Akhil Bansal : Indians are witness to powerful protests and demonstrations in the last couple of years in the form of Anna Hazare anti-corruption campaign, Dec 16 gangrape protests and even by a sitting CM of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal. People occupying positions of authority reject these protests as ploys by political opponents, being spurred by bahri takaten or worse still anarchy or arajakta. Along with these disdainful words, our Constitution is bought in the defence of ‘statesmen’.
With these pro and anti-protest justifications in the background, a significant section of our society stands ambivalent on the issue of protests and demonstrations by public. Many feel that continuous protesting doesn’t allow the government to work, exaggerates one side of the story and doesn’t allow other points to take space and even gets the issue hijacked by violent elements. Along with that, many experts starts claiming that this is unconstitutional, against the ‘Constitutional structure’ and worse still call it the erosion of Constitutional values and failure of the sacred document. Further still, some even begin predicting a somber future for the nation and invoke Mahatma Gandhi to emphasise their point.
These people do have a point to make and their views can’t be set aside just like that. But one needs to understand the meaning of this anger in broader perspective.
Our Constitution has a healthy system of checks and balances in places inter se the triad, i.e. executive, bureaucracy and the legislature and our laws lay down an elaborate rule based system through which accountability and good governance is meant to be ensured. But what happens when this whole system fails to deliver upon public needs and aspirations, that is when protests are employed as a tool of pressure upon the authorities that be. It serves the purpose of venting of anger, flagging off of an issue or taking a stand by the people against the powers to emphasise their point. Further, it keeps a check on the otherwise ‘untamed’ government, where the Constitutional checks and balances, more often than not, fail. More importantly, a culture of protest is a sign of a vibrant, aware and strong public, which can ‘force’ the government to mend its way. As an illustration, we can take the example of many developed countries where a strong media in tandem with the public ensures that the government doesn’t behave in an authoritarian, illegal or immoral way.
Over and above all this, we need to go to the basics. In a democracy, the people are sovereign and the state is the institution of that society, in which the ‘real power’ vests, to develop and govern itself. So, it is perfectly legitimate for the public or the sovereign to admonish, demand from and bring to the line a wayward delegate. Infact, a healthy and constructive protest culture is a sign of maturing of democracy and entrenchment of Constitutional values and principles in society.
But care should be taken and civic norms needs to be followed while protesting, so that the purpose of ameliorating the governance machinery is achieved, rather than its destruction and the critics and the authorities doesn’t have excuses to crush this powerful and important tool with their might and propaganda.