Ethical Dilemma
You must have heard about classical
ethical dilemma questions. Let me also present to you one. Lets say that 3
people have stood for an election – X, Y and Z. Lets say that based on their
experience and expertise, following is the predicted crime statistics in the
region depending on who gets elected.
X: 10 rapes, 20 murders, 50 robberies
will happen and most with his/her direct involvement
Y: 5 rapes, 10 murders, 25 robberies
will happen and some with his/her direct involvement
Z: No crimes will happen in his/her
tenure
Now, lets say that you and your friend
are human rights activists. You are the last ones to vote and current vote
standings are as below:
X: 20
Y: 19
Z: 4
Whom would you two vote for?
-
Would you vote for Z recognizing his/her
superior qualities? But then you will let X win and indirectly contribute
towards higher crime rates.
-
Then would you rather vote for Y so
that at least you can look forward for lesser crime rates? That means you will
be a direct supporter of a criminal candidate, and it would be fully against
your principles and what you stand for. Note that you will also be discouraging
Z and make him/her believe that no one cares about truly good governance.
So, what is your answer? I request you
to write down your answer in the comments section before you read further :-)
Should I support Anna Hazare’s
political party?
As a common man, I am confused and
clueless regarding whether to support Anna Hazare or not, especially with the
latest developments. Lets hypothetically consider a situation where a
(relatively) less corrupt party/candidate is likely to secure a narrow victory
over a more corrupt opponent. And lets say that a significant percentage of former’s
vote share is due to people who care about good governance and reduction in
corruption. Now, Anna will not accept even slightest corruption, so he rejects
the first guy, and fields his own candidate. Result? The more corrupt
party/candidate easily wins because good guys’ votes are split.
This phenomenon happens even today
when an independent candidate with good track record contests (or when multiple
good parties field their candidates). Some people who otherwise would have
voted for less corrupt party/candidate would now vote for such independent
candidate and the victory becomes easier for more corrupt party/candidate. But
when we think about a big movement like what Anna Hazare is speaking, I get
scared, because I feel the split will be even bigger. This will result in more
corrupt party winning elections very easily, and they will even call it victory
of democracy. It would be nightmare.
One could theoretically argue that
vote split can happen among corrupt people also, thus making victory of good
person easier. However, right now we are talking about another “good” party
entering the elections, and many fear this will further split votes among good
candidates, thus favoring corrupt parties/candidates. So, now we have a
paradox – does this mean that more and more good guys should not enter
politics?
During the next election should my
goal be to vote for best candidate or vote in such a way as to prevent worst
candidate from getting elected?
Tragedy of our democracy
Tragedy of our democracy is that even
if only 30% of eligible voters vote, and even if the leading candidate gets
only 30% of overall votes, he/she gets chance to represent the constituency.
Non-voting of 70% of eligible voters doesn’t make the election itself null and
void, 70% of votes going against the leading candidate is not seen as
disapproval for that candidate. With only 9% of eligible voters’ support,
he/she gets elected. What can be bigger mockery of democracy?
Another tragedy as I personally see is
allotment of ministry positions. Most of the times this is done not considering
experience and expertise of person, but to satisfy egos of such people. I
really would like to see objective criteria and maybe even formal evaluations
before people can occupy such responsible positions. Being just an elected
representative should be a necessary criteria but should not be sufficient.
Do I see Anna Hazare as a great
leader?
Its great that he is against
corruption, that’s good but that’s not the only thing we look for in a great
leader. Sadly, Anna seems to lack both philosophical depth and wit, hence fails
to put forward a great vision and more importantly a concrete plan to achieve
it. He comes across as a simple person who is just tired of corruption and
wants an ideal and self sustaining system that doesn’t tolerate corruption.
Even his fasts are not backed with great strategies that Gandhiji used to
adopt, and Anna seems to be only a dull image of Gandhiji.
Regarding all those stories about
Anna’s village and his dictatorship, I prefer to sideline them as conspiracy
theories.
How do I view Jan Lokpal Bill?
I never understood the significance,
importance and need of Aadhaar card till now (in its current format); similarly
I never got an answer regarding the guarantee that Jan Lokpal bill will not be yet
another corrupt system. I mean, when we see that most people around (including many
so called respectable ones) are corrupt in some way or other, how do I know
that this new system will not follow the same good(?) old path? Or is it
something like RTI which has revolutionized at least some things (Exactly how RTI
managed to make such a big difference though – I mean, what makes government
babus to share requested information accurately and that too in timely fashion?
It’s a mystery that I am trying to unravel).
At a high level, Jan Lokpal bill does
look like a super stuff when compared to government version. I mean, I get lots
of forwards in emails and Facebook, you see. They highlight that government is
trying to make us fools and their version of Lokpal Bill is not at all strong
and is just eye washing. But apart from that, I really don’t know which one is
good and practical. After all, I am just a commoner and do not understand
intricacies of law, governance, policies, execution/implementation and many
more such things. How can I say which one is good? My gut feeling says I should
support Janlokpal bill and that’s what my current stand is. However, the doubt
does exist deep inside. And this doubt naturally becomes a much bigger question
mark when it comes to Anna Hazare starting a political party. I shouldn’t go
with only a gut feeling, should I?
