!

Pune, Maharashtra
August 22, 2011

Subject: Breaking the Gridlock

Honorable Members of the Parliament,

Given the grave situation facing our country today, kindly allow me to share a few thoughts with
you. I request that you consider them in light of your larger role as Members of Parliament, setting
aside for a while your specific divisions and mandates, as the larger picture affects our Country,
both now and into posterity.

I believe, all of you, regardless of your political affiliations, unanimously agree on one thing: that
the Parliament is the supreme democratic authority for passing legislation by virtue of our model of
Representative Democracy enshrined in our very Constitution.

However, the current crisis and the sentiments of the people at large have brought about a gridlock
that seems to defy a win-win solution, one where the democratic institutions and processes are not
weakened, and yet the tremendous sentiment of the people mobilized by social activists (most
symbolized today by Shri Anna Hazare) are appropriately addressed.

Since you carry the authority as Members of Parliament, the responsibility also lies squarely on
you to find a sustainable solution to the current challenge. Unfortunately, a win-lose dynamic
permeates the atmosphere today, which if pursued by either side, will only further devolve into an
irredeemable lose-lose.

The unsolicited advice of certain foreign diplomats in this regard rightly gave rise to indignation on
our part. However, privately, we must admit that the current hour beckons us to not only be proud
of our legacy but to use this opportunity to set an example to the world of furthering the depth and
reach of democracy in a way thats unprecedented. That would be a more fitting response.

In this gridlock, there seem to be only two ways to approach a solution: either there needs to be a
change of guard on either side or both have to rise above their current defensive posturing to seek
a common ground.

The Chinese have the same word to represent both adversity and opportunity. I wish here to
direct your attention towards the tremendous opportunity that lies here to further strengthen the
very fabric of the worlds most heterogeneous and populous democracy.

In this spirit, please take a few minutes to go through the attached document presenting one
possible direction of a solution that aims for the above outcome.

I look forward to your considered thoughts and responses in this regard.

Warm regards,



Amrish Ishwarlal Jain
A Concerned yet Neutral Citizen
(amrish@aarel.in)!
! "!
!"#$%&'() *+#) ("&,-./%
#$% &' () *+! , -$! .&' ) , ) /0' ! 1, 0' $20, $! 3&405 6% ! 7! 1, 5 $*+, -$*$6! 8$2&/5 0/9!
:9! 725) %-! ; %-405' 0' ! <0) *! =025) %->005$' ? ) *@!
AB73! C7DEF7! 7#G! AG! #G7CCH! I7D;FJK!
BLA! 3B;1! C7DEF7! D7MG! 3L! :GK!
LNG#DLM;FJ! 3BG! C7DEF7!
JL;FJ! 7! 13G.! IE#3BG#!

AB73! C7DEF7! 7#G! AG! #G7CCH! I7D; FJK!

Despite robust democratic institutions, processes, and capable representatives,
India has struggled to pass certain required legislations from time to time.

The anti-corruption drive is only a glaring example of a legislation that was stuck
in our due process for an unimaginable 40+ years.

Such delays almost necessitate mass movements to break the inertia. As the
2011 uprisings around the world have shown, such mass movements can
spontaneously self-organize with startling speed in the hyper-connected
communication era that todays youth of 20-20 cricket lives in. India can pride
itself in that despite a most young population, our culture of non-violence has
ensured that these uprisings have been utterly non-violent.

The irony, however, is that such mass movements, driven by sentiments and mob
psychology, do prevent sane, healthy, and open dialogue on working out the
details of these important legislations.

! "!
In the fury of the moment, People want their sentiments to be directly
implemented. Moreover, with the history of Parliamentarian delays, any
reservation on the details of the Peoples proposals further appears like the
Parliamentarians are skirting the issue.

As responsible representatives, the Parliamentarians certainly need to take the
public sentiment into account but they also have to meditate on all the
implications before forming any legislation. While the mass hysteria will inevitably
settle down, they will remain accountable long after that.

Thus, between an impatient mass and representatives fighting to shrug off the
image of lack of political will, it inevitably, becomes a black and white, win or lose
game, pitting the Parliamentarians against their own People and vice versa.

To preempt the delays that lead to such a gridlock in the first place, we need to
identify and overcome the lacuna that causes them.


#$%! &#' (! )*+,-*! +*./! &$! 0/1!

To get to the root cause of this lacuna in our democratic institutions and
processes, it is vital to review the role of the Council of States that was
envisioned by our founding fathers.

Lets first look at the membership requirements of the Council of States:

The 12 nominated representatives are required to be from backgrounds of
Literature, Science, Arts, and Social Service. I interpret that this serves an
indicative guideline for the kind of people expected to be elected in the
remaining 238 seats.

A third of this representation is rotated every two years, creating a balance
of stability and dynamism of representation.

The minimum age required of these representatives is 30 years (as
compared to 25 years in the House of People), indicating these were
envisioned to be relatively more mature at their respective minimum age.

The above three requirements in combination, I believe, were intended to keep
these representatives free of short-term thinking and resistant to the sway of
mass sentiment and more deliberative of the long-term impact of legislations.
! O!

However, the reality is that due to unhealthy political compulsions and
aspirations, this space has been encroached upon and this original intent not
maintained, thus weakening our representational fabric and causing inaction in
passing strong legislations.

Contrast this with the House of People. Here, we have representatives elected by
the people who are in public eye and have to cater to the sentiment and
perception of their constituencies. Their term in office is more directly in the hands
of People.

Together, the two houses were supposed to serve as an elegant check and
balance system that allowed for bubbling up of the will of people expressed via
their directly elected representatives, counterbalanced by a more deliberative
representation that can remain objective and consider long-term ramifications
even in the face of rising public sentiment.

