OPPOSITION AND GOVERNMENT AND DEMOCRATIC LIFE:
Is a scientific outlook helpful?
By
M.L. Sondhi
Political & Business Times, August 1975
For any thoughtful Indian concerned with the present
political and constitutional crisis in the country, a book
which would provide a conceptual stimulus would certainly be
Anatol Rapoport’s Fights, Games and Debates (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press 1960). It is a skilful
and at the same time a comprehensible introduction to the
contribution made by “game theory” to social science
problems. What will surely interest the reader today are
the types of situations analysed by game theory where
harmful consequences of conflict ensue although wholly
unintended by either side in a conflict. The classic case
of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is a warning that in-spite of good
intentions of both the sides, an outcome gravely harmful to
their mutual interest may be produced. For the future it
suggests that mutually beneficial choices can be made by
both Government and Opposition to achieve the highest good
of the Indian people.
How useful is it still to speak of an Indian
political system after the recent traumatic experience?
Taking into account the four well known functions of the
Parsonian system we can offer the following brief comments:
First there is scope to revive and strengthen interaction
between government and opposition and thereby ensure “Pattern
Maintenance”. This would, however, require genuine
opportunity to direct attention to the areas of “independent
functioning” of both government and opposition through
rational thought rather than pathological thinking.
Second, it is possible to argue that the
environment is conducive to overcoming the breakdown because
a one-party structure is not seriously predicted. If
authoritarian concepts are specifically ruled out and
accepted neither in a tentative nor in a qualified way, the
process of “Adaptation” can be initiated. Adaptation
can be strengthened by the adoption of non-coercive
strategies by both Government and Opposition.
Third, while there is an ever present
possibility of higher levels of domestic conflict, yet there
are clearly visible opportunities for limiting public
violence and state coercion. The essential trait of the
Indian political system is that it provides several ways to
achieve conflict resolution between Government and
Opposition and for reducing the incidence of violence in
public life. This central trait should help decision-making
toward the achievement of a common “Goal Attainment”
by both Government and Opposition for reducing the incidence
of violence by both sides.
Finally, in broader terms the question of
Integration in the Indian Political System has to be studied
to find out the factors which are vitiating the national
consensus. There is groundwork for precise investigation
which has not been undertaken so far, and provides scope for
scholarly inquiry. The question may legitimately be put
whether a clear cut recognition that the ability to
influence policy decisions should not be the monopoly of one
party and the de-politicisation of certain issues which can
be dealt with by technical methods and concepts may not
generate a new political wisdom from which both Government
and Opposition may profit. The result may not be
integration of the highest quality but it may at least
provide a way clear of the dangerous over-simplifications
which are destroying the natural linkages between Government
and Opposition in democratic India.
In having a second look at the relationship
between Government and Opposition in India and in developing
a scenario for de-escalation between the two sides, it may
be suggested that the framework of what is called the
‘Cybernetic Model” may have considerable utility. What is
the extent and kind of interaction between Government and
Opposition in India? What are the goal-changing options for
both Opposition and Government decision-makers in the
national and state-level politics? Can feed-back processes
create mutual respect and regard in the judgements which
opposition and Government decision-makers make about each
other?
The Founding Fathers of the Indian
constitution were convinced that a well-informed and
energetic Opposition would enhance the capacity and
efficiency of Government to attain the goals of prosperity
and security of the Indian people.
This basic orientation of the Indian
political system i.e. its non-authoritarian behaviour model
must be maintained and strengthened. India can steer clear
of both anarchy and authoritarianism by concentrating upon
the Theory of Conflict Resolution which is available in the
broader India. In place of bizarre speculation on the
applicability of the models of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, it
would be highly opportune for Government and Opposition
decision-makers to actively concern themselves with
restoring “mutual responsiveness” first of all by avoiding
loud over-statements. Mahatma Gandhi may not have been
familiar with terms like “steering mechanisms”,
“communication” and “feedback” used as central ideas of
cybernetics, but he certainly knew how to develop bargaining
options with the help of the still small voice within him. |