Does democracy mean inequality?

Does democracy mean inequality?

-          By Vivek V Govilkar

When we think of democracy, do we look beyond elections? Of course elections are the most important aspect of any democracy. But there are other aspects like independent institutions like the judiciary, law enforcement agency and the central bank, which are crucial for the survival of any democracy. We also need platforms for the expression of public opinion. Independent media and the mechanism of public interest litigation (PIL) can play a great role there.

It is important that all of us - individuals, corporations, political parties and government agencies are treated equally for the public or individual opinion to have a fair chance of getting heard and appropriate actions taken by the concerned authorities. We need to ensure that the money power or political power does not choke the voices of reason and sanity.

Here we get in to a very tricky situation. It is true that the poor victims of our country rarely get justice in our system. But there are many who can work within the system and bring the mighty to their knees. I am not even talking about those who exploit the system for their own narrow and at times anti-social agenda. Let us talk about those who are presumably working with all the good intentions and are really interested in doing something for the society.

There are situations where our legal system and even our public opinion can be heavily tilted in favour of the “small” or the “weak”. Take for instance any road accident and how public reacts to it. If a biker knocks down a pedestrian, it is the biker’s fault. If a car knocks a bike, then the sympathy would shift to the biker. I do not think the eyewitnesses and bystanders would ever consider the possibility of supporting a trucker in a road accident.

Combine this with the other issue that the bad news is always more believable than the good news. That makes an argument or a legal battle an uphill task for the “bigger” party.

Let us consider the weird case of six Italian scientists who were jailed and fined for “incorrectly” assuring people that there was no real danger an earthquake striking L'Aquila. It is a well accepted fact that earthquakes cannot be predicted with any accuracy. But unfortunately the earthquake did strike L'Aquila killing 309 people.  

 

Why was this kind of case admitted in the court in the first place? In any case, those who went to the court had nothing further to lose, apart from the tragic losses they suffered during the earthquake.

It is quite possible that some other court would have either dismissed the case or exonerated the scientists. But the scientists still would have to go through the trauma of court proceedings. Generally there is no remedy available in any legal system for that. Here the plaintiffs and the defendants are clearly unequal in terms of their stakes.

 

This inequality results in to the phenomenon of ambulance-chasers as seen in the USA. There are lawyers who are always looking for any trouble (as can be associated with any ambulance) so that they could exploit the system. The big corporations and celebrities either lose the case or lose money, time, energy and / or reputation even if they win the case.

 

Let us take the example of self appointed guardians of public interest. They can oppose any dam, airport, highway, harbour or power plant citing reasons of safety, ecological disaster or economical peril. The agencies responsible for implementing the project are required to be 100 % right about whatever they say. And that is how it should be. But do we apply the same rules to the opponents? What if their predictions are wrong? What if their objections result in to a major cost escalation and a substantial delay? The problem could be serious particularly if their objections are based on wrong premises and data.

 

Then there is a sensitive issue of libel. Today the atmosphere in our country is such that anyone can say that a politician or an industrialist is corrupt and people will readily accept that conclusion. It may even be true in the most of the cases. But what if in some cases, the allegations are malicious and false? A person can be charged with some crime and found “not guilty” after several years of legal proceedings. That person can never recover fully the lost reputation and certainly not the lost years.

 

One may say that is the price some individuals have to pay for the system to survive. But what about the persons responsible for the false allegations in the first place? One American reporter called our former Prime Minister Morarjee Desai a CIA agent. It was not necessary for the reporter to reveal his source other that saying it was some senior official at CIA. Morarjee unsuccessfully fought the libel case it an American court as the system was heavily tilted in favour of the reporter.

 

Clearly we apply different rules to different people. We do not treat people equally in the name of equality and justice. Does it have to be that way?