India: Direct democracy or anarchy?

Hi, I am a new member on this politics forum.. I have been following recent developments in Indian politics recently, and there is a new popular political party called Aam Admi Party(Common man party) that has piqued my interest. This party was born from an anti-corruption movement headed by a social activist called Anna Hazare who wanted to pass an anti-graft bill known as the janlokpal in 2011(called the India against Corruption movement) This movement became a national rage and a media circus, but the government refused to pass the bill in its proposed form and recommended several amendments. From IAC movement was born a political party which had as its main agenda to get into politics and pass two main bills: Janlokpal(anti-graft bill) and Swaraj bill(Self-rule/political decentralization) The party is calling for a new revolutionary politics to make India a direct democracy by using referendums, direct initiatives and right to recall. However what has concerned me the most is their "swaraj" agenda. I cannot quite decide whether this is direct democracy or anarchist.

Swaraj, meaning self-rule, is a form of governance inspired by ancient Indian republics and village governments(gram sabhas) In the traditional Indian system power was decentralized to the public, where each village effectively governed itself, produced its own goods, regulated itself and monitored itself. Every month or so, the village community would meet and discuss the problems of the village and come to a consensus on what needs to be done. They would then liaise with the state government(monarchy) to implement their will. The AAP want to implement a similar thing on an urban scale, a "mohala sabha"(local area assembly) The cities and towns will be divided into thousands of self-governing colonies each allocated funds from the central government. The people in each colony(roughly about 5000-10,000 people per colony) will meet up once a month to make decisions about the area. They will have the power to authorize developmental/infrastructure projects, maintain their streets, waste disposal and monitor the local schools, hospitals and vendors. When a decision is taken in the assembly the funds will be allocated on the spot and the contractors and officials commissioned to implement the will of the people. The contractors and officials will only get their salary if the people are satisfied with their work. The people will also have the power to issue birth and death certificates and grant benefits and pensions to those who need them. They will also have the power to summon any local government official, contractors, police officers, teachers, doctors who is corrupt or not working properly and penalize them. There will also be a local vigilante group(citizens security force) that will police the local area and ensure that the official police is doing their job right. There are also plans that the people will decide or can veto the prices of essential commodities(petrol, water, gas, electricity) and may later also be given legislative powers.

Now I do not actually have any education in politics or economics, my background is in philosophy and sociology, but to me this sounds anarchist and not like direct democracy. However, I wonder what the experts on this forum think. Is this a good idea, and if not, why isn't it? What could possibly happen if this was implemented in India or say in the UK or US?

Some further background on the AAP. The AAP are anti-state, anti-establishment and anti-capitalism. They oppose FDI in the retail market and also have plans to regulate profits of businesses. They plan to give free water to all families using up to 700 liters per day and aim to cut the electricity rates in India by 50%. They also plan to upgrade all government schools in India to the standards of private schools and all government hospitals to the standards of private hospitals. The AAP is only a year old party, but it has captured the imagination of the people, and in the recent Delhi assembly elections it almost won the elections with 28 seats. It is now poising itself to contest the general/national elections and has massive popularity across India. There is a possibility that the AAP may come to power in India.

 

Anybody with any input on this?

 

Well first that is over 100000 to 200000 independent groups all vying for attentions. Good luck keeping order in that mayhem. But on to particulars, this would be an extreme form of government that will cause untold misery to your people. A couple of things I see right off the bat, considering the size of some of your cities take Mumbai 12 million people, you would have 1200 separate governing bodies. Each of which will set its on rules and guidelines, have its own armed security, and own rules for conducting business. This will lead to chaos how in the world will anything even get done you will have swaths of neighborhoods where in some placed things work and in others the mob rules. It is just unworkable or at least beyond what I could conceive.

 

Thank you for the reply Crawdadr.

I share your concerns exactly which is why I wanted to get opinions of others more knowledgeable in the science and art of politics. Even I can see that this is a recipe for disaster and anarchy, especially in a country where 80% of the country live on less than 2 dollars a day, where 30% are illiterate and over 60% lacking basic education. I cannot even see this working in a developed country, let alone India. I anticipate that this will bring mayhem in the country, civil war and mob rule. However, as crazy as it may sound, this radical anarchist party has a very good chance according to the Indian media, political analysts and the general pulse of the Indian public, enjoying overwhelming support from the middle class, so India could very well become the first country in the world to establish an anarchist form of governance and it should prove to be a learning lesson not just Indians but for the entire world.

 

Well you will see a multitude of groups which will be for it, the rich for example can band together into wealthy enclaves that promote their own and are not beholden to the poor. Criminal and fanatic groups will see this as an opportunity to carve out a spot in an area and start to get political clout. You may see the masses of certain poor areas being rallied by charismatic individuals for good and ill. And of course you will also have you normal political parties carving out huge swaths of territory.

