Messianism versus democracy PRABHAT PATNAIK

The Central government's flip-flops on Anna Hazare are obvious: it went from abusing him (through the Congress spokesperson) for sheltering corruption, to extolling him for his idealism; from arresting him, without any justification, and getting him remanded to judicial custody for a week, to releasing him within a few hours. But the Anna group's flip-flops are no less striking: it moves from we-have-a-democratic-right-to-protest-and-place-our-views-inpublic, which is an unexceptionable proposition, to Anna-will-keep-fastinguntil-his-bill-is-adopted-or-amended-with-his-permission, which amounts to holding a gun to the head of the Centre, and by implication of Parliament, and dictating that the bill it has produced must be passed, or else mayhem will follow. The government's flip-flops are indicative of incompetence; the Anna group's flip-flops arise because of the compulsions of a particular style of politics on which it is embarked, which can be called messianism and which is fundamentally anti-democratic. The fact that it is striking a chord among the people, if at all it is (one cannot entirely trust the media on this), should be a source of serious concern, for it underscores the pre-modernity of our society and the shallowness of the roots of our democracy. Democracy essentially means a subject role for the people in shaping the affairs of society. They not only elect representatives periodically to the legislature, but intervene actively through protests, strikes, meetings, and demonstrations to convey their mood to the elected representatives. There being no single mood, freedom of expression ensures that different moods have a chance to be expressed, provided the manner of doing so takes the debate forward instead of foreclosing it. For all this to happen, people have to be properly informed. The role of public meetings where leaders explain issues, and of media reports, articles, and discussions, is to ensure that they are. The whole exercise is meant to promote the subject role of the people, and the leaders are facilitators. Even charismatic leaders do not substitute themselves for the people; they are charismatic because the people, in acquiring information to play their subject role, trust what they say. Messianism substitutes the collective subject, the people, by an individual subject, the messiah. The people may participate in large numbers, and with great enthusiasm and support, in the activities undertaken by the messiah, as they are doing reportedly at Anna Hazare's fast at the Ramlila grounds, but they do so as spectators . The action is of the messiah; the people are only enthusiastic and partisan supporters and cheerleaders. If at all they ever undertake any action on the side, this is entirely at the messiah's bidding, its ethics, rationale and legitimacy never explained to them (no need is felt for doing so); whenever they march they march only in support of the messiah, not for specific demands that they have internalised and feel passionately

about. When they gather at the Ramlila grounds, for instance, the occasion is not used to enlighten them, to bring home to them the nuances of the differences between the government's Lokpal Bill and the Jan Lokpal Bill, so that they could act with discrimination and understanding. On the contrary, the idea is to whip up enthusiasm among them without enlightening them, through the use of meaningless hyperbole like the government's bill is meant not for the prevention but for the promotion of corruption, and Anna is India and India is Anna. If the venue was one where discussions, debates, and informative speeches were taking place, the matter would be different, but those alas have no place in the political activity around messianism. Informative speeches have been the traditional staple of political activity in India. Maulana Bhashani, a popular peasant leader in what is now Bangladesh, used to give marathon speeches that were interrupted when people went home for lunch or dinner, or even for a night's rest, and resumed when they re-assembled afterwards; and the speeches contained much information about everything, not just politics but even crop-sowing practices and the best means of irrigation. A speech was virtually a set of classes; it had an educative role. I myself have heard election speeches in West Bengal by the inimitable Jyoti Basu, and also others. The speeches were based on solid homework, and conveyed information and argument to the audience. They also sought to rebut what was being said by the opponents, and hence carried forward a debate in public. Political activity of this kind assumed a subject role of the people and prepared them for it; it was quintessentially democratic . Messianic political activity does no such thing; it quintessentially creates a spectacle , not just for the audience but above all for the TV cameras upon whose presence it is crucially dependent. I am not concerned here with whether the Jan Lokpal Bill is the best piece of legislation on the subject; nor am I concerned with the possible RSS links of the Anna campaign. These issues, though important, are not germane to my argument. My concern is with the dumbing down of the people that messianic political activity entails: leave things to Anna but do come to cheer him. Just as in a potboiler Hindi film the hero single-handedly does all the fighting required to rid the locale of villainous elements, messianic activity leaves all the fighting, that is, the subject role, to the messiah. The people stand around with sympathy, and cheer. When the Anna group announces that he will take up issues like land reforms, corporate land grab, and commercialisation of education, once his fight against corruption is over, one almost feels that Shekhar Kapoor's Mr. India has finally arrived on the scene! The problem, however, is that Mr. India is a negation of democracy; and relying upon Mr. India, like relying upon the arrival of an incarnation of Vishnu to cleanse the world of evil, is a throwback to our pre-modernity. It is not just an admission of a state of powerlessness of the people that may prevail at the moment; it reinforces that powerlessness.

