📰 Eight Bills passed on last day of Rajya Sabha
Upper House adjourned sine die; Bills passed amid Opposition boycott
•The Rajya Sabha was adjourned sine die on Wednesday, clocking a productivity rate of over 100%, even though it was one of the shortest monsoon sessions with only 10 sittings held.
•On Wednesday, the House passed eight Bills in less than four hours as the Opposition boycotted the proceedings over the manner in which two farm Bills were passed on Sunday. Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu said the session was being concluded eight sittings ahead of the 18 planned sittings, as the COVID-19 pandemic continued. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was present in the House when Mr. Naidu made the concluding remarks.
•“In the 10 sittings, 25 bills were passed and six bills introduced. The productivity of the House during this session has been 100.47%. As against the scheduled available time of 38 hours and 30 minutes, the actual functional time of the House has been 38 hours and 41 minutes,” Mr. Naidu said.
•There were some areas of concern, Mr. Naidu said. He appealed to all members, “from the depth of his heart”, to ensure that such unseemly behaviour was not repeated. “To protest is the right of the Opposition... The floor of the House is the most effective way, and not through boycott”.
•During the day, the House passed the following legislation — the Foreign Contribution Regulation (Amendment) Bill, 2020; the Jammu and Kashmir Official Languages Bill, 2020; the Bilateral Netting of Qualified Financial Contracts Bill, 2020; the Occupational Safety Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020; the Industrial Relations Code, 2020; the Code on Social Security, 2020; the Appropriation (No.3) Bill, 2020; and the Appropriation (No.4) Bill, 2020.
📰 G4 seeks time-bound reform of Security Council
India, Brazil, Japan and Germany agree to work with like-minded countries for ‘concrete outcomes’
•Foreign Ministers from the Group of 4 — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — a group that is seeking permanent membership of the UN Security Council (UNSC), met virtually on Wednesday to further their objective. The four countries stressed delivering concrete outcomes, in writing and within a time frame.
•“Participated in#G4Foreign Ministers Meeting that called for a decisive push for UNSC reforms during#UN75. Unanimous call for text-based negotiations in a fixed time frame. Reformed Multilateralism guides India’s approach to the United Nations,” External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar tweeted.
•His counterparts at the G4 meeting were Motegi Toshimitsu (Japan), Niels Annen, (Minister of State representing German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas) and Ernesto Araújo (Brazil).
•The Ministers reaffirmed their common resolve to “finally take decisive steps towards the early and comprehensive reform of the Security Council that was envisaged by Heads of State and Government in the 2005 World Summit,” as per a joint press statement released by the Ministry of External Affairs.
•The G4 will work with “other reform-minded countries and groups” to start text-based negotiations (TBN) without delay and seek “concrete outcomes” during the 75th session of the UN General Assembly, which has just begun and lasts until next September.
•“G4 Ministers reiterated support for each other’s membership to the UNSC “given the capacity and willingness to take on major responsibilities with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security”, the statement said.
•India, which, in January, will commence a two-year non-permanent term on the UNSC, has long sought a permanent seat at the Council and is a proponent of other UNSC reforms — such as increasing the number of permanent (currently five) and non-permanent (currently 10) seats and ensuring greater representation for Africa.
•“Africa needs to be represented in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership of a reformed and expanded Security Council to correct the historical injustice against this continent with regard to its under-representation in the Security Council,” the G4 countries said.
•India is a proponent of text-based negotiations at the UN.
📰 Weighing in on the efficacy of female leadership
It is necessary to get rid of inherent biases and perceptions about the effectiveness of women in roles of authority
•What do Germany, Taiwan and New Zealand have in common? These are all countries that have women heading their governments. And although they are located in three different continents, the three countries seem to have managed the pandemic much better than their neighbours. Much along the same lines, a detailed recent study by researchers in the United States reports that States which have female governors had fewer COVID-19 related deaths, perhaps partly because female governors acted more decisively by issuing earlier stay-at-home orders. The authors of the study conclude that women leaders are more effective than their male counterparts in times of crises. There will be several critics (no need to guess their gender) who will question the reliability of this conclusion by pointing out deficiencies in the data — admittedly somewhat limited — or the econometric rigour of the analysis. Many will also point out that it is dangerous to make sweeping generalisations based on one study.
•The point about the danger of making sweeping generalisations is valid. Of course, studies such as these do not establish the superiority of all female leaders over their male counterparts. All female leaders are not necessarily efficient, and there are many men who have proved to be most effective and charismatic leaders. The important takeaway from the recent experience and such studies is the necessity of getting rid of inherent biases and perceptions about female effectiveness in leadership roles.
