nataraja wrote:
So the real question, I think is not only that we get our first principles, our constitution, our laws, our governing structure, our enforcement structure right, but how do we get us as a people to trust each other to comply with the laws within that ideal setup and maintain the integrity of the wonderful system. WHAT STEPS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROMOTE THIS MUTUAL TRUST IS THE KEY.
Good, now we are talking substantive. Trust is a key value system. Without this value system in place almost nothing is possible in society - as is evident in large sections of Indian society. But before we go on lamenting, let us look if this value system is incorporated in substantive measure in our polity.
We have to only go through a simple test. One of the key measures of "trust" in a polity is to measure if the system between the center and the state works in a manner that inspires trust. This means, that a state is free to do anything it desires, as long as it does not impinge upon certain core principles of the nation, which the center is duty bound to guard against. The state should be trusted to do as it sees fit, as long as certain core principles (which usually would be the constitution, but since in our case the constitution is not just core principles but a mother of all book of laws, i am using the word core principles as different from a constitution) are not violated.
In India, section 200 requires the assent of a "Governor" (a central government appointee, unelected). The governor can withhold assent and forward it to the "President" IOW: The Cabinet, for consideration. For the time being let us ignore the functioning of this Cabinet in each government. But just by looking at this, it is easy to determine that the center does not "trust" the people of the state and hence section 200 exists.
Now one can see the same pattern the next level down to the city and district (also known as the third tier of governance) and the level of trust in this tier of governance pre and post amendments 73/74, done by PVNR (Panchayati Raj Bills). Even after these amendments these tiers lack the ability to raise funds for themselves.
How is the town of Rampur to fund that new school is decided by the state, which the state would club into a finance bill, which in turn has to have the assent of the center, through its proxy.
Efficient and willing state administrators, such as Modi make the best of it or work around these constraints. But the constraints remain and are structural.
Now one may argue both ways on how this section 200 has been used but that is not the point. The point is section 200 is an article that promotes mistrust. The lack of trust in the third tier to largely manage themselves is institutionalized mistrust. With such levels of mistrust, it then finds ways to seep into society. (Use blue pen to sign official documents, stamp papers for agreements, 4 levels of security checks at airports, etc)
Now, society gets affected. But in all of this, there might be a mis diagnosis. That being it is "we" the people, who do not trust one another.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. For India that is Bharat, is a land that has remained essentially self governed. It was through its Jatis and work guilds, its rural and land centric systems governed by a sense of righteousness that has sustained this land. Now, this is not to say, things were all hunky dory but the genius of this system well suited for a certain era, cannot be denied.
Even in contemporary India, without trust nothing would work. What will, in the absence of a set of laws that provide security and justice. Example: In business circles, we all know contracts are effectively not very useful and it is only trust that sustains this exchange of trade. Things are changing, but it still remains true for large sections of India. But trust can be taken only so far, and without an effective set of administered laws, things will break down at some point and this is what happens.
IMO: The current system, which promotes systemic mistrust of its peoples, come from the British laid constitution, which was always unitary at its core. The founding fathers gave it a pretense of a federal structure but retained its unitary nature and in process destroyed trust as a value factor in its dealings with society.
Now contrast this with the US system, just as a reference. In the US, it is the state that is sovereign. The states have jointly decided to give up certain aspects of its sovereignty to a federal structure. So in effect, the federal government CANNOT make laws for a state or interfere in its matters and have ANY say in its laws, as long as they do not impinge upon the constitution (the common construct they all chose to adhere to). Here, trust works in the opposite manner. It is not the center that has to trust people, for that power was never provided to it but the center that has to fight tooth and nail, to get certain common powers for the good of all vested in the federal structure. The result is a very narrow constitution for 200+ years but only 25 amendments. The ultimate test of trust is enshrined in the US constitution as its second amendment of the right of citizens to bear arms and raise militias. Did you see the reaction of P. Chidambaram at the mere hint of something like this by Baba Ramdev?
I do not want to imply that we blindly copy the US but there are only so many large democracies on earth to compare and contrast with.
It is not the people that need to trust one another for that exists and needs no special innovation or amelioration. There is a need to institutionalize such trust in our polity and laws.
