[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Performance based Politics



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
    I am not sure that the response given below by Anant is convincing
enough! He doesn't sound confident at all.
    > I hope you do agree that the governance of the nation needs a little
    > improvement?
Absolutely. No doubt about it. If I didn't I wouldn't taken time to respond
to your email at all.
    > The objective of the initiative is to give the voters an informed
choice. In
    > a democracy the EC cannot prevent a candidate from standing, but
    > nevertheless the voters need to be informed about of the candidates'
    > antecedants and should the citizens of a community want a criminal to
    > represent them in the legislator, then so bit it - its their choice.
But at
    > least they will have the exercised their choice fully informed.

Objective is very noble indeed and I fully support it.

    > Yes the EC can be biased and manipulative, but nevertheless we do need
to
    > set up standards. You dont give up on a good cause because there are
    > difficulties in its implementation. Every little effort needs to be
made to
    > turn our country around, to get rid of corruption, criminality and
malaise
    > which is dragging the country down. We ALL have to keep trying.

Definitely we need to keep trying. The point is in our effort to "setup
standards" there is serious danger that we might give up our freedom to EC.
Which is very dangerous. History has shown us that getting back freedom is
very very difficult. So we should never give up powers to some individuals
arbitrarily. Instead we should rely on our own judgements when it comes to
what is good or bad for us. Remember the price of freedom is eternal
vigilance. As I said we can always get all the information about the
candidates (like his/hers criminal background, assets and income tax returns
etc.) from various government agencies. In such a case and when we have a
free press in this country, giving arbitrary powers to EC to decide
"suitability and capability" of candidates is a very very dangerous step
indeed. You have to remember that ECs are finally appointed by the
politicians only. Also, any government agency which has a wide ranging and
arbitrary powers will attract people who can manipulate it and take
advantage of it. If you look at carefully at what happened in Tamil Nadu you
should immediately realize this. Look at what Governor Fatima Beevi did. She
was a former Supreme Court judge. A very well-educated person. Yet, vested
with arbitrary powers (to decide whether to invite a politician for taking
oath as a Chief Minister) she prooved herself to be a very insensitive and
biased person. Even after the terrible arrest drama she failed to report it
to the Central Government. If anybody still believes in politically
independent experts or great people he/she is must living in caves.

    > So let us all think positively and chip away at the evil. We will
succeed.
    > Remember how the sataygrah movement started by Gandhiji and a very few
    > dedicated leaders eventually got us independance against all odds!
    >
    > If we the citizens want to rid this wrong from our nation, then we
will
    > succeed provided we remain focussed and do not give up whatever the
odds!
    >

Remember again, the satyagrah movement started by Gandhiji was on his own.
He didn't need any bureacrat to identify him as being suitable for leading
the people. Nor do people were given any declaration of assets, criminal
background to them.
Government and its agencies have great physical power. They have power to
arrest people, clamp a curfew, kill people in an encounter etc. etc. Just
remember that it was not very long ago that the great daughter of our
Jawaharlal Nehru declared an Emergency in this nation and took away all our
fundamental rights. The individual do not even have right to own firearms
without Govt. permission. With such a tremendous power if you insert Govt.
between people and their candidate representative, believe me that Democracy
as we know of it will be dead.
Being positive thinker, succeeding against great odds this all sounds very
exciting. But remember in our enthusiasm we should loose our freedom which
is the very essence of the democracy. This is particularly true, when the
restrictions and conditions imposed on the candidates are totally
unnecessary. The same information can be easily gained from different
agencies without any problem.
Long Live Freedom! Long Live Democracy.
Regards,
Ashish K Hanwadikar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anant Trivedi" <anant_t@hotmail.com>
To: <debate@indiapolicy.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Performance based Politics