Note:
Regarding Jan Lokpal Bill vs. government version, I wonder what is the opinion
of industry leaders, NRIs, non-Indian political researchers and observers? Not
sure, Wikipedia also does not have sufficient references on this.
Lack of unity in Anna’s camp
Another big point of concern is the
lack of unity within Anna’s own camp; it surely was a big turn off and trust
breaker. Recently in a TV interview when questioned about agitation within BJP,
its president Nitin Gadkari cleverly answered that it is a sign of true
democracy within the party, unlike Congress where `high command and followers’
culture exist. Is this the case with Anna’s camp also?
Role of Media
In many cases I can clearly see that maturity
level of journalism is very low. As a common man I can easily come up with
several logical and smart questions to politicians and various authorities, and
I can see that media is failing to ask such questions. Is it because they are
under pressure? Is it because they are owned by people/institutions with vested
interests? Is it because it is simply impractical? Or is it because they are
dumb sometimes? Lastly, or is it that they have forgotten all ethics and are
only after TRPs with least amount of controversies? I think it’s a mix of all
these. I definitely appreciate many journalists who work hard and do justice to
their jobs, but at an overall level media is proving to be irresponsible,
ineffective and even harmful in many cases. And this leaves common man confused
and manipulated to the core. What is the solution?
Complex human relationships
When British were ruling us, it was
easier to say that we were fighting against them. But now we are fighting
against corruption within our own people, this battle is way too difficult
because we don’t know who is friend and who is foe, and same people change
under different circumstances.
Recently when I visited my home in
Kasaragod, my mother made some special dishes for me. Then my father acted
jealous and jokingly said to my mother “After all he is your blood relative,
and I am not, that’s why you don’t make special dishes for me, isn’t it?”
Though that was just a silly joke, I see it as an excellent example of how
relationship equations can be viewed in unexpectedly complex ways. When we
expand our view to macro levels, relationship between human beings get
extremely complicated due to factors like geography, language, caste, color,
gender, age, education, profession, beliefs and more. When almost every person
around me thinks about one or more of these factors while casting vote, how can
I alone vote only based on the factors that are truly important from governance
stand point?
My expectations from anti-corruption activists
Actively catch isolated incidents of
corruption
I don’t think it is too difficult to
capture incidents of corruption if you really intend to do it. Starting from
marked notes to hidden cameras, microphones there are easy ways. I would
appreciate if activists start using these weapons in a widespread fashion. At
least this trend can be started in small places where backlash will be lesser.
Then the trend will automatically spread elsewhere. Are we making good use of
existing laws and technology? I strongly believe that these undeniable
evidences against corruption will be much more effective than new set of laws.
Evaluate candidates and elected
representatives in open public
Can’t there be any objective
comparison between elected representatives (between past and present and also
among present representatives) in terms of various qualitative and quantitative
parameters? During election times I believe activists can arrange open TV
debates among candidates, prepare comparison sheet with involvement from
eminent people from that area and share it with people, and so on. They can
also conduct annual appraisals of elected candidates. I think
anti-corruption activists should try and build such an institution that is
highly unbiased and respected, and conduct these kinds of activities. This will
surely put more pressure on candidates and improve the quality of our
democracy.
5 comments:
Well presented.. this why I started to think that democracy is not really a solution for all the problems as democracy itself presents problems to solutions such as corruption and governance. Increasing consciosness and political participation of the people seems to be the way forward.
The author has gone out of his mind by making permutations and combinations of hypthetical situations. You vote for the best person and leave rest to destiny. That is the essence of democracy and your best foot forward.
Dear Anonymous: Democracy has many forms and variations. I request you to read more on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Regarding leaving rest to destiny, yeah, its a way out, we can leave so many things like that, including voting. Why bother about anything at all?
Hi Shastry,
I liked your views on the last section - candidate evaluation.
Due to the lack of metrics to measure candidates, we often make wrong choices.
The problem with creating such a metrics, is that people get targeted for publishing facts and hence not safe and practical.
So something which is crowd sourced and anonymous might be a better option
- Public channels like pbs, npr have worked well
in the US. May be AIR (all india radio) should
take up a similar thing
- create Wiki entry for each candidate
and let common people fill in.
(might not be very reliable but we will have
something to look at)
- http://getup4change.org/rti/ seems like something similar
I hope the process gets more transparent in the days to come and people are convinced that it is safe to express their opinions publicly.
All of this might help only the internet users in the country. For non-internet users, the problem is tougher to solve.
My opinion on your confusion of which bill is good. Is it the govt version or the anna version?
I would go with anna’s version. Even I don’t understand the intricacy of both the bills, but the INTENTION of the people behind it matters. Even if there is a loop hole they have the will to correct it as they intent to make India a corrupt free. Ultimately it is always the intention which manifests.
Post a Comment