Messianism is fundamentally anti-democratic because it is complicit in this objectification of the people, this self-fulfilling portrayal of them as dumb objects that need a messiah. When the Anna group uses the term people as a substitute for itself (referring to its own bill as the people's bill, its own views as the people's views), it is implicitly carrying out a conceptual coup d'etat , namely, that messianism is democracy! But quite apart from the fact that the messiah is not elected by the people, a point made by many, there is the basic point that nobody, whether elected or not, can substitute for the people in a democracy. This presumption, however, explains the flip-flops made by the Anna group. If Anna is the people, then democracy, where the people are supreme, demands that his version of the bill must be accepted over any other version, including what the parliamentary Standing Committee may come to formulate. The people's supremacy over Parliament entails ipso facto Anna's supremacy over Parliament. Messianism necessarily implies an Anna's-billhas-got-to-be-adopted position. Members of Anna's group, many of whom have been associated for long with people's causes, may have occasional discomfort with this messianic position, and may retreat to a we-are-onlyexercising-our-democratic-rights stance; but since they do not repudiate the messianic position, they perforce come back to the Anna-is-the-people-andhence-supreme stance. To accept that Anna's version of the bill is only one of many possible versions, which the final bill could draw upon, amounts to seeing Anna as one among equals, and not as the messiah, that is, to an abandonment of messianism; the Anna group is loath to do this. Negotiations with the government therefore come to mean negotiations to make it accept Anna's version; compromise comes to mean a compromise that makes Anna's version final. It may be asked: if the people prefer messianism to democracy, then what is wrong with it? Those thronging the Ramlila grounds or marching in support of Anna in the metros are not necessarily the people of the country, and it is dangerous to take the two as identical. Besides, even if a majority of the people genuinely wish at a particular time to elevate a messiah over Parliament, this is no reason to alter the constitutional order, just as a majority wishing to abandon secularism at a particular time is no reason to do so. The Constitution is the social contract upon which the Indian state is founded, and it cannot be overturned by the wishes of a majority at a particular time. If perchance the government accepts messianism out of expediency, it would be violating the spirit of the Constitution and undermining democracy. Besides, any such licence will make multiple (quasireligious) messiahs sprout, who would compete and collude, as oligopolists do in the markets for goods, to keep people in thralldom. (Prabhat Patnaik recently retired from the Sukhamoy Chakravarty Chair at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.)

The substitution of one man for the people, and the reduction of the people's role merely to being supporters and cheerleaders for one man's actions, is antithetical to democracy. (The Hindu, 24/8/2011)

Sukumar Muralidharan, BBC Hindi, August 19, 2011 Working class demands get suppressed in the media while Anna Hazare enjoys privileged treatment. What can account for this? On February 23 this year, Indias principal trade union confederations jointly organised a mass rally in the national capital. Inflation had seriously been eroding security of livelihoods. And despite acute concerns among the working class, official thinking showed little inclination to go beyond the standard story line that the labour market needed to be reformed that enterprises in other words, needed the power to hire and fire at will. The trade union rally was a way of showing the world that there was another way of looking at things. It was a way of saying that securing working class livelihoods was a viable strategy of dealing with economic downturn. It was an alternative discourse that the many news channels based in Delhi and elsewhere proved fairly indifferent to. The following day, newspaper coverage mostly focused on the massive traffic snarls the rally had caused. Delhis main English language newspaper, and Indias largest, ran a full page of coverage under the banner headline: Red wave sweeps city, halts traffic in central Delhi. In three chosen samples of public reaction, representing presumably the whole range of opinions heard that day, one of the sufferers of the days traffic chaos was quoted saying: If I find out which party is behind the rally, I will never vote for it. Others complained of vital appointments missed and tasks left unfinished because of the traffic disruption. On August 16, Delhi saw another mass gathering on the streets, this time to protest a local police decision to arrest a 74-year old social campaigner rather than let him begin an indefinite fast. Anna Hazare had once before gone on hunger fast at a prominent spot in the capital city, to prod the government in to bringing in a law setting up a watchdog to enforce standards of probity in public life. The event captured the news agenda for four days. It ended in what was gloatingly called a capitulation by the government and an agreement to draft a law in consultation with a team of civil society activists nominated by Hazare. There was no feast of concord following that fast. The dialogue between government representatives and Hazares nominees deadlocked at every stage in a conspicuous lack of cordiality and basic courtesy. And the Hazare team chose to blithely disregard widely-shared concerns that its proposals for a constitutional authority (or Jan Lok Pal) to investigate and prosecute charges of corruption -- and where necessary nominate the judges to try them -- caused serious violence to the principle of the separation of powers. It had a maximal agenda, to bring the highest political and judicial authorities under the jurisdiction of the Lok Pal. And it showed little patience with reservations that were expressed on both counts.