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> I hope you do agree that the governance of the nation needs a little
> improvement?
>
> The objective of the initiative is to give the voters an informed choice.
In
> a democracy the EC cannot prevent a candidate from standing, but
> nevertheless the voters need to be informed about of the candidates'
> antecedants and should the citizens of a community want a criminal to
> represent them in the legislator, then so bit it - its their choice. But
at
> least they will have the exercised their choice fully informed.
>
> Yes the EC can be biased and manipulative, but nevertheless we do need to
> set up standards. You dont give up on a good cause because there are
> difficulties in its implementation. Every little effort needs to be made
to
> turn our country around, to get rid of corruption, criminality and malaise
> which is dragging the country down. We ALL have to keep trying.
>
> So let us all think positively and chip away at the evil. We will succeed.
> Remember how the sataygrah movement started by Gandhiji and a very few
> dedicated leaders eventually got us independance against all odds!
>
> If we the citizens want to rid this wrong from our nation, then we will
> succeed provided we remain focussed and do not give up whatever the odds!
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: ashish_hanwadikar@yahoo.com
> Reply-To: debate@indiapolicy.org
> To: <debate@indiapolicy.org>
> Subject: Re: Performance based Politics
> Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 05:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi all,
>      Wow, the freedom of information Act. Whose freedom are we talking
> about?
> Are you trying to tell us that people are physically prevented from
getting
> or obtaining information? I am trying to compare "freedom of information"
> with "freedom of expression". "Freedom of Expression" means that Govt.
> cannot impose restrictions on expression (either written or verbal) of
> private citizens. So, when we have a "freedom of expression" in the
> constituition what exactly does "freedom of information" means? I guess
what
> you want to say is "provision of information by the Govt. Act". That
means,
> Govt. should make available certain information about its activities (like
> budget, accounts of various ministries and departments, and several other
> documents). If that is the case, then it is Okay.
>      I am little bit concerned by the provision that all candidates should
> submit a CV and EC should verify it. I think it is very dangerous! Imagine
> what a politically biased EC can do to the election process. It can simply
> start rejecting candidates giving excuses like CV is not proper. It could
> not verify it and so on .... I think it is an attempt to take the
> decision-making power of the ordinary people and replace it by giving
> extra-constitutional powers to the EC.
>      When we have accepted that people are the ultimate arbitrators in the
> election process, what role can EC possibly play in evaluating the
> candidates?
>  >          Whether the candidate is accused of any offence(s) punishable
>  > with imprisonment? If so, the details thereof.
>  >
> I think the above information can be easily be obtained from various
police
> records. Why is this burden being placed on the candidates? Isn't it the
> duty of the police and various judicial authorities including EC to bring
> all the facts which are in the posession of the Govt. about the
candidates?
>  >          Assets possessed by the candidate, his or her spouse and
>  > dependent relations.
>  >
> Again I don't get it. Why should a candidate declare his/her assets? And
> even if he declares, what if there is a dispute about the assets? Who is
> going to resolve that? The income tax department must be in posession of
the
> Income Tax Returns of the candidates. Why shouldn't Income Tax Department
be
> forced to publish Tax Returns of the candidates? We have a free press in
> this country. A truly devoted Newspaper or media organization should have
an
> easy access to the Income Tax Returns of the candiates and must publish
it.
> Similarly, the Income Tax Returns of nearest relatives and dependents of
the
> Candidates can also be placed in public. And Income Tax Department can
> always prosecute the candidate if he or his relative is found to be
"living
> beyond known source of his/her income".
>  >          Facts giving insight to a candidate's competence, capacity
and
>  > suitability for acting as parliamentarian or legislator including
details
>  > of his/her educational qualifications.
>  >
> Which facts will give insight into a candidates's competence and capacity?
I
> bet EC will have a field day deciding on this. A politically biased EC can
> make mockery of the whole democracy using this provision.
>  >          Information which the election commission considers necessary
> for
>  > judging the capacity and capability of the political party fielding the
>  > candidate for election to Parliament or the State Legislature."
> Wow, I would love to be on EC! Man, I will be most powerful man in India.
I
> will be the gateway to the political power. Anybody who want's to get
> elected (or even stand for an election) will have to rease my hands. I am
> sure after this we will have to form another committee or body which will
> check corruption in EC. And then another body to monitor this body and so
on
> ... Some people just don't know when to give up!!!
>
> I think giving beaurocrats arbitrary powers will only shift the corruption
> from politicians to bureacrats. I think the simples answer to corruption
is
> to reduce to role of Govt. in the society. That will automatically reduce
> the corruption. If the elected representatives have the powers ranging
from
> allocating petrol pump, gas, telephone connection, deciding on rates of
