words per minute
9
BayuSulistyo
00:00
Speed
Rules, not whims
In a democracy, individuals are governed by institutions, and not by men. If we do not live in an
institutional universe, we will be at the mercy of capricious individuals. Democrats would rather be
administered by a system of rules we can scrutinise and evaluate. Of course, rules can be, and are,
unfair. But at least we can struggle against rules. We do not have to commit murders to get the ruling
dispensation out of power. We might have to carry out a thousand peaceful demonstrations,
approach the courts, lobby our legislative representatives, engage in civil disobedience, or withhold
our vote. In a world stamped by the decline of institutions and the exercise of arbitrary power, the only
way to dislodge a government is through violence.
The present government has tampered with institutions by appointing its own people to positions of
authority, and by using the Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax authorities, the Central Bureau of
Investigation and the police as bulldozers to flatten out any site of opposition. In civil society, human
rights organisations have been pulverised by blockage of funds, raids and arrests. The shameful way
in which human rights activists have been incarcerated without a shred of evidence testifies to the
subversion of the rule of law. The ultimate aim of government action is to dismantle institutions, and
the delicate relationship of checks and balances among them. This bodes ill for democracy.
The development contravenes the spirit of the freedom struggle. As far back as the 1928 Motilal
Nehru constitutional draft, the leadership of the national movement opted for constitutionalism to
abridge unpredictable use of power, and grant basic rights to citizens. On November 4, 1948, B.R.
Ambedkar, responding to criticism of the draft Constitution in the Constituent Assembly, clarified that
the Constitution provided but a framework for future governments. But: “If things go wrong under the
new Constitution, the reason will not be that we have a bad constitution. What we will have to say is
that Man was vile.” The Indian Constitution established major political institutions, Parliament,
executive and the judiciary, laid out the relationship between them, provided for judicial review, and
codified political and civil rights. The constitutional framework does not provide thick or substantive
conceptions of how we shall think, and in what we shall believe. It provides us with a thin framework
that guarantees constitutional morality, or respect for the Constitution as the basis of political life.
Today the ruling party wants to legislate a thick conception of the good. We are instructed to worship
the nation, respect the cow, glorify the coercive arm of the state, and listen on bended knees to
leaders. Frankly the discourse is reminiscent of the naïve, and often crude, nationalist scripts
authored and acted out by the film star Manoj Kumar in the 1960s. We can avoid watching his films
without fear of harassment, but we cannot defy the government without being abused and subjected
to violence of the pen and tongue.
Upending the balance
The government arrests civil society activists who engage with policy, and vigilante groups attack
individuals who dare transport cattle, legitimately, from one part of India to another. Immediately the
sympathies of the police and magistrates, some sections of the media and public opinion swing