Skip to main content

Inner party democracy, anyone?

Hi all,

We always pride ourselves with the fact that we are the world's largest democracy. Every five years when we go out to vote, we leave the rest of the world in awe. We make them wonder how such a staggering exercise is being conducted without major hiccups. The statistics alone is sufficient to rattle any planner and put him/her out of sleep for days.

For all the chest beating that we indulge in, there is a darker side to our democracy that we usually don't visit that often and would certainly like to keep it under the wraps from prying outsiders' eyes. Probably you would have guessed what I am talking about right now.

Inner party democracy has not been on the agenda of many political parties for a long time. They, conveniently, forget the fact that charity starts at home and that being propagators of democracy also means that they themselves have to practice it both in letter and in spirit first. Most of the political parties today somehow give inner democracy a miss. Dynastic politics seems to be the order of the day. If not that then it is a single strong man whose whims and fancies decide who and how the party is run.

Is this what democracy is all about? We all know it wasn't meant to be this way. Why are our political parties behaving in a manner that can be best described as being devoid of democracy? And whose responsibility is it to put the house under order? Where do we draw the line between democracy and indiscipline? Should academic exercises like writing a book come under the purview of a party's ideology?

p.s. I didn't want to get into the gory details of dynastic politics and strong men who control their parties with an iron grip...we all know it too well don't we...:)

Comments

Karthik said…
Indian democracy has almost become synonymous to Feudalism..
Unknown said…
@karthik...hmmm...thats a little harsh though..
BK Chowla, said…
Sure,what you have said is true.If this topic comes up for public debate in a TV studio,the explainationis that in democracy,it is the people who decide and they have decided on a particular party/family.
More than 60% of people do not vote for whatever reasons(this subject can discussed seperatly)Except for CPI,there is no other party which is not indulging in dynastic politics.This situation,including inner party democracy,can change only if well meaning younger generation come in the front line to bring about a change...or else we will face the worst situation in the world.
Varada said…
nothing is perfect we are here to make it better.
Unknown said…
@chowla...the younger would not mind considering politics provided they have enough family support...

@varada...hmmm...we cant be critical like this all the time...there has to be some time when we say ...'hey it looks like we have optimised the system..'

Popular posts from this blog

Does India need communal parties?

I think, it was Tan's post on this blog itself, Republic Day Event, where this question was raised. My answer. YES. we need communal parties even in Independent, Secular India. Now let me take you, back to events before 1947. When India was a colony of the British Empire. The congress party, in its attempt to gain momentum for the independence movement, heavily used Hinduism, an example of which is the famous Ganesh Utsav held in Mumbai every year. Who complains? No one. But at that time, due to various policies of the congress, Muslims started feeling alienated. Jinnah, in these times, got stubborn over the need of Pakistan and he did find a lot of supporters. Congress, up till late 1940's never got bothered by it. And why should we? Who complains? No one. But there were repercussions. The way people were butchered and slaughtered during that brief time when India got partitioned, was even worse than a civil war scenario. All in the name of religion. And there indeed was cr...

Debate : Do the ends justify the means...

Note : Give it all a fair thought before you jot down... Flaming and religion-bashing will not be tolerated. Your participation is gladly appreciated. I dunno if you folks remember this incident; a couple of yrs back, the UPSC exam had a question where the emainee had to assert his views on *revolutionary terrorism* initiated by Bhagat Singh. As is typical of the government, hue and cry was not far behind... Anyway, let us look at some facts -   Bhagat Singh was an atheist, considered to be one of the earliest Marxist in India and in line with hi thinking, he renamed the Hindustan Republican Party and called it the Hindustan Socialist Revolutionary Party. Bhagat Finally, awaiting his own execution for the murder of Saunders, Bhagat Singh at the young age of 24 studied Marxism thoroughly and wrote a profound pamphlet “Why I am an Atheist.” which is an ideological statement in itself. The circumstances of his death and execution are worth recounting. Although, Bhagat Singh had a...

Politics - A Profession

This post is loosely inspired by the  TATA Tea a d  where this politician goes to ask for votes and a voter asks him for his qualification and work experience the the important 'job' that he is embarking upon. The politician laughs at the voter, asking him what job is the voter referring to. The voter responds, "The job to run the country". Do politicians in other countries view politics as a profession? Or is politics viewed similarly across international boundaries? The best way of course to find out is go to that ever useful tool for professionals - LinkedIn.  Here are the results: Barrack Obama Hillary Clinton Sarah Palin The apparently technologically challenged Senator   John McCain . I also came across many politicians, prime ministers who have LinkedIn profiles. While having a LinkedIn profile is not a certificate of a person character, one has to appreciate the intent. Reach out to masses, and more importantly, take politics as a profession. Successful leade...