Re: Is India a model Democracy?

[Padmanabha Rao <kvprao@igidr.ac.in>]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Cprakash wrote:
 Your define of a free press as a public good is an arbitrary one.  what
 is a public good is the freedom for everyone to express themselves. In
 your case, all of my "subscription" could be tune into my favourite
 frequency...

Yes, it could sound arbitary. I guess that's because it is based for a
scenario where the government is not tightly rule-based and where it
nevertheless uses the press as a medium to the people. I believe this
scenario is atleast true of our democrasy. One may claim that our
government is very rule-based and that all its interventions and
programmes abide by rules framed by the parliament, but I submit that it
is not the *reality* and that with scare resources and considerably
power-given bureaucrasy what we really have is not rule-based in actions;
and also that in a number of instances we probably do not have any rules
at all. Given this, the means to counter any *probable* abuse of power or
rule-breaking or even new ill-rule-making is to have a FREE press. Why ?
Because the government has every incentive to perpetuate itself and the
abuse if it is not publicised. We cannot and do not depend on the
Government's Press (DD, AIR, DAVP) for this same reason. We shouldn't
trust it because we know there is no incentive for them to be *truthful*
[whatever that is] and so *probably* they are lying. We also don't trust
because we are inclined to view everything in terms of incentives. Given
this, what is the hope ? It is that the government supports the Press and
makes itself accessible by them. If you see, what would happen to the
"democrasy" if these Presses were all to live by their own agenda. It
would be anarchy. One would report that the Kargil was an Army fiasco and
the other would say it was the RAW's and yet another would say Pakistan's
and so on, while all this while *my information* is zero if as an
intelligent guy I have been listening to all of these. So you see in such
a situation I could do anything and get away with it, similarly my
neighbour also, and finally the government too. So we have the many
channels and presses which each have their own set of subscribers
(patrons, we might say) to whom they cater, and maybe all the while all of
us are (perhaps) aware that even as we take in that melodious song on the
GloryFM the government could be taking us for a ride and no one's informed
about it. Who loses here ?

Power has to countered by power alone. (equivalently, of course, peace by
peace). The power of a government by the power of FREE press. It would be
an interesting thing if we could think of other means or institutions by
which the power of the government can be countered, for the instance where
the government is not *really* rule-based. The judiciary is a common
institution but it works on appeal and not proaction. It shouldn't too, I
think.

 ..The waves are not created by anyone, so the best solution for them
 would be to tell the goverment to auction off THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM, for a
 required sum or RENT.  whether i use the station to propogate my views,
 play music or conduct pornographic radio plays, blaspheme my hated
 religions should not be a concern of the government.

The government is doing that. I am sorry if I missed the point. Would be
grateful if you could clear it more. (I don't think the government
believes it has created the waves. And nor that it is charging anybody on
that account. The newspaper is using lightwaves everyday to reach us,
without being charged for it.)

Thanks.

Padmanabha Rao

 Padmanabha Rao <kvprao@igidr.ac.in> wrote on Tuesday January 9, 2001 at
 10:27pm: >If while my FM is tuned, you come online to tell me that I
 lack >the information that six hindus are getting lynched in Dadar you
 are >trying to use my weakness for violence. If I truly desired such
 >information I would have long subscribed to the necessary systems and
 >not depend on a universal medium to fulfil it, simply because I should
 not >expect my personal desires to be fufilled by a universally used
 media or > >a public good. The Free Press is a public good and a model
 democrasy >should do everything in its power to ensure that the Free
 Press remains >a >public good, a FREE press. The problem lies in the
 multimedia press not >living up to this expectation and getting online
 with an agenda. That >makes them private and so naturally a society can
 be expected to curb >them >where their power is too inclined for abuse.
 A public good cannot be >allowed to have any power for violence. This
 last point is perhaps >debatable ?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------