Hazare decided to resume his protest fast on August 16 because the government refused persistently, to bring his maximal demands into the Lok Pal bill. And the government responded to the threat with a characteristic mix of indecision and bureaucratic obfuscation, culminating finally in a preventive detention that it later proved anxious to disavow any role in. Within moments, Delhis news channels had fanned out across the city to provide saturation coverage for the ensuing demonstrations. Traffic was thrown out of gear in several parts of the city when the crowds came out, but the media cared little. As Delhis leading English newspaper -- and the countrys largest -- put it in its main local news page on August 17: City Centre Comes Alive With Marching Throngs. And elsewhere,under the headline Massive jams in city but few were complaining, the newspaper made a special effort to record that city commuters with nerves frazzled by the chaos, were pacified by others who explained the issue at stake. Clearly, the media had sanctified Hazares movement, bestowed it with the legitimacy that the trade union agitation did not deserve. There is no serious mystery here: the working classes lack the serious purchasing power to be of interest to media advertisers. And when the advertiser is king, the working classes can be passive consumers but not active shapers of the news agenda. A credible profile of the people who came out on the streets to protest Hazares arrest still remains to be done. Anecdotal accounts indicate that they include a sizeable number of professionals, a fair smattering of students and a number of political activists with an overt association with the Hindu nationalist volunteer organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS). The RSS obviously is not going to let an opportunity pass to serious discomfit the government and the ruling party. As for the rest of the crowds that have come out for Hazare, they clearly belong in terms of purchasing power, to a higher demographic group than the average trade union member. Indias trade unions ran a campaign for the enforcement of existing laws that safeguard working class rights. They won little by way of a media audience. Hazares flocks want a new law that will put the existing institutions of parliamentary democracy under the powerful sway of a body constituted on principles not of popular representation, but transcendental virtue. The agenda is clear and has enabled them yet again to capture the news agenda. But the law that has been drafted to realise it, virtually foretells endemic conflict with other institutions established under the constitution. The principal focus of concerted public action today, is a shifty, ill-defined target. And corruption is in the discourse of most of those who have joined the Hazare campaign, a term of wide amplitude, referring to a host of anxieties that have lately manifested themselves in the middle-class

consciousness. The economic downturn since late-2008 has not shown up in official economic statistics, but it is a part of peoples lives in India. Inflation has become a more perceptible threat than ever before in two decades. The vaulting ambitions of Indias bulging youth demographic strata are under stress, making nonsense of the beguiling prospects held out by the media just over two years ago. And as the global economy itself lurches into a possible double-dip recession, the promise of Indias emergence on the world stage as a superpower seems rather dim. Political corruption is a convenient target onto which this whole complex of anxieties could be shifted. And the seeming urgency of creating an authority superior to all others, meshes neatly with elite convictions that representative democracy has been a colossal failure. But if failure is encoded into the genesis of the institution that Hazare and his flock have designated as the ultimate solution to the anxieties of Indian democracy, it must be asked what their reaction would be when this reality becomes undeniable. It should be asked if the target could then shift from corruption to politics itself. If representative democracy could itself fall victim to awakening Indian middle-class rage. (Courtesy: www.newsclick.in)

Why The Congress Did What It Did Seema Mustafa, Newsclick, August 23, 2011 THE START The first phase started with Anna Hazare and his team sitting on fast against corruption. They presented the Jan Lokpal Bill to the government and the people, maintaining with tremendous support from the across the country, that this should replace the apology of a legislation framed by the UPA government. The peoples response compelled the government to set up a committee of Union Ministers to dialogue with Anna Hazare and his team for a workable legislation. After the first few rounds of talks, the government and the Congress party launched a not so subtle campaign against Anna Hazare and his team members, even releasing a fabricated DVD courtesy Amar Singh, to allege corruption charges. The Ministers and Congress spokespersons held off the record briefings with selected scribes to plant stories against the movement, and to virtually launch a smear campaign against Anna Hazare and the others ---Prashant Bhushan, Shashi Bhusan, Anil Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi---with him. It soon became clear that the government had no intention of moving ahead on a new, stronger Lokpal Bill and eas using the dialogue to divide public opinon, break the movement and discredit the Anna Team. It seemed to be succeeding to a degree in that many activists and others moved back to sit on the fence, while the Sibals and the Tiwaris continued the tirade with great gusto. The other political parties appeared hesitant about the Jan Lokpal Bill and the movement itself, although the Left and the BJP came on board from this stage itself as they realised that the peoples support was genuine and strong. By the time the second phase started, it did seem to appear that while the usual melee of supporters would throng around the hunger fast venue, the crowds were not going to swell to a point of concern for the government. But the UPA government was clearly not in a mood for any form of dissent, and fielded spokesperson Manish Tiwari to launch a no holds barred attack on Anna Hazare, accusing him and his team of being corrupt from head to toe. The people fed up with corruption, non governance, and an absence of accountability were stunned and there was a palpable ripple of reaction across the nation. Unable to sense and understand this the government moved into direct confrontation with the 74 year old Gandhian, and made it clear that he was denied the democratic space guaranteed to all citizens under the Indian Constitution, to protest. Five absurd conditions, including the number of people who could attend and the number of cars that could be parked at the venue, were imposed and obviously rejected. This second blunder created a

