|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He is disenchanted with commissions: each of which is compelled to outdo the ones that preceded it and gives attention particularly to the Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution and the Sachar Committee with its non-sequitors. He is disenchanted with television channels for various reasons, including the fact that it is the common man’s opinion that they are seeking to project which he does not think much of. He is disenchanted with the Press and talks about the ease with which stories can be planted. He is also disenchanted with judges, though not all of them. So Shourie seems to be disenchanted with all the cogs and the wheels of democracy. But there is one thing that Shourie is not disenchanted with and that is the concept of the basic structure of the Constitution. And what you may ask is the concept of the basic structure of the Constitution? Nobody quite knows what it is and Supreme Court Judges differ on what this invisible architecture of the Constitution is. When the Judges agree that it exists, they disagree as to what it consists of. But Shourie thinks it is a dyke in the preservation of democracy and there he is right though the entire concept of basic structure proved to be no protection just two years after it was enunciated by judges during the Emergency. But it is a brake on Parliament and for that reason Shourie, who is so disenchanted with Parliament, embraces it. Shourie has dealt with the collapse of Parliament as an institution at length from how the members are elected, to what they do once they are elected, to how laws are passed in Parliament (it seems with little thought and lesser understanding), to how fragmented Parliament has become which is all absolutely true but just look at our neighbours and we can thank our stars for small mercies. But the sort of Parliament Shourie admires is the Parliament as described by Edmund Burke, Page 241: "Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on the subject." But is this even realistic? Does such a parliament exist today anywhere except possibly in Singapore. But more pertinently has such a parliament ever existed? But may be even Shourie cannot believe that there can be anything like a perfect parliament. And may be therefore he suggests a presidential system with an executive for a fixed term of years so that he can choose technocrats from outside the legislature as ministers. The legislatures are supposed to be elected from larger constituencies so that they are not beholden to the people who elect them. The fear is that a strong presidency might institutionalise a period such as the emergency and more or less run amuck which surely would not make Shourie very happy. Because the concept of basic structure was propounded to limit change, Shourie proposes to change the Constitution to guard its basic structure. So who will bell the cat? The common man does not add up to much in Shourie’s eyes — so who will it be? Shourie says that it will be middle class professionals and businessmen — some of whom are doing exemplary work beyond their professions and business. But why should they? As Shourie himself says they have a major hand in keeping the political class going; and actually they are having the best run and time of their lives. So why should they want change? Will they wake up before the cloth burns up? Doubtful. The other is the group of people who are doing what Gandhi used to call constructive work. But who will organise them if not the politicians? As Shourie says India
needs a blueprint for change, and history, as he says, may need a
helping hand. Which may well be true but this is not that blueprint.
|
Arun Shourie