Opinion: CJP movement and the question of democratic accountability
If political disputes are settled on the streets, the role of parliamentary institutions in a representative democracy comes into question
By Sanjay Turi and Bhimmaya Tamang
The great American President Abraham Lincoln once stated that democracy is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The most important feature of democracy is popular sovereignty, which is guided by the principle that the ultimate power in a democratic government always rests with the people.
Also Read
With the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, a month-long relentless student protest led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) not only reaffirmed that popular sovereignty lies with the people, but also the importance of transparency and accountability in governance.
The success of the movement set an important precedent for the government to remain committed to the accountability of the institutions under a minister’s charge. This, in turn, could help address problems arising from institutional failures within the government.
Earlier Movements
Unlike the movements led by Jayaprakash Narayan (1974) and Anna Hazare (2011), the CJP-led Gen Z movement was relatively more violent. This may be because India’s existing political system is perhaps better suited to previous generations than to Generation Z. Although the movements led by JP and Hazare were more intense and focused on institutional reform, they largely remained within the framework of the rule of law. However, the CJP-led students’ march toward Parliament reflects frustration with the government’s handling of their demands for accountability. Nevertheless, from a democratic perspective, a violent march towards Parliament cannot be justified.
No matter how imperfect democracy may be, the concerns of the people are best represented through a representative democratic system. Considering the size and population of India, there is no other system of government that can ever be suitable. Under this system, citizens elect Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their voices in Parliament.
The CJP movement has reinforced the importance of transparency and accountability, setting a precedent for governments to hold ministers accountable for the institutions under their charge
There is little doubt that direct democracy is relatively better than representative democracy. However, such a system is not practical in a diverse and vast country like India. Therefore, unlike smaller countries where elements of direct democracy are feasible, political issues in India should not, and cannot, be settled on the streets.
The concept of parliamentary democracy or representative democracy is designed to ensure that social and political disputes are resolved through established channels or decentralised institutions. In fact, democracy has endured in India because of its robust parliamentary framework. Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Democratic System
The democratic system we practice today has taken hundreds of years to reach this point. This journey to becoming a democracy is so fragile that it has witnessed significant human exploitation in the past. In the Indian context, the prolonged struggle of freedom fighters against British colonial rule ultimately culminated in the democratic system we follow today.
Furthermore, the Constitution drafted under the leadership of Dr BR Ambedkar and adopted on 26 November 1949 provides the framework of rights and duties through which India’s governance system functions. Alongside popular sovereignty, accountability remains one of the most defining features of Indian democracy. It eventually became the foundational principle of the CJP movement at Jantar Mantar.
From a governance perspective, transparency and accountability are essential for the smooth functioning of democratic institutions. In a representative democracy, popular sovereignty is often reflected through the accountability of the democratic institutions.
Without accountability, democratic institutions established to serve popular sovereignty do not make sense in practice. However, if accountability is pursued without sensitivity, it becomes a threat to democracy. It is a double-edged sword that, when used as a political weapon, has the potential to undermine governmental stability.
Resolving Disputes
India has a representative democracy. Political disputes over popular sovereignty must be resolved by the authorities concerned or by democratic institutions. If such disputes are settled on the street, it raises an important question: what purpose do parliamentary institutions serve in a representative democracy?
Although accountability is the best way to put pressure on office-bearers or institutions, it must not be used as a political tool. Otherwise, it not only slows the functioning of the government but also undermines the very ethos of representative democracy.
(Sanjay Turi is doctoral candidate, Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Bhimmaya Tamang is Independent Researcher, Sikkim Manipal University, Sikkim)
