Prof Mithilesh Kumar Sinha
Department of Economics, Nagaland University, Lumami
Indian democracy is celebrated worldwide due to its vastness and the nature of its actions. The voting rights granted to citizens for electing their government are indeed commendable in this largest democracy. However, the power structure, referred to as "cracy," has overshadowed the populace, or "demo," within India's democratic framework. This presents a critical perspective on the apparent disparity between the theoretical principles of democracy and their actual execution. Citizens often attribute this to partisan conflicts, corruption, and policy stagnation, fostering the notion that democracy is merely rhetoric without substance. The conduct of the bureaucracy, commonly termed "cracy," in India frequently leads to the impression that it operates above the democratic populace, or "demo." When citizens perceive that the government, which is meant to be "of the people, for the people, by the people," no longer advocates for their best interests, it results in a feeling of powerlessness among the general public.The foundational ideal of "people's power" appears to have been eroded. Rather than placing "people" at the forefront, the dynamics of "power" and the associated "craziness" are perceived as dominant, diminishing the influence of ordinary citizens.
The "cracy"—those in positions of authority and the political apparatus—has attained dominance, prioritizing power politics, financial gain, and personal agendas. Conversely, the "demo"—the general populace, their requirements, and their voices—have been sidelined or suppressed, becoming secondary to the elite's interests. In practice, Indian governmental institutions tend to reflect cracy more than demo, leading citizens to feel subordinate rather than sovereign. Bureaucrats are often viewed as adopting a hierarchical and inflexible stance, which can alienate the public and democratic participants, rendering them subordinate to bureaucratic power.
The prevalent "insensitive" and top-down attitudes, coupled with a lack of interest in engaging citizens in policy formulation and minimal focus on marginalized groups, contribute to a sense of insignificance among citizens in relation to the state. While citizens wield significant power at the ballot box, their influence is often undermined by these systemic issues. However, in the realm of daily governance, individuals predominantly find themselves as petitioners before a permanent administrative apparatus that persists irrespective of electoral outcomes.
Political succession frequently resembles a familial inheritance rather than a competition of ideas among various parties, spanning from national to regional levels. This consolidation of power within families bestows an intrinsic advantage upon political heirs, who may be regarded as "princelings" or a distinct class. Politicians often view themselves as a "privileged class" set apart from the general populace.
Even a Panch or a Sarpanch can exert their influence and demand privileges that are neither permissible nor legally sanctioned. The situation deteriorates further as one ascends the political hierarchy. It is not essential for a politician to hold an official position to obtain undue advantages; any politician can make demands and is likely to succeed.
The public is acutely aware of this reality. However, they lack the motivation to oppose it, having directly or indirectly experienced adverse repercussions. Consequently, they remain largely silent, exhibiting behavior akin to the elephants in the fable. They effectively become democratic slaves.
In conclusion, the notion that "cracy" (power/rule) supersedes "demo" (people) in India encapsulates a legitimate critique of the functioning of democratic governance, where the ideal of rule by the people is occasionally compromised by concentrated political authority and elite control.
