Blurring lines between liberty and pressure politics
Recently on ipaidabribe.com, a report around corruption in China was posted. Netizens in China enthusiastically replicated the ipaidabribe.com model to report cases of bribery in their country; a few days after the launch of these websites, the Chinese government shut them down.
The Report got us thinking about freedom of speech, expression and liberty granted to citizens especially with respect to the recent anti-corruption crusade that dominated the Indian political sphere.
As Anna Hazare was detained and taken into police custody on August 15, 2011, the civil society and other members of the intelligentsia strongly questioned the government’s move, and labelled the government as authoritarian and anti-democratic. The government's actions were regarded as unconscionable. In retrospect, however, when one looks at the events that unfolded in the last few days, an important question that continues to haunt us is despite the flak and criticism faced from every section of the society, the government has been progressive to give the people of India a platform to debate, engage and voice their opinions and sentiments.
Different sections of the society, be it the media, the political elite, the civil society, the opposition parties as well as academicians came out strongly in protest against the government’s draft of the Lokpal Bill. The struggle assumed a new name and came to be regarded as the second freedom struggle and the government was accorded the new imperialist tag. Not only did people air their opinions and experiences of corruption, openly criticising the government and various rungs of bureaucracy, but one also witnessed mass mobilization of passive armchair activists and silent spectators onto the streets, who questioned our elected representatives.
The print media, electronic as well as the social media carried various debates and discussions with regards to the efficacy of the government’s anti-graft draft, various reforms and actions of our elected representatives, the judiciary, the administration and so on. But this platform was never taken away from the citizens and their freedom to express themselves was never curtailed by the government. Press was not stopped from airing discussions on the subject matter. The virtual world through its various social media platforms gathered people, who expressed their solidarity in protest against the government. Is this not symbolic of a meaningful democracy where people are allowed to exercise their rights?
This movement also highlighted an important question as different critics deliberated on how empowering and all-inclusive are such participatory processes. Noted social activist Aruna Roy and other members expressed their strong reservations as is evident from the following quote to the media: “Anna group was being intolerant by asking for their version of the Bill to be passed immediately and without any discussion. Nobody has the right to say we alone are right. Democracy is about recognising and allowing multiple and diverse views”, thus overtly questioning the extent to which such pressure tactics by the civil society are justified in the name of democracy. While liberty is something that every government should grant its citizens, it is equally imperative for citizens to engage in a progressive consultative process, and not adopt authoritarian measures.