|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Wednesday, 10 March 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
The State, factional politics and collective well-being - part 2 by Prof. S. T. Hettige (Continued from Monday, March 08) Political parties are the breeding grounds for active politicians and political leaders. So the nature of the political parties determines the kind of politicians they throw up. The nature of politics in the country, in turn depends on the kind of politicians these parties field as the candidates. The shape of the contemporary State is very much a product of the nature and the functioning of political parties that have the prospect of joining political regimes. We know that most parties in much of the developing world are undemocratic, closed systems that act more as sectarian political factions. There is usually no internal democracy, and leaders are selected taking primordial factors into account rather than their abilities and positive qualities. Political parties treat the articulation of policy issues as secondary at best. Instead, popular support is mobilised on the basis of empty slogans and politically expedient issues. Campaign funds are secretively collected from vested interests that need to be taken care of once the party is elected to power. Candidates are chosen on the basis of their ability to win elections, whether by fair or unfair means. So the main political parties do not even pretend to have any universalistic claims and an overarching ideological orientation. They have little to do with the notions of democracy, transparency, accountability, long-term public policy and universalistic values. Public disenchantment with such parties and their leaders is widespread. When they are in power, the disenchantment often turns into disillusionment and resentment. This naturally creates an opportunity for the opposition party which is usually no better in public perception to force people into fresh elections, hoping that the latter will reject the incumbent party, so that they could get elected to office by default. Such a victory, by default will of course be presented to the very people as a massive popular mandate, insulting the people who are trapped in a cycle of vicious politics. Nature of citizens - State relationship: The kind of political parties described above do not help promote the notion of modern citizenship. In fact, being highly parochial and sectarian, they prevent the development of such a notion. Those who want to be modern citizens often have no place either in the major political parties or in political regimes. More and more people are forced into political factions or interes groups, which dominate politics and political regimes. Either you are in this faction or else you are a member of the other. The only way to remain independent is to remain silent. When you remain silent, politics remains nothing but factional and sectarian. Such politics cannot produce a State, which is non-partisan and universalistic, and is capable of transcending deep social divisions, giving a sense of collective purpose and a shared future to the wider citizenry in the country. Instead, citizens are forced to find their destiny in a political faction or a communal group, which is either within the State or outside it. One is encouraged to pursue one's own life goals as a member not of a wider collectivity, but of a political faction. In other words, the State, instead of promoting horizontal social integration, accommodates factional interests, thereby reinforcing deep divisions in society. State apparatus and social mobility: The discussion so far points to the fact that post-independent political developments in the country have led to the erosion of the idea of the modern State as it was presented to us at the time of independence. The high ideals and values that inspired the post-independence generation have given way to pragmatic politics of the worst kind. Politics has almost no intrinsic value today; it is simply a means to an end. Individuals and groups increasingly perceive political power as the primary means of achieving personal goals and parochial interests. All public institutions, including the State apparatus itself are there for self-seeking individuals, primordial groups and vested interests to achieve their often conflicting objectives, almost always at the expense of collective welfare. Public institutions are mere sources of employment and other perks for those who manage to get in, not to serve the public purposes for which they were established in the first place. These include political parties, government departments, banks, transport organisations, schools and universities, hospitals and other statutory bodies established with the use of public funds. Health workers can go on strike and keep the hospital shut until the material demands are met, while poor patients remain unattended for days and weeks. Bus owners take their buses off the roads, and hold on to that position till State gives in, with no concern for those millions who remain stranded and so on. Most politicians who enjoy undue privileges at public expense are aware of the fact that they can never do so outside expedient politics. So the chances of them, on their own taking a lead in a campaign to transform politics into a worthy social cause are extremely slim. The only way forward seems to be for those who take politics seriously to come together to launch a popular movement aimed at lifting politics from the depths it has fallen to, to a higher level where it can serve a worthy cause. (Concluded) |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
