A century has passed since the publication of the autobiography of TE Lawrence, popularly known as Lawrence of Arabia. The title Seven Pillars of Wisdom is drawn from the Book of Proverbs in the Bible: “Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars.”

How appropriate, then, that in their wisdom, the founders of our Constitution went in for democracy as the form of government that would guide independent India’s destiny.

As it transpires, the structure of democracy in India rests on seven pillars, namely (i) legislature (ii) executive (political and bureaucratic) (iii) political parties (iv) judiciary (v) independent institutions (vi) media and (vii) civil society.

As of today, all the pillars appear shaky, threatening the future of democracy, although it could be argued that structural weaknesses in the Indian democratic edifice have existed right from 1947.

Let us start with the legislatures, both at the union and state levels. Cracks appeared in the post-Nehruvian era. The “aya Ram gaya Ram” phenomenon of politicians switching parties started in 1967, a legacy that continues to the present day. Reminiscent of Indian Premier League auctions, legislators are tempted by the highest bidders, though other pressures such as the fear of investigative agencies can also act as triggers for crossovers.

Disconcertingly, it is no longer just individual bait: shoals of legislators are willing to defect en masse, lured by the attractions of power and patronage and the fear of state action.

The anti-defection provisions in the Constitution have become a dead letter: in no case have presiding officers ruled against defectors. Major legislations are rushed through without adequate public debate and reflection. The quality of discussions in legislatures, especially Parliament, has taken a deep dive.

Presiding officers often give short shrift to Opposition demands for discussion or to notices for legislative intervention, as in the cases of the proposed impeachment of the chief election commissioner and a former High Court judge.

At both the political and bureaucratic levels, there is inadequate engagement with public opinion, especially on crucial policy matters. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, the farm laws and the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls are just some of the glaring instances. Dissent and criticism are brushed off as the handiwork of “urban naxals”, “dimagi naxals” and “anti-nationals”.

The use of civil servants, especially those in the investigative agencies, to lodge cases and subject dissenters and political opponents to harassment has become commonplace. More disturbing is the fact that civil servants, in violation of the oath to the........

© Scroll.in