Education For Political Dialogue: Is a Scientific Outlook
Helpful
By
M. L. Sondhi
Political & Business Times, Ahmedabad
August 1975 – approved by Gujarat Censor
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? Talking 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 towards 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 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
perspective of the constitution of 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
mechanism,” “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. |