Up to the people to address Anand Mohan syndrome in politics
The visual of Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar at the wedding of the son of don-turned-politician Anand Mohan Singh is evidence of the reason behind the latter’s premature release from jail, whatever spin the JD(U) may want to give it. We may find fault with Nitish for his remarkable transformation from his earlier avatar as an agent of change. After all, it was under his government in 2007 that Anand was sentenced to life for his role in the gruesome lynching of Dalit IAS officer G Krishnaiah at Gopalganj in 1994. But we need to look at the muted reaction from political parties to understand why Nitish’s volte-face is not a shocker but a reminder of all that is wrong with our democracy.
Politicians feel the need to keep musclemen with money bags and influence in their respective castes or communities in good humour to win elections. Why hasn’t this attitude changed over the decades? Time and again, saner voices have warned against the nexus between politicians and criminals, only to fall on deaf ears. The Supreme Court has done its bit in several judgements. Thanks to it, convicted legislators now stand disqualified immediately. It directed the Centre to set up special courts to fast-track cases involving politicians, ruled that parties must make public the criminal history of their candidates, citing reasons for their selection, and made it mandatory for contesting leaders to declare their criminal antecedents to the Election Commission (EC). But when it comes to enforcing these, the onus is on the EC, which has been found wanting. All this proves one thing. The judiciary can only do so much; laws can only be effective to an extent but cannot address the root cause of the malaise.
There has to be political will and a broad agreement among the parties to keep criminals at bay. For this, parties need to have robust internal democracy. Simultaneously, cases involving politicians should be disposed of expeditiously. But when you see politicians rubbing shoulders with gangsters, this reformation seems mission impossible. Ultimately, the only viable solution lies with the people. One may disagree with Lee Kuan Yew, the Singaporean statesman, on many issues, but what he said about democracy may be worth recalling. The preconditions for democracy are a fairly large ‘educated’ middle class with a certain standard of living and parties agreeing on fundamental principles. We have a growing middle class, but parties appear stuck in a time warp. Change is possible only if people reject criminals and their patrons.