It is as important as justice itself. (Illustration by C R Sasikumar)
Contemporary democracies, across jurisdictions, appear to be caught in a crossfire between individuals, with very little thought being spared for the long-term impact of myopic scorched-earth politics on public discourse, policy and health of the institutions which undergird the edifice of constitutional democracy. Ideological divides are not new, nor is the pitting against each other and propping up of individuals at the expense of issues. The explosion of electronic media followed by social media over the last 25 years has witnessed a bell curve of sorts in the quality of public discourse, which is perhaps past its peak. At this point in the curve, the assumption that the quality of public discourse is directly proportional to heightened “political awareness” may not hold water. If anything, it appears to be inversely related, and this could be significantly owing to conflation of personality obsession with “political awareness”, and the simultaneous devaluation of an issue-based approach. This process is aggressively fed and nourished by prime time “debates”.
I will desist from making the sweeping statement that individual-centric public discourse has never existed in the past since that would be positively untrue. That said, I will certainly make the statement that the sheer explosion of platforms and the cumulative noise they generate have made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the average consumer of information to distinguish between personalities and principles. From there on, the path to mass hysteria, increased cynicism and apathy is not a long one. If this global state of affairs continues, the road ahead seems bleak for the prospect of a sane discussion on any subject of serious public interest, or critically global interest, such as climate change.
Notwithstanding the global scale of the “information pandemic”, the solution may lie in setting our respective national houses in order, starting with restoring respect for institutional boundaries in accordance with constitutional mandates. Sometimes, complex problems are the product of abandonment of first principles and, therefore, the most doable solution worth attempting is to return to the basics. The question that then arises is who must take the lead in showing the way. The media is an amorphous entity and cannot be expected to lead the way in dialing down the noise, given its preoccupation with a breathless news cycle and the need to stay ahead to stay afloat. Political stakeholders oscillate with “market forces” and are, more often than not, beings of incentive and disincentive.
It is precisely for this reason that unelected and independent constitutional institutions were conceived of in the first place — to restore sanity and faith when the scales seem to tip towards herdism and cynicism. The very reason they are constitutionally bestowed with institutional independence is to be able to discharge this essential duty without political interference. It is for this reason that they are often looked up to as watchdogs, to protect the letter and spirit of national constitutions. It, therefore, also falls upon them to hold themselves to higher standards, both in operation and optics. The underlying fond hope being that others will follow suit, including the political class and the fourth estate.
As much as democracy is meant to give effect to the will of the people, the role of a constitution is to capture their collective conscience and wisdom, and assign the role of their enforcement to, ironically but not without reason, unelected constitutional organs which are expected to rise above partisan pulls. The wielding of such power by an unelected constitutional organ comes with great responsibility and calls for balance since it cannot be capricious by turning a blind eye to the will of the people, nor can it succumb to the whim of the people. When unelected constitutional organs display greater commitment to probity and quality, they inspire greater confidence in the public, which, in turn, gives such institutions greater moral authority to hold power accountable with public support. In this regard, the example of the formidable T N Seshan in his stint as the Chief Election Commissioner would not be out of place, for he truly showcased the responsibility and powers of that office while operating within the lines painted by the Constitution. It was one of those rare instances where the individual commanded grudging respect, and not merely because of the office he held. If anything, he added value to it and left fairly large shoes to fill for his successors-in-office.
If one had to distill values from his life and experience, both transparency in conduct and reticence in public engagement, especially with centres of elected power, are expected of constitutional organs to preserve the reality, not illusion, of independence, impartiality and integrity in the eyes of the public. After all, perception of justice is as important as justice itself, if not more. Isn’t that the standard Shri Ram held Himself to? And shouldn’t that be one of the attributes of the aspirational Ram Rajya?
The writer is a commercial and constitutional litigator who practises as a counsel before the Supreme Court of India, the High Court of Delhi, the NCLAT and the CCI, and author of India that is Bharat: Coloniality, Civilisation, Constitution and India, Bharat and Pakistan: The Constitutional Journey of a Sandwiched Civilisation