> electricity, etc. etc. then no matter what system of checks and balances
you
> put in place, the corruption will always be there. I will bet on this. And
> remember the price of freedom is eternal vigilance!! No amount bureacratic
> procedures can replace that!!!!
> Regards,
> Ashish
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anant Trivedi" <anant_t@hotmail.com>
> To: <debate@indiapolicy.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Performance based Politics
>
>
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > Excellent idea, but there must first be yardsticks for entry to the
>  > legislators, just like any recrutiment process. You cant expect a crook
> or
>  > incompetant to suddenly start delivering. You cant sack the legislators
> and
>  > they are not accountable.
>  >
>  > For these reasons we have an initiative which targets precisely these
>  > issues. We ask each candidate seeking election to submit a CV, get EC
to
>  > veirfy this and then place the contents in  public domain via print and
>  > electronic media. Under the freedom of information act, the voters then
>  > have an INFORMED CHOICE.
>  >
>  > The problem is that the Union is not very supportive of our proposals -
> 35%
>  > of legislators are of dubious credentials! A PIL was launched in Delhi
> High
>  > Court (via Association Of Democratic Reforms of AIIM, Ahmedabad). We
won
> in
>  > the High Court, but the Union and EC launched a SLP in the Supreme
Court.
>  > This has a final hearing on about 10th July. We understand the PM is
>  > supportive. We know that the President is supportive - he has said so.
We
>  > know also that Manmohan Singh is supportive and Congress is also
> launching
>  > an initiative against corruption in politics which he is chairing. But
>  > these politicians alone cannot act till their hands are strengthened by
> the
>  > citizens asking for the Delhi High Court  directive to be implemented.
>  >
>  > So for the sake of our democracy, all of you who agree with our
> objectives,
>  > should write in to the President with copies to PM etc as suggested
> below.
>  > Further down I have given a text of the DHC judgement and PIL progress.
A
>  > LARGE NUMBER OF CITIZENS NEED TO WRITE IN IMMEDIATELY ASKING THE SLP TO
> BE
>  > WITHDRAWN. TIME IS RUNNING OUT,IMMEDIATE ACTION IS NECESSARY.
>  >
>  > There are details below on the initiative.
>  >
>  > regards
>  >
>  > Anant Trivedi
>  >
>  > --------------Suggested Draft as
>  > below-------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  > To : President of India,K R Narayananji,Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi
> 110004
>  >
>  > cc : Prime Minister of India,Vajpayeeji,7 Race Course Road,New Delhi
> 110011
>  >
>  >  cc : Attorney General of India,Soli J Sorabji,Ministry of Law, Justice
&
>  > Company Affairs,
>  >
>  >      Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001
>  >
>  >  cc : Chief Election Commissioner,Nirvachan Sadan,Ashoka Road,New Delhi
> 110001
>  >
>  >  cc : Dr Manmohan Singh,43 Parliament House, New Delhi 110001
>  >
>  >  Respected President Narayananji,
>  >
>  >  Subject : 2001(57)DRJ(DB) High Court of Delhi CWP No.7257 of 1999-
>  > SLP(C)No.737 of 2001 Union of India Vs Association for Democratic
> Reforms,
>  > c/o IIM, Ahmedabad 380015
>  >
>  >
>
____________________________________________________________________________
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > For democratically seeking credentials and CV's of aspiring
Legislators,
>  > there is a landmark Delhi High Court judgment,which the goverment is
>  > stalling. To be supportive of its implementation, you need to write as
> under:
>  >
>  >  Without prejudice, we write this letter, to strengthen your and PM
>  > Vajpayeeji's hands. Both of you  have been repeatedly expressing
concern
>  > and keeness to check criminalisation in politics, curbing electoral
>  > corruption, and having persons of ethical values to govern our nation.
>  >
>  >  We are totally supportive of implementation of CWP No.7257 of 1999
>  > immediately & Union of India withdrawing SLP (C) No.737 of 2001.
>  >
>  >  Supportive of your thinking. We are for checking criminalisation of
>  > politics & misuse of money and muscle power. Judgment Delhi CWP No.
7257
> of
>  > 1999 is an excellent starting measure for corrective action.
>  >
>  >  In the larger interest of India, whose future is our utmost concern,
> this
>  > to extend to you our support, for implementing Delhi CWP judgment. In
our
>  > view there is no need for debate or delay. This is a landmark
opportunity
>  > not to be missed.
>  >
>  >  With sincere respect
>  >
>  >  Yours faithfully
>  >
>  >  ---------------------------PIL Judgements and
>  > progress----------------------------
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 1. High Court
>  >
>  > The Association of Democratic Reforms launched a PIL in Delhi High
Court
>  > with the Union and EC as the respondents. On 2nd November 2000, the
High
>  > Court delivered a judgment allowing the petition. Below is an extract
> from
>  > the judgment.
>  >
>  > "Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is required to
act
>  > as a sentinel on
>  >
>  > the qui vive to guard against the violation of the fundamental rights
to
>  > the citizens. It is the obligation of this Court to enforce their
>  > fundamental rights. In this view of the matter, in discharge of our
>  > constitutional duty to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed to the
>  > citizens to seek and receive information for casting intelligent and
>  > rational votes certain directions need to be given by us. Accordingly,
it
>  > is directed that the Election Commission shall secure to the voters the
>  > following information pertaining to each of the candidates standing for
>  > election to the Parliament and to the State Legislators and the parties