Question how would they promote trade between these separate groups when in some areas you will have huge negatives to conducting business like set prices while other areas will operate in a free capitalistic style?

 

All very valid questions, and I am afraid the AAP have not outlined any of this. At the moment it seems very vague to me. There will be a central government that will deal with national issues which affects all groups across the nation(such as national security) There will be a state government which will deal with state issues which affects several municipalities. There will be a local area government run by the people in that area. There will be a village government run by the people of the villages.

This is the proposal:



Considering AAP opposes FDI in retail I am guessing that the AAP wants business/trade to be only local and only the locals can decide how their produce is traded. They will know how much rations are being produced in their area and keep an account of how those rations are distributed. If they are not satisfied they will have the power to summon vendors etc and revoke their licence. Another of the rules they intend to bring is that 50% of the women in each area must approve of alcohol vendors in the area, only then can alcohol vendors trade.

In case I am not representing the AAP agenda correctly, I will refer you to one of their web sites explaining their agenda: http://www.lokrajandolan.org/home.html

The bill we are discussing so far is their "Swaraj" bill, they also want to bring in another bill called "Janlokpal bill" This bill proposes to sent up an anti-corruption extra-government committee. This committee will consist of 11 members of honest jurors and ex supreme court judges and others. They will have the power to order trials, investigate, convict and confiscate the property and assets of any government official, MP and Mla, including the PM. This is the bill that the government has refused to pass, but the public think they are not passing it because corrupt politicians are scared that they will be jailed once the bill is passed. Again my knowledge of politics is wanting, but why does this sound so similar to the Nazi Gestapo to me?

 

The proposed legal framework:

Each municipal ward should be divided into small mohallas(areas) of population of roughly 3000 each. The assembly of all voters in a mohalla will be called mohalla sabha. One representative of each mohalla sabha will be elected through elections conducted by state election commission. All mohalla sabha representatives in a ward will constitute ward committee. The ward councillor will be chairperson of that ward committee. Mohalla sabha will manage affairs of a mohalla and ward committee, in consultation with all mohalla sabha in that ward, will manage ward affairs.

Boundaries of Mohalla Sabhas would be carved out in consultation with the people.
Mohalla sabha will have the power to recall mohalla sabha representative and councillor.
Mohalla sabha and ward committee will have independent sources of revenues– they would have powers on some subjects to levy and collect taxes from their mohalla/ward. They would also get untied funds from the municipality, state and central government.
All funds should be transferred to mohalla sabhas and ward committees by municipality, state and central governments should be untied.
Monthly meetings of mohalla sabha shall take place. People would take decisions collectively in mohalla sabhas and mohalla sabha representative, along with the local officials will just implement them.
Mohalla sabha will make annual plans – what works should be carried out in that mohalla and at what places.
Mohalla sabha shall have the power to summon local officials upto the level of JE, head master, ration shop keeper, sanitary supervisor, head mali, medical superintendent of any hospital catering to that area etc
Mohall sabha shall have the power to impose financial penalty on local officials if they do not perform like if the teacher does not teach properly, if the mali does not work properly, if the sweeper does not come on time, if the JE makes bad road etc.
Utilization certificate shall be issued by mohalla sabha, only after which final payment could be made to the contractor.
Mohalla sabha shall have the power to cancel the ration shop if he/she does not give proper rations. Mohalla sabha shall also have the power to appoint new ration shop.
Mohalla sabha shall ensure that no one is homeless, no one starves, no child is out of school and every one has adequate health facilities in that mohalla.
Ward committee shall do the same jonbs as mentioned above and shall have the same powers with respect to the ward.
Mohalla sabha shall issue residence and income certificates to its residents.
No slums can be removed unless government has adequately rehabilitated the affected people and this satisfaction should be issued by the mohalla sabha of the affected area.
All decisions shall be taken in mohalla sabha in open.
Any mohalla sabha, through a resolution passed by two-thirds majority, can require the municipal corporation to discuss and decide upon any matter and municipality shall have to do it.
If 5% mohalla sabhas spread over 5 wards pass a resolution with simple majority each, the municipality will have to consider and take such action. If municipality does not wish to take such action, they will send copies of such resolution to all mohalla sabhas for their opinion and if more than 50% of mohalla sabhas endorse that proposal, municipality shall have to implement it.
State Government and municipality would not make any schemes, projects or programs which have to be implemented at mohalla or ward level. All affairs at mohalla and ward level shall be dealt by mohalla sabha and ward committee respectively. State Government would involve itself only with such projects which have statewide implications. Municipality will involve itself only with projects which have inter-ward implications. This would create clear demarcations in roles and responsibilities of various tiers of governance.​

 

There are over 87,000 local governments in the US. I really do not see that this is that much different of a system other than I am not sure if the local governments in India will have taxing power or how funds will be distributed--in proportion to population maybe. I do not know if it is a bad idea or not. I anticipate that some areas would do better than others under local rule. I would rather live under a system of local rule than I would central domination.

