It would be easy to rationalise the increasing frequency of general elections in India as a manifestation of a more participatory democracy. Yet, it is certainly not axiomatic that a vibrant polity should be asked to vote more often than is necessary. Social scientists in countries such as Switzerland have diagnosed a section of the populace as suffering from "electoral fatigue". This is a result of politicians abdicating much responsibility and leaving even seemingly trifling issues to a referendum. Not surprisingly, voters have found the process tiresome and this has been reflected in falling polling figures. While the plebiscite is not a tool for decision making in India, general -- and even assembly -- elections at short intervals virtually seek to introduce it through the back door. The Lok Sabha poll of 1998 may prove a case in point. Particularly in Tamil Nadu, contending parties could seek to convert a parliamentary election into a verdict on the Jain Commission's report.

This will amount to short-changing India. A general election is a time for a nation to speak to its conscience. It is democracy's most sacred moment and cannot be wasted on petty squabbles. That a mid-term poll has been forced upon the country due to the fractured mandate of the previous Lok Sabha is obvious. Yet, a fractured mandate is itself a result of nebulous party programmes. In their ideology -- or the absence of it -- and commitment to intrigue alike, India's major parties are indistinguishable. With a general election about two months away, it would be futile to expect them to suddenly discover the virtues of rectitude and ostracise criminal candidates. What India demands is a categorical statement of intent from each contestant. Nobody takes wordy manifestos seriously; not even the parties themselves. Nevertheless, if every party simply makes apparent its stand on a handful of crucial social and economic issues, the electorate will be better equipped to make its choice -- and save itself any further, untimely trek to the polling station.

Letting Truth Prevail
Prasar Bharati has done well to exempt news bulletins from preview.

Prasar Bharati's board has done well to confer greater freedom upon news dissemination. Despite the misgivings surrounding its formation and initial pronouncements, this is one concrete achievement which the panel that governs India's public broadcasting corporation can be proud of. Private producers of news and current affairs programmes have been exempted from submitting tapes for a preview and, consequently, from pre-censorship. The message cannot be lost. For the four decades of its existence, Doordarshan had been the handmaiden of the government. At times, its news bulletins were little more than official sermons delivered in stilted prose. At the height of its captivity, Doordarshan was even disparaged as "Indira darshan" or "Rajiv darshan". In short, it lacked the credibility so vital to a news broadcaster.

Some years ago, stung by the attack from satellite channels, Doordarshan allowed independent software producers to telecast news bulletins. While this brought a measure of professionalism to India's largest television network, privately produced programmes were strictly monitored. In the best traditions of bureaucracy, they were often over-monitored. By asking private producers to self-regulate, Prasar Bharati has finally displayed maturity. If media professionals can be trusted with privately owned newspapers and magazines, the same principle must apply to television. If Prasar Bharati's board similarly insulates the in-house news team from political pressure, public broadcasting in India will truly become a voice of the people -- rather than a mouthpiece of the ruling elite. Now, all that seems to remain between Prasar Bharati and complete autonomy is financial freedom -- liberating it from governmental grants. When that happens, Prasar Bharati would have accomplished a quantum leap for free information.

Write to us | Subscriptions

© Living Media India Ltd