<p>In a democracy, people have to be persuaded to vote. De-mocracy is about freedom; antithetical to compulsion that Gandhiji so abhorred.</p>.<p><br />Since Independence, there has been strong resistance to Mahatma Gandhi’s dream of ‘gram swaraj.’ His deep disappointment that panchayat raj was not in the body of the constitution forced the drafters to include it in the Directive Principles as an afterthought.<br /><br />It took 43 years, then prime ministers Rajiv Gandhi’s passionate speech in <br />parliament in 1989, and the efforts of Narasimha Rao, to bring panchayat <br />raj to the centre stage with the enactment of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment in 1992.<br /><br />The Ramesh Kumar Report and Amendment Bill reflect not only the letter but the spirit behind gram swaraj and the constitutional provisions. It ensures the imperative paradigm shift that safeguards the fundamental rights and freedoms of people – the members of the gram sabha.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the Bill that was presented to the Karnataka legislature by Rural Development Minister H K Patil on March 30 is yet another retrograde step and a major setback for panchayat raj in Karnataka. The Bill contains only three of the 88 amendments suggested by the Committee with one addition, that of compulsory voting.<br /><br />The three randomly selected amendments are significant, though lacking in teeth in the absence of the other 85. The minister’s reasoning was that he needed to first concentrate on those amendments that pertained to the forthcoming panchayat elections.<br /><br />Through Patil pleads lack of time over the Committee report, he has demonstrated surprising initiative and urgency to include an amendment of his choice, that of compulsory voting. It is interesting to note that this was neither recommended by any committee nor discussed by the cabinet.<br /><br />Such an amendment was opposed by the Congress in Gujarat and returned more than once by Governor Kamala Benewal on the grounds that forcing voters to vote is “against the principles of individual liberty”. Patil justifies mandatory voting by claiming that 20-odd countries have the same provision, but stops short of admitting that five of these are relatively minor countries in Europe, 10 in Central and South America, one in Africa, two in Asia and two in the Oceanic.<br /><br />The major advanced industrialised ‘democracies’ that have compulsory <br />voting are Australia, Switzerland and Singapore, all three among the most over-regulated and paternalistic countries in the world! And even in these countries, there are moves to reconsider this statute.<br /><br />Another argument in defence of this amendment is that it will force a certain ‘class’ who shirk their responsibility, to vote. What the minister fails to realise is this ‘class’ are the rich and powerful who need not be bothered with influencing the elections, confident in their ability to ‘buy’ any government that comes to power.</p>.<p><br />He claims that yet another group is those of the ‘voiceless’ prevented from voting by vested interests. One wonders who they are. The poor vote. They know it is their only chance to demonstrate their influence. They cannot lobby with the powers that be, their right to dissent is being systematically throttled and the elections are the only forum left. Despite the latest trend to ‘buy’ votes, they have proved time and time again that they are agents of change.<br /><br />The real voiceless and disenfranchised are the millions of migrants who are not registered voters and find no place in the electoral rolls and the vested interest in their case is the government.<br /><br />Penalties attached<br />Through there are no penalties attached to the mandatory voting provision, Patil has made veiled threats about repercussions that might follow when one applies for a passport or government subsidies. This smacks of authoritarianism of the worst kind - instilling fear of breaking the law without knowing the possible future consequences of doing so!<br /><br />In a democracy, people have to be persuaded to voting. Democracy is about freedom and the antithesis of compulsion that Gandhiji so abhorred. Implicit in the concept of rights is choice and the right not to vote is as fundamental as the right to vote. If challenged this is sure to be struck down. Patil’s final and rather lame reason is that people’s participation is poor and compulsory voting will ensure their participation.<br /><br />Dragging people to the polling booth once in five years under duress will not ensure their better understanding of political processes or that suddenly gram sabhas will become relevant or useful. The core of the issue is that panchayats, especially gram panchayats, have been rendered powerless and gram sabhas stripped of their rights. People know that real power lies with the MLAs and MPs.<br /><br />The key to this question lies in the empowering of panchayats and there-by the gram sabhas by devolution all finances, functionaries and functions. The answers are in the Ramesh Kumar report and its implementation will result in greater participation of people, optimum utilisation of funds for the real needs of people and the overall inclusive development of villages based on social justice.<br /><br />It is clear that Patil doesn’t even have a glimmer of understanding of devolution or even decentralisation, and instead wishes to follow the Modi formula of governance using the ‘carrot and stick’ approach – the stick being compulsion clubbed with fear of the unstated and the carrot, the vague promise of economic advantage.</p>.<p><br />While the fate of the Ramesh Kumar report is yet unknown and the government is hell bent on reversing the progress of panchayat raj – gram swaraj is still a distant dream.</p>.<p><br />(The writer is a social and political activist and member, Core and Drafting Committee of the Karnataka Gram Panchayat Act 1993 Amendment Committee)</p>