massive reaction amongst activists, political parties and those involved in protests across the country on land acquisition etc. There have been fears of the government pushing protests and protestors to Burari or other some such outskirts of Delhi, like they have done the slum dwellers, and taking away the space available for dissent. This blunder united many of these groups in opposing the government. Then came the early morning arrest. Anna Hazare was picked up from his house like a common criminal and taken into custody. He was then sent to Tihar Jail, another blunder that had the people coming out on the streets of most cities and towns in angry protest. As one young student said outside Tihar jail, does the government think we are all fools, that we have no idea of what is going on? The government, clearly caught by surprise, at the intensity of the peoples reaction went into a huddle and emerged in a confused damage control mode that had it crawling in front of the peoples fury. WHY THE CONGRESS DID WHAT IT DID It is important to understand the Congress actions and reactionsfirst the attack on Hazare and his team, then the decision to prevent them from going ahead with the hunger fast, then arresting him from his residence , then sending him to Tihar jail and then when faced with the peoples wrath crawling on all fours, looking as it always does for scapegoats. Rahul Gandhi had presided over the meetings and cleared the plan of action but then party managers started making out that he was opposed to the arrest. There is no indication of this except what his men in the party have been telling the journalists in again the usual off the record briefings. When the government announced its decision to arrest Hazare and send him to jail, Rahul Gandhi was very much in the country and there was not even a whispered dissenting note from his office and his people to the media. He was on board, but when faced with the peoples anger, Sandeep Dixit was fielded to attack the Delhi police in a reaction that has only invited ridicule. There was this strange sight of the Union Home Minister too claiming that the arrest was by the Delhi police and yes of course, he was kept informed but that it was not his decision! To understand all these seemingly bewildering moves, it will be necessary to understand the character of the Congress party that has functioned under a Dynasty for decades. Just like democratic rule, dynastic rule too has acquired its special features over the years, not just in India, but in the world (signs of this are now visible in the Arab world). Dynasties survive on servility, and to ensure that there is no dissent become increasingly authoritarian following a virtual chicken and egg syndrome, with one giving birth to the other. Dynasties necessarily generate mediocrity, by rewarding loyalty over intelligence and merit. Dynasties exist on a belief of being better than others,

hence become arrogant, and with time frown on dissent. And above all Dynasties as a combined result of all this lose their touch with the pulse of the people, ruling for themselves and their cronies and not the people at large. All this and more has been on display for years now, but even more so in the days leading to Anna Hazares arrest and subsequent release. The Congress party and its government was totally unable to understand the mood of the people being run by a cabinet of politicians ---largely so---who have never faced the people. Most of them are in position because of the Nehru-Gandhi family and spend their time in pleasing the latter than in serving the people. It is not without reason that the Constitution wants the Prime Minister to be an elected member of Parliament, but having dispensed with this as well, the Congress has allowed the Establishment ruling clique of select politicians, bureaucrats and media editors to serve as the people it talks to, deals with, and engages. The masses are out of the Congress scope of governance. WHY ANNA HAZARE? A question that arises in the midst of all this is why Anna Hazare, why did this nondescript man who has been around for years battling against corruption in the rural areas of Maharashtra, suddenly emerged as a national hero? Difficult to say, but clearly the groundswell of support is based not just on the personality of Anna Hazare, but on the frustration, anger of the people over corruption, the denial of democratic rights, and the complete absence of accountability. The Gandhi topi, the age, the commitment, the honesty all clicked and Anna became the symbol that got the people out of their homes, onto the streets, in united action. ROLE OF THE MEDIA A question being asked by all, including the media is whether the Anna Hazare movement has been a creation of the media. Creation is too strong a word, as the media regardless of the hysteria visible on the channels cannot motivate people to go out into the streets unless they want to. And in this case they clearly wanted to. But certainly the media has been a very important contributory factor, and has now with its high pitched, excited coverage raised the levels to a point that a cracker will have the effect of a bomb. It is thus, important to bring down the pitch, introduce serious debate and discussion and ensure that the Anna Hazare movement is placed, and thereby seen, in a larger perspective of democratic rights and space

(Courtesy: www.newsclick.in)