India’s gram panchayats
•Importantly, female leaders also bring something quite different to the table. In particular, they perform significantly better than men in implementing policies that promote the interests of women. This was demonstrated in another study conducted by Nobel Laureate Esther Duflo and co-author Raghabendra Chattopadhyay, who used the system of mandated reservations of pradhans in gram panchayats to test the effectiveness of female leadership. Their study was made possible by the 1993 amendment of the Indian Constitution, which mandated that all States had to reserve one-third of all positions of pradhan for women. Since villages chosen for the mandated reservations were randomly selected, subsequent differences in investment decisions made by gram panchayats could be attributed to the differences in gender of the pradhans . Chattopadhyay and Duflo concluded that pradhans invested more in rural infrastructure that served better the needs of their own gender. For instance, women pradhans were more likely to invest in providing easy access to drinking water since the collection of drinking water is primarily, if not solely, the responsibility of women.
•In addition to the instrumental importance of promoting more space for women in public policy, this is also an important goal from the perspective of gender equality. The right to vote is arguably the most important dimension of participation in public life. There are others. What proportion of women stand for election to the various State and central legislatures? How many are elected? Perhaps more important, how many women occupy important positions in the executive branch of government?
About suffrage
•Independent India can rightly be proud of its achievement in so far as women’s suffrage is concerned. Women were allowed to vote from 1950 onwards and so could participate on an equal footing with men from the first general election of 1951-52. This is in striking contrast to the experience in the so-called “mature democracies” of western Europe and the United States. In the U.S., it took several decades of struggle before women were allowed to vote in 1920. Most countries in Europe also achieved universal suffrage during the inter-war period. Since most able- bodied men went away to the battlefields during the First World War, increasing numbers of women had the opportunity to show that they were adequate substitutes in activities that were earlier the sole preserve of men. This, it is suggested, mitigated the anti-female bias and earned women the right to vote in European countries.
•We have had and have charismatic female leaders like Indira Gandhi, Jayalalitha, Mayawati, Sushma Swaraj and Mamata Banerjee among several others. Interestingly, a glaring example of gender stereotyping was the labelling of Indira Gandhi as the “only man in the cabinet”. Apart from these stalwarts, the overall figures are depressing. The female representation in the current National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government at the Centre is probably not very far from the typical gender composition in Indian central and State governments. Female members make up only about 10% of the total ministerial strength. The underrepresentation of female Ministers in India is also reflected in the fact that Ms. Banerjee is currently the only female Chief Minister.
•The underrepresentation of women in Indian legislatures is even more striking. For instance, the 2019 election sent the largest number of women to the Lok Sabha. Despite this, women constitute just over 14% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha. This gives us the dismal rank of 143 out of 192 countries for which data are reported by the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Tiny Rwanda comes out on top with a staggering 60% of seats in its lower house occupied by women.
The women’s Bill languishes
•Since women running for elections face numerous challenges, it is essential to create a level-playing field through appropriate legal measures. The establishment of quotas for women is an obvious answer. I have mentioned earlier that mandated reservation for women in gram panchayats was established in all major States since the mid-1990s. Attempts have also been made to extend quotas for women in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies through a Women’s Reservation Bill. Unfortunately, the fate of this Bill represents a blot on the functioning of the Indian Parliament. The Bill was first presented to the Lok Sabha by the H.D. Deve Gowda government in 1996. Male members from several parties opposed the Bill on various pretexts. Subsequently, both the NDA and United Progressive Alliance governments have reintroduced the Bill in successive Parliaments, but without any success. Although the Rajya Sabha did pass the bill in 2010, the Lok Sabha and the State legislatures are yet to give their approval — despite the 24 years that have passed since it was first presented in the Lok Sabha.
Steps to reducing prejudice
•Of course, there is a simple fix to the problem. The major party constituents of the NDA and UPA alliances can sidestep the logjam in Parliament by reserving say a third of party nominations for women. This will surely result in increasing numbers of women in legislatures and subsequently in cabinets. The importance of this cannot be overestimated. There is substantial evidence showing that increased female representation in policy making goes a long way in improving perceptions about female effectiveness in leadership roles. This decreases the bias among voters against women candidates, and results in a subsequent increase in the percentage of female politicians contesting and winning elections. So, such quotas have both a short-term and long-term impact. Indeed, voter perceptions about the efficacy of female leadership may change so drastically in the long run that quotas may no longer be necessary!
📰 Seeing dystopia in India’s democracy
The state’s attachment to the procedures of democracy has not been matched by concern for a fulfilling life for Indians
•The United Nations has declared September 15 ‘International Day of Democracy’. An entry on its website states that this “provides an opportunity to review the state of democracy in the world”. To review the state of democracy in India would be timely given the times we are living through. Indeed by now, as India meets fresh challenges almost daily, for us to do so is arguably more important than to celebrate independence from colonial rule, which we do out of habit annually. But to review the state of democracy in India we would need to adopt a suitable criteria.