 

I am not very familiar with US politics other than what I know from watching television and reading a few articles, so please correct me if I am mistaken, but I don't think these local governments are each self-governed entities by the locals and disconnected from the state and central government? I think that is what makes it more anarchist than democratic.

 

Imagine having 2666 differant governments in New York City, then give them the power to raise a armed group of security, make laws, and dictate how people do business. Kind of like have 2666 city states inside a small area witha loose article of confederation.

 

Well, 3100 people aren't going to be able to do but so much damage.

 

Yes, exactly, when you put it that way the inanity of the proposal becomes very clear. I can't see how any sane person would want this, only a radical anarchist. I also picked up that this could result in civil war as well, if the 2666 city states go into conflict with one another and considering that they are armed and effectively have their own small army.

 

The possibilities of damages I can see here are two kinds:

1) Internal
2) External

1) (a) As each of the local governments will be run by the majority in the area, how do we protect minority interests?
(b) The people will decide who gets pension and benefits, how do we ensure that this is decided through a fair and rational process and not just based on the whim of people?
(c) The public will decide the prices of essential commodities, how do we know that this will be realistic and consistent with economic realities?
(d) The public will be able to summon anybody in the area and take punitive actions such as fine them, fire them, revoke their resident permit, and possibly even incarcerate them, how do we know this is going to be just?
(e) The public will have their own armed security, how do we know this will not be misused and the powers by the security officers not abused(psychological experiments show us security officers do indeed abuse their powers when there are no adequate checks and balances)
(f) How do we prevent special interests from taking over the local area and rabble-rousing people into toeing their line?

2) (a) Even organizing and maintaining a couple of groups is complicated, but if you increase the number of groups into thousands and hundreds of thousands you multiply the complexity thousands and hundreds thousands of times. How do we maintain the law, order and social cohesion between the local governments?
(b) How will trading work between the different local governments?
(c) What happens if the local governments decide to join with one another or engage in military conflict with one another?
(d) A people who are united are much harder to subvert than a people who are divided, if your country is divided into hundreds of thousands of groups, would this not make the people far more vulnerable to subversion by foreign interests? Is this not potentially a massive risk to national security?

 

Direct democracy isn't really anarchist, in my view. It preserves the state and all its coercive power, it's just operating directly from the will of the people rather than by proxy.

Your best best (given you want a state at all) is to aim for a decentralized system where small, representative areas have large degrees of sovereignty over their internal policy, with the national government being left to regulating voluntary interactions between those bodies.

The national government should no propose legislation of its own that affects the internal operation of those bodies, rather - it should settle disputes and provide explicitly enumerated services required to be performed on a national level (defense, preventing aggression between state governments, etc).

 

Sunnyone, below is a comment that I made at Discussion World Forum in a thread titled India Bans Homosexuality in the World News (Non-US) forum. You may think that my comments are total crap and still think it's an interesting perspective. Few others will probably care one way or another.

I think that the AAP proposal is interesting and possibly even workable. You say that the AAP has plans to "regulate the profits of businesses" and I and since I believe in Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of spontaneous order, I have a problem with this. Why can't the people who own and operate businesses decide how to regulate them, or if each village will be self-governing, why can't each village decide whether or not or how much to regulate its businesses?

Response to India Bans Homosexuality
This is not too surprising. India is a real mess. Although there have been some reforms toward individual liberty and economic freedom the country has been dominated by the socialist Indian National Congress and the socially conservative Bharatya Janata, a Hindu party, with influence from the smaller Maoist Communist Party, the Marxist Communist Party, Muslim parties, and others.

When you think of Hinduism, you might tend to think of the peace-loving Mohandas Gandhi, or the cute elephant god Ganesh, but Hinduism doesn't seem to equate with peaceful, live and let live Buddhism. From what I've seen, both in India and elsewhere, it is a very activist religion, with a lot noisy goings on in the temples, kind of reminiscent of snake-handler type Christian sects. And then there's the left-over class consciousness of the caste system.

I can't stereotype the Indian people because I've met lots of great Indians who are socially liberal and not relgious, but the country at this time seems to fall into the socially conservative and economically statist class sometimes defined as "populist," which is diametrically opposite the socially liberal, economically free market "classical liberal" class.

