The Arab Spring has reached India

[TithonusSyndrome]

2011, the news year that keeps on giving.

NEW DELHI — At least 20,000 people gathered Saturday to support an anti-corruption social activist who has galvanized much of India against the government with his hunger strike, amid signs from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of compromise to end the impasse.

Anna Hazare, a 74-year-old self-styled Gandhian activist lay on a stage on his fourth day of fasting at an open ground in the capital, a hunger strike he says which will continue until the government passes tougher anti-graft legislation.

The crowd, which police estimated to have climbed to 25,000 by the evening, included many middle-class office workers and students.

"We believe we have got independence but we haven't. The same corruption, same loot(ing), same terror is going on," Hazare told the crowd, adding that India needed electoral reforms as well as a new corruption bill.

Hazare left jail Friday, to huge cheering crowds and widespread media coverage. He had been briefly arrested on Tuesday, but then refused to leave jail until the government allowed him to continue his public fast for 15 days.

Hazare's campaign has struck a chord with millions of Indians, especially the expanding middle-class sick of endemic bribes, and has become a thorn in the side of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as his government battles corruption scandals.

There were signs the government, which has its own anti-corruption bill in parliament, was looking for a compromise to the hardline stance it took earlier in the week. Parliament published adverts in newspapers Saturday asking for public input to the anti-graft legislation.

"We are open to discussion, dialogue," Singh told reporters Saturday. "There is a lot of scope for give and take."

One of India's first female police officers and among Hazare's main supporters, Kiran Bedi, told Reuters that they are not against discussing provisions of their bill with the government.

"We have heard such statements before, but in concrete terms we do not know what it means," said Bedi.

"We would be willing to show flexibility."

GALVANISING THE MIDDLE CLASS

Several scandals, including a telecoms bribery scandal that may have cost the government up to $39 billion, led to Hazare demanding anti-corruption measures. But the government bill creating an anti-graft ombudsman was criticized as too weak.

For many, the pro-Hazare movement has highlighted the vibrant democracy of an urban generation that wants good governance rather than government through regional strongmen or caste ties -- a transformation that may be played out in 2012 state polls that will pave the way for a 2014 general election.

"The times when you could rule India without its urban middle class are now over," wrote commentator Shekhar Gupta in The Indian Express.

A weak political opposition means that the government should survive the crisis, but it could further dim the prospect for economic reforms and hurt the Congress party electorally. Some commentators also said the pro-Hazare movement may die down now that he is no longer in jail.

Dressed in his trademark white cap, kurta and spectacles, the slight 74-year-old Hazare has evoked memories of independence leader Mahatma Gandhi, who is revered as the father of the nation.

A medical team is on standby to monitor Hazare's health. A sharp deterioration in his condition could further worsen the crisis for the government, although his supporters say it is not a fast-to-death.

The protests, fanned by social networks, have not only rocked the ruling Congress party, they have sent shockwaves through the political class as a whole. There were more than 500 separate protests across India Friday, local media reported.

Hazare is not some out-of-the-blue phenomenon, however. Deep-seated change has been under way for years in India as its once-statist economy globalizes, bolstered by a widely used freedom of information act, aggressive private media and the election of state politicians who have rejected traditional caste-support bases to win on governance issues.

Singh, 78, who is widely criticized as out of touch with his people, has dismissed the fast by Hazare as "totally misconceived" and undermining the parliamentary democracy.

Hazare went on hunger strike in April which he called off after the government promised to introduce a bill creating an anti-corruption ombudsman. The so-called Lokpal legislation was presented in early August, but activists slammed the draft version as toothless because the prime minister and judges were exempt from probes.

As the article says, this is no anomaly, much as I'd like to say that India is doing well and providing a an example of a shining alternative to other developing meganations like China. Between complaints of Soviet-style corruption and bribery, coupled with Amnesty International's observations that India has endemic human rights issues as serious as any in China, the entire country reads like a ready-made refutation of the notion that democratic allies of the United States are somehow beyond the failures of communist nations. 20,000 protesters may not represent three same kind if widespread discontent that the Arab nations have seen, but I see no reason prima facie that room for widening participation does not exist.

[Scorpion]

As the article says, this is no anomaly, much as I'd like to say that India is doing well and providing a an example of a shining alternative to other developing meganations like China. Between complaints of Soviet-style corruption and bribery, coupled with Amnesty International's observations that India has endemic human rights issues as serious as any in China, the entire country reads like a ready-made refutation of the notion that democratic allies of the United States are somehow beyond the failures of communist nations.