A partial evaluation
•Formally, India is a democracy alright. There are multi-party elections with universal suffrage subject only to an age restriction. In evaluations of democracy in India it is often observed, to its credit, that it is the world’s largest democracy. Further plaudits are given for the smooth changeover in government after elections, the existence of an independent press and judiciary, and the guarantee of civil liberties justiciable in courts of law. While these are valid observations, the assessment is based on a partial evaluation. To an extent it amounts to admiring a form of government for its own sake without concern for the socioeconomic outcomes that are produced. It is like admiring the architecture of a building without pausing to enquire whether its inhabitants are happy to be living in it.
•Outcomes differ among countries that are democracies. Take for instance the life satisfaction that citizens report. First, it should be noted that this is potentially an important metric as it is based on people’s perceptions on what matters most, including the responsiveness of the government to their needs. In the UN’s World Happiness Report for 2020 (https://bit.ly/32UcJMe and https://bit.ly/2HqdN2l), the list of top 10 countries is heavily loaded with the democracies of western Europe. The U.S. barely edges into the top 20. India, on the other hand, is ranked 144 out of the 153 countries evaluated.
•Further, its ranking has dropped in recent years. We should be giving serious thought to both the fact of India’s low ranking on the happiness index and its slide. To my mind, the criterion that in a democracy the people must be satisfied with their life is given very little thought these days. It was not so in the early days of our republic.
Built by the people
•Two leaders who had recognised this criterion in their engagements with the public were Jawaharlal Nehru and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. Nehru was explicit in his speech on August 15, 1947 when he stated that the goal of independence was to create institutions which will ensure justice and fullness of life to every man and woman. Note that Nehru had not promised that the government will create these institutions. He was far too aware that democracy is not synonymous with statism; it is about the people. Ultimately, the institutions that enable persons to lead fulfilling lives are built by the people themselves. Let me give you three examples, all from the United States. In the 1960s, that country saw movements for black empowerment, women’s emancipation and sexual liberation. These movements were remarkably successful in the outcomes they achieved, while receiving no support from the U.S. state. This is the sense in which it may be said that it is the people who build the institutions that matter. That said, however, the state has a role in their building. Laws must not constrain liberty when it is self-affirming and must change when it is realised that they do.
On development
•The role of the state does not end with removing restraints though. It extends to the endowment of individuals with capabilities in the sense of Amartya Sen. Prof. Sen had thought of capabilities as the endowments that allow individuals to undertake the functionings, or do the things, that they value. We can think of a person’s health and education as among the most important inputs into the capabilities that they end up possessing. While radical approaches to empowerment rightly emphasise the importance of self-help, it is not sufficiently recognised that individuals cannot easily equip themselves with capabilities, requiring the state to intervene. Think of a person born into poverty or a woman born into wealth but into a world with social sanction against education for women. Similarly, historically, the caste system in India had excluded a large section from education. While private initiative should not be de-legitimised, it has had only a limited impact on building capabilities in India as it has focused on those with the ability to pay. In a move to measure the capabilities of a population, the UN devised the Human Development Index. The main elements of this are health and education. As with the UN’s Happiness Index, India fares very poorly in the UN’s Human Development Index too. In 2019, India ranked 129th out of 189 countries. Judged in terms of human development — and one would be hard put to defend any other sense in which development is to be understood — Indian democracy is severely challenged.
•Pointing to the incongruence between India’s low level of human development and its status as a democracy evokes the response that this is to see the latter in instrumental terms. Democracy it is asserted is a form of government, namely government by discussion. The answer to this deflection is that democracy may be a form of government but surely the people have come to adopt this particular form of government with a goal in mind. We may safely assume a fulfilling life is that goal. Authoritarianism is not compatible with such a life, only democracy, which at least in principle grants individuals a voice in governance, is. Second, people adopt democracy so that they can participate in their own governance. They cannot but have foreseen that they must be endowed with capabilities if this is to be possible at all. Thus, liberty and capability are conjoined as the ultimate aspiration in a democracy.
Neglect and repression
•In India, the state’s ritualistic attachment with the procedures of democracy has not been matched by an awareness of its implicit goal of a fulfilling life for Indians. By the 1950s, freedom of speech had been restricted by the First Amendment to the Constitution and the Directive Principles, that had enjoined upon the state to promote health and education, had been all but forgotten. Inevitably, the consequential underinvestment in a public health system has left the country severely unprepared for the emergency when COVID-19 struck. After reading of bodies left lying in their wards, we now read of an emerging shortage of something so basic as oxygen supply in metropolitan hospitals. COVID-19 affects the human respiratory system and oxygen is vital to avert the loss of life. Those who have survived thus far live with foreboding of a gruesome end. Not only has the state neglected its responsibility but it has resorted to repression when its inaction is questioned. Recently, an agency reported that a representative of the State in southern Andhra Pradesh publicly threatened with arrest a government doctor who had dared to mention at a review meeting that there were not enough beds in the primary health centre that he was responsible for.