Some people are expecting India to make the kind of great leap forward that China has, which has a similar-sized population and similar resources. I hope so, for the sake of the indian people, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_India

 

Going just off of what the OP has stated I like the sound of what they are proposing in theory. It is more difficult in large cities, but then large urban environments are a product of capitalism. It is difficult to pull off such anarchist endeavours when still saddled with the world of capitalism.

 

Rule by referendum is a disaster that favors big money more then regular politics. Who do you think has the cash to mount a referendum campaign? For an illustration google "Florida high speed rail ballot measure". We almost racked up a mountain of debt with that one. Had to have it repealed, cost a fortune, big waste.

But the real problem is the majority will always beat up on the minority. A society with a focus on individual rights is superior to one based on majority rule.

 

Capitalism would exist in anarchy. Without control of how people trade you would have laissez faire capitalism. "Anarchists" in America are properly referred to as big government leftist socialists. Complete opposite of capitalism, but ask them about specific and they always want big control of the people and are basically not anarchists in any sense of the word.

 

I don't think direct democracy itself is anarchist, if direct democracy is just participatory democracy. However, the AAP Swaraj agenda goes much beyond just participatory democracy, it divides the state into 1400-2000 local self governing entities ruled by majority consensus. This is much closer to anarchist ideology than it is direct democracy. The state merely plays the role of a facilitator in this set up.

Some of the problems I have with this I already outlined in my previous posts, but one of my main arguments based on my own belief that leadership should be enlightened and the masses are generally stupid, that the masses will not make educated and informed decisions if they are left to govern their own areas and it could result in mob rule. If you look at the legal framerwork the AAP has proposed the people will be able to levy taxes and collect them from the people, they will decide on the granting of birth, death, income and resident certificates. They will decide who gets pensions and benefits. What concerns me is will this be a rational process or will it be based on populism and sentiments? My worry is from what I believe about masses, that it will be based on populism and sentiments. Remember the common man/woman in India is poor, illiterate or uneducated.

 

I think to be fair the AAP are also suggesting the same, the people will regulate their own businesses. The AAP just opposes FDI in retail and I think their economic policies are anti-capitalism. The AAP have already spoken against some of India's biggest corporations, such as Reliance.

The ruling against homosexuality(which I also disagree with) is got nothing to do with Hinduism, it is an Victorian era British law that still is present in Indian law. There has been a lot of movements to appeal this law and I think the chances are this law will be amended very soon. Most of the Indian media, Indian middle class and even Hindu spiritual leaders have spoken against this ruling. Hinduism's stance on homosexuality is similar to Buddhism, it is neutral. It does not say anything against it and nor anything for it. However, it does recognize the existence of a third gender and there is surprisingly homoerotic art to be found in ancient Hindu temples and in ancient Hindu mythology. The Kamasutra also contains instructions on gay sex.

As you would expect, the Indian middle class tends to be more liberal, enterprising and open minded because they are educated. Hence why you will find in Indian media there are quite a few gay filmmakers and media celebrities and gay themes appear regularly in mainstream Indian films. However, we must remember 70% of the country is rural and socially backwards.

 

Yes. A limited government federalist constitutional republic. That is the ideal.

Anarchy via direct democracy is tyranny of the masses.

 

It has shown to work to some level with very small groups in Indian villages, there are some award winning examples throughout India where villages have been able to transform themselves by implementing an anarchist kind of rule, but the major doubts remain whether it is workable at an urban scale. Again I refer you to some of the doubts and challenges I outlined in my earlier posts. Is it really a good idea to divide the state into 1000+ self governing and armed groups? Are there any examples of this ever working anywhere in the world today or even in history? I personally think, India is as chaotic as it is, and this will as Crawdadr said "Bring untold misery" to my people.

 

Anarchy isn't just the absence of government. It is the absence of hierarchy. How would capitalism work in the absence of hierarchy?

 

No such thing can exist. Try explaining how it works I practice and you will see why it will lead to mass starvation or a hierarchy. Anarcho communist? I lived on one and can dispel this notion for you from experience.

 

What I find interesting is how anarchists reject hierarchy, but hierarchy is found throughout nature, in the ecosystems, in the animal kingdoms and among humans. Psychological experiments have shown if you leave a group of humans by themselves, they will soon develop their own hierarchies. Henceforth, I do not think you can rid of leaders, leaders will always emerge within a group. Some people have greater aptitude for leadership than others.

Just curious what Anarcho-Communist country did you live in? If I asked you directly if the Anarchist like government the AAP want to bring in India were to be established, what consequences for the people of India do you anticipate?