<p>In a democracy, people have to be persuaded to vote. De-mocracy is about freedom; antithetical to compulsion that Gandhiji so abhorred.</p>.<p><br />Since Independence, there has been strong resistance to Mahatma Gandhi’s dream of ‘gram swaraj.’ His deep disappointment that panchayat raj was not in the body of the constitution forced the drafters to include it in the Directive Principles as an afterthought.<br /><br />It took 43 years, then prime ministers Rajiv Gandhi’s passionate speech in <br />parliament in 1989, and the efforts of Narasimha Rao, to bring panchayat <br />raj to the centre stage with the enactment of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment in 1992.<br /><br />The Ramesh Kumar Report and Amendment Bill reflect not only the letter but the spirit behind gram swaraj and the constitutional provisions. It ensures the imperative paradigm shift that safeguards the fundamental rights and freedoms of people – the members of the gram sabha.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the Bill that was presented to the Karnataka legislature by Rural Development Minister H K Patil on March 30 is yet another retrograde step and a major setback for panchayat raj in Karnataka. The Bill contains only three of the 88 amendments suggested by the Committee with one addition, that of compulsory voting.<br /><br />The three randomly selected amendments are significant, though lacking in teeth in the absence of the other 85. The minister’s reasoning was that he needed to first concentrate on those amendments that pertained to the forthcoming panchayat elections.<br /><br />Through Patil pleads lack of time over the Committee report, he has demonstrated surprising initiative and urgency to include an amendment of his choice, that of compulsory voting. It is interesting to note that this was neither recommended by any committee nor discussed by the cabinet.<br /><br />Such an amendment was opposed by the Congress in Gujarat and returned more than once by Governor Kamala Benewal on the grounds that forcing voters to vote is “against the principles of individual liberty”. Patil justifies mandatory voting by claiming that 20-odd countries have the same provision, but stops short of admitting that five of these are relatively minor countries in Europe, 10 in Central and South America, one in Africa, two in Asia and two in the Oceanic.<br /><br />The major advanced industrialised ‘democracies’ that have compulsory <br />voting are Australia, Switzerland and Singapore, all three among the most over-regulated and paternalistic countries in the world! And even in these countries, there are moves to reconsider this statute.<br /><br />Another argument in defence of this amendment is that it will force a certain ‘class’ who shirk their responsibility, to vote. What the minister fails to realise is this ‘class’ are the rich and powerful who need not be bothered with influencing the elections, confident in their ability to ‘buy’ any government that comes to power.</p>.<p><br />He claims that yet another group is those of the ‘voiceless’ prevented from voting by vested interests. One wonders who they are. The poor vote. They know it is their only chance to demonstrate their influence. They cannot lobby with the powers that be, their right to dissent is being systematically throttled and the elections are the only forum left. Despite the latest trend to ‘buy’ votes, they have proved time and time again that they are agents of change.<br /><br />The real voiceless and disenfranchised are the millions of migrants who are not registered voters and find no place in the electoral rolls and the vested interest in their case is the government.<br /><br />Penalties attached<br />Through there are no penalties attached to the mandatory voting provision, Patil has made veiled threats about repercussions that might follow when one applies for a passport or government subsidies. This smacks of authoritarianism of the worst kind - instilling fear of breaking the law without knowing the possible future consequences of doing so!<br /><br />In a democracy, people have to be persuaded to voting. Democracy is about freedom and the antithesis of compulsion that Gandhiji so abhorred. Implicit in the concept of rights is choice and the right not to vote is as fundamental as the right to vote. If challenged this is sure to be struck down. Patil’s final and rather lame reason is that people’s participation is poor and compulsory voting will ensure their participation.<br /><br />Dragging people to the polling booth once in five years under duress will not ensure their better understanding of political processes or that suddenly gram sabhas will become relevant or useful. The core of the issue is that panchayats, especially gram panchayats, have been rendered powerless and gram sabhas stripped of their rights. People know that real power lies with the MLAs and MPs.<br /><br />The key to this question lies in the empowering of panchayats and there-by the gram sabhas by devolution all finances, functionaries and functions. The answers are in the Ramesh Kumar report and its implementation will result in greater participation of people, optimum utilisation of funds for the real needs of people and the overall inclusive development of villages based on social justice.<br /><br />It is clear that Patil doesn’t even have a glimmer of understanding of devolution or even decentralisation, and instead wishes to follow the Modi formula of governance using the ‘carrot and stick’ approach – the stick being compulsion clubbed with fear of the unstated and the carrot, the vague promise of economic advantage.</p>.<p><br />While the fate of the Ramesh Kumar report is yet unknown and the government is hell bent on reversing the progress of panchayat raj – gram swaraj is still a distant dream.</p>.<p><br />(The writer is a social and political activist and member, Core and Drafting Committee of the Karnataka Gram Panchayat Act 1993 Amendment Committee)</p>