>  > they represent:-
>  >
>  >          Whether the candidate is accused of any offence(s) punishable
>  > with imprisonment? If so, the details thereof.
>  >
>  >          Assets possessed by the candidate, his or her spouse and
>  > dependent relations.
>  >
>  >          Facts giving insight to a candidate's competence, capacity
and
>  > suitability for acting as parliamentarian or legislator including
details
>  > of his/her educational qualifications.
>  >
>  >          Information which the election commission considers necessary
> for
>  > judging the capacity and capability of the political party fielding the
>  > candidate for election to Parliament or the State Legislature."
>  >
>  > The Union opposed the judgment in the Supreme Court with a Special
Leave
>  > Petition, taking the plea that electoral reforms were still under
>  > examination and had not yet been debated in Parliament. On Monday 12th
>  > March the Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court's judgment. The
court
>  > gave the attorney general a four week period to file the response from
> the
>  > Center to various suggestions issued by the EC and to the directives of
>  > Delhi High Court to achieve the objective of checking criminalisation
of
>  > politics and misuse of money power in election.
>  >
>  > _____________________________________________________________________
>  >
>  > 2. Supreme Court
>  > Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No 737/2001 SLP(C)No.
737
>  > OF 2001
>  > UNION OF INDIA
>  > Petitioner (s)
>  >  VERSUS
>  >  ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR
>  >  Respondent (s)
>  > (With Appln(s). for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned Judgment
> and
>  > impleading party )(With prayer for I.R.)
>  >
>  >  Date : 08/05/2001 This  Petition  was  called on The petition was
called
>  > for hearing and the proceedings are summarised below (without
prejudice):
>  > At an earlier hearing on 12th March, the bench which included Hon'ble
> Chief
>  > Justice, had directed the petitioner , Soli Sorabjee for the Union, to
> file
>  > a response for consideration at today's hearing. This had not been
done.
>  > Neither the counsel for EC or the Indian National Congress had filed
> their
>  > responses.
>  > The Hon'ble Judges expressed their dissatisfaction at the lack of
> progress
>  > and asked the counsel for the petitioner to explain the delay.
>  > The Solicitor General for the petitioner, argued:
>  > The subject matter was one for the Legislators (and was under
>  > consideration), and not for the Courts.  The Courts juridiction in the
>  > matter is disputed.
>  > It was not clear who would implement the Delhi High Court's directive.
>  > Lack of educational qualification was not a valid ground for rejecting
a
>  > candidate.
>  > This argument was rejected by the Hon'ble Judges on the grounds that
the
>  > petitioner (Union) had shown no progress in the matter of checking the
>  > criminalisation of politics and no compromise remedy was submitted.
>  > The petitioner(s) were given another four weeks to submit their
response,
>  > for hearing in July. For the respondents, Ms Jaiswal expressed concern
> that
>  > the petitioners had not made any fresh submissions were clearly
delaying
>  > the implementation of the Delhi High Court directive ( dated 02/11/200
in
>  > CWP 7257/99).
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ----Original Message Follows----
>  > From: SATHYAKUMAR
>  > Reply-To: debate@indiapolicy.org
>  > To: debate@indiapolicy.org
>  > Subject: Re: Performance based Politics
>  > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 13:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > THIS IDEA IS EXCELLENT / WHY NOT PUSH THIS TOPARIVARTAN ?
>  > VAJPAI MAY EVEN APRICIATE THIS. !
>  > ---------------------------------------------
>  > Krishnan Kandasamy wrote:
>  > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > > Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate
it!
>  > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > > Think for a moment that all our netas are involved in politics to
> "serve"
>  > > people. How do you determine how well the politician has "performed"
in
>  > > serving people. How do you compare one politician with other?.
>  > >
>  > > I suggest that there be performance based incentive for a person to
> enter
>  > > politics.
>  > >
>  > > Lets say that when an MLA takes office there were 100 children in his
>  > > constituency out of school, if at the end of first year he is able to
> bring
>  > > that number to 50, he gets paid a bonus..
>  > >
>  > > Similarly performance can be judged by an independent agency on areas
> like
>  > > education improvement, employment generated, pollution abated,
> industries
>  > > opened etc in an politicians constituency..
>  > >
>  > > Any comments?
>  > >
>  > > _________________________________________________________________
>  > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>  > >
>  >
>  >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > > This is the National Debate on System Reform. debate@indiapolicy.org
>  > > Rules, Procedures, Archives: http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
>  >
>
 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > This is the National Debate on System Reform. debate@indiapolicy.org
>  > Rules, Procedures, Archives: http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
>
 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > This is the National Debate on System Reform.
> debate@indiapolicy.org
>  > Rules, Procedures, Archives:
> http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
>
 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
> Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
> Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------