Lastly, it was envisioned that the Ruling and Opposition Benches would provide
yet another dimension of check and balance to arrive at legislation that is best for
the country and its people as a whole.

However, the reality is that there are regional political leaders in both benches
who have significant public appeal & following, and their thoughts do not merge in
the major parties of either bench. This necessitates a pragmatic approach on their
part to keep a motto of there are no permanent friends and foes in politics. Their
chief aim becomes to carry their public mandate forward and get it implemented.
Thus they are compelled to form alliances to enable this, giving rise to the
complex coalition politics of today.

These inevitable political compulsions, in both Houses and both Benches, have
played their part in weakening of our democratic fabric, causing de facto
stalemates in passing strong legislations, irrespective of which party is in power
and which is in opposition. This systemic lack of political will has created the
lacuna we are experiencing today.

Trying to fill this lacuna by going back and exhorting adherence to the original
intent of the founding fathers, I believe, may be well intentioned but is not a
pragmatic enterprise.

I suggest we must overcome the lacuna in a way that gradually and dynamically
steers us back to the original intent. Such a dynamic system stands a better
chance of sustaining and enriching our democratic system.

! P!
LNF#CLMI EJ! 3AF! B7CDE7!

Any solution that aims to overcome this lacuna must find a way to combine direct
democracy and representational democracy in an open, deliberative, and
sustainable way. What I propose are three interventions to achieve this:

First, is the creation of a mechanism for quick and identity-authenticated polling
of mass opinion (not to be confused with a vote). This has become essential in
an age where even in the court of law, record of phone conversation is
permitted as evidence, and a notice served and delivered to a mail id is deemed
sufficient. We must similarly catch up with the present technological mass
communication platforms and use them towards creating the above polling
mechanism. In order to ensure authentication of identity, we must register and
link a persons email id and/or mobile number with his/her Voter ID.

Second, is a mandate given to the Standing Committee of the Parliament to
invite and weigh any proposed legislations from mass movements. If they
consider these proposals substantive, they can use the above polling
mechanism to also sense the opinion of the public (in simple yes/no terms) to
arrive at the decision on whether to table the proposed legislation in Parliament
or not.

Third, once such proposed legislation that has bubbled up by the above
mechanism is tabled in Parliament, the ensuing discussion, deliberation,
amendment, and voting must happen in a closed environment without media
access or any record. This is essential to create an environment conducive to
open discussion. To prevent any Party Whips and Coalition Compulsions from
tainting the deliberations and the vote, as well as to encourage the MPs to
participate and contribute as freethinking individuals, the vote must have
provisions for both open and close ballots. The close ballot must be
anonymous, ensuring there is no traceable link between the identity of the MP
and the vote he/she cast. Lastly, the final results of both ballots are revealed to
the public. (Please bear in mind that this process is only applicable to address
proposed legislations that have bubbled up from mass movements and tabled
in Parliament in the above manner.)

The above three interventions will give sufficient confidence to the people that
their voices have been heard and processed fairly by their representatives,
realizing the original intent of the founding fathers of our Constitution.

Such a synthesis of direct democracy and representative democracy will herald
India as a forerunner of deepening and enriching the meaning and substance of
democracy in tune with the 21
st
century.
! Q!
JLI EJ! 7! 13F.! HD#3AF#! !

While we are looking at the current adversity with this lens of opportunity, let us
also look at what the current situation has opened our eyes to.

We must wonder today that why should productive participation of thinkers,
activists, concerned media and active citizens even be considered a threat to the
supremacy of the Parliament in a modern nation of free people. This is a
symptom of a bygone era where the ruling class exploited its people and had to
quell the voices of the public and be afraid of them gathering in any way, lest they
revolted to their exploitation.

If we today speak of a healthy, vibrant democracy of a free people, where the
government is of, by, and for the people, it behooves us to demonstrate the very
meaning behind these words.

One fitting way to do this is to create the infrastructure and mechanisms whereby
thinkers, activists, concerned media, and active citizens can peacefully gather
and deliberate for the good of the nation at large and bring forth their productive
suggestions for the consideration of the Parliament.

Such infrastructure must be public and dedicated for this purpose, providing for
large gatherings with adequate security, facilities for media reportage, and good
hygiene and shelter for everyone assembled for such non-violent deliberations of
the civil society (but complete exclusion of political parties).

As token of salute to the unprecedented non-violent mobilization achieved in this
era by Shri Anna Hazare that has led us to such a solution to advance the cause
of democracy, it behooves us to dedicate this infrastructure to his good name.
This would further send a message of our foresight and project our confidence in
both our People and our strengthened Democratic fabric.

Thank you for your time in considering these thoughts. I eagerly look forward to
your thoughts and responses in this regard.

Jai Hind! Jai Maharashtra!


!
SubmlLs roposed
LealslaLlon Lo SLandlna
CommlLLee
SLandlna
CommlLLee
Welahs
roposal
SLandlna CommlLLee
ConducLs naLlonwlde oll
ulsapprove no
SLop
roposed LealslaLlon ls
1abled ln arllamenL
Approve ?es
Closed-door, unrecorded
uellberaLlon bv arllamenL
Lach M voLes vla LlLher
Cpen or Closed 8alloL
(wlLhouL arLv Whlp or
ollLlcal Compulslons)
llnal 8esulL of
8oLh 8alloLs
ueclared Lo ubllc
eople's MovemenL for
Chanae/LealslaLlon
!
ldenLlLv-AuLhenLlcaLed
olllna Mechanlsm
(Lmall/Moblle llnked Lo voLer lu)
!
8
e
s
u
l
L
s

n
e
a
a
L
l
v
e

8esulLs oslLlve
!"#$%&'(')$*#$+$,&-&".$'!$/0%#-%1'
A SvnLhesls MalnLalnlna Check & 8alance'