do not hesitate despite my cynicism to consider that we might be innovating upon the nature of participation in political processes by heeding to the very voluble disaffection. But I am sceptical. Corruption is not the exchange of cash or kind for favours dispensed but the abuse of authority and power even when it seems benevolent. That is a dominant leitmotif in our culture often masquerading under benevolence and authority of tradition. I do not doubt the perils and ills of democracy, but agree that the answer to the ills of democracy is ironically even greater democracy.