The difference between India and China is that protests are met with concern (more or less) instead of with the barrel of a gun. Booming China also has lots of problems: migrant workers, widespread pollution, not to mention the obvious human rights issues. No nation is above "the failures of communist nations", all countries have had attitudes or done things that are not right. But in a democracy such mistakes are acknowledged instead of swept under the rug, and action can be taken against them.

It may be a simplistic worldview, even naïf, but one I believe is fundmentally correct: democracies are inherently better that dictatorships.

[K. A. Pital]

Democracy is only better if it is not dysfunctional.

[Simon_Jester]

I would say that a functional democracy is better than a functional dictatorship. And a dysfunctional democracy (say, the modern US) is better than a dysfunctional dictatorship (say, Turkmenistan).

Whether a dysfunctional democracy is better or worse than a functional dictatorship is going to depend on the details.

[K. A. Pital]

Most Third World democracies have lackluster performance (I'm not speaking about economy, which is another thing alltogether - no), in what concerns politics alone. Political change is often not present regardless of who is elected, elections are corrupt and even if the level of corruption itself is not that great to judge the elections "unfair" (in a legalist meaning), natural barriers such as wealth, etc. and lackluster public funding, preferrential PR and other nasty things basically make the whole system dysfunctional.

The capability to enact political change is important. If a democracy is active and elections are functioning as they should, but the turnover of elites just results in one corrupt set of jackasses exchanged for another set of the same, with policies experiencing only a slight change, this is a symptom of deeper problems - not just with "democracy" alone, but with the entire society. Sometimes, I'd say, the problems of democracy have nothing to do with democracy par se and everything to do with complacent, sheeple society.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't disagree with this fundamentally, but I would observe that there are plenty of deeply unhealthy dictatorships which have the same problem- lack of political change, even when the current regime is running the nation into the ground and the people are suffering.

[evilsoup]

Could one potential situation to entrenched power be to implement something similar to the (old version of the) House of Lords? For the example of India, there are some families that are powerful and are voted in routinely. One could forbid these families from running in elections, in exchange for a seat in a House of Lords (which mainly has powers to review legislation, and which the Commons2 can over-ride if necessary). Obviously it is not an ideal situation, but could it help?

[Spice Runner]

The capability to enact political change is important. If a democracy is active and elections are functioning as they should, but the turnover of elites just results in one corrupt set of jackasses exchanged for another set of the same, with policies experiencing only a slight change,

You make two very relevant points which can be applied to the political situation in India. First the two major parties the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) and the Congress parties are full of corrupt jackasses. But the recent commonwealth games and telecom scandals (which went as high up as the Prime Minister's cabinet) really made the current Congress party let coalition government look bad. No matter which party or coalition has been in power there is always corruption because the system is rotten. It is a difficult problem with no easy solution. But I think the Jan Lokpal Bill or Citizen's' ombudsman bill (which incidentally came about after a long time on the docket as a result of the protest and fasting by Anna Hazare) is a good place to start.

this is a symptom of deeper problems - not just with "democracy" alone, but with the entire society. Sometimes, I'd say, the problems of democracy have nothing to do with democracy par se and everything to do with complacent, sheeple society.

In India it is true that many people tolerate the crap system. For a very long time People have payed bribes, kickbacks, etc... without complaint. It has been because this system has remained mostly the same for the last 60 years. Only recently with high inflation, high unemployment are younger people are more actively voicing opposition to the current system.

Could one potential situation to entrenched power be to implement something similar to the (old version of the) House of Lords? For the example of India, there are some families that are powerful and are voted in routinely. One could forbid these families from running in elections, in exchange for a seat in a House of Lords (which mainly has powers to review legislation, and which the Commons2 can over-ride if necessary). Obviously it is not an ideal situation, but could it help?

The entrenchment of power by certain families goes pretty deep. I refer you to the example of the Ghandi/Nehru political dynasty which pretty much runs the Congress Party of India. They have their fingers in the political machines of numerous state parties as well as the national party. It is an intriguing idea but I don't think it would be possible to altogether ban them from running in elections as they would obviously rule by proxy such as they are doing with the current government.

[Big Orange]

A lot of people have been up in arms about UK aid money being funnelled into India, which seems more senseless than giving money to the tottering Pakistani state, when India's got a fecking space program and a ballooning high-tech economy (which is unfortunate for the underemployed, unionless IT people in the UK).