The perils of democracy?

The Congress campaign in the recently concluded assembly elections in Andhra Pradesh, was based, among others, on a promise to provide reservations to the Muslim community in government jobs etc. Since then, the Congress has won the election and hence, it has both a moral authority and obligation to implement its pre-poll promises. And right away, it started making noises about introducing a bill granting the reservation. So why am I uneasy? Aren't people supposed to get what they want in a democracy? But what if the thing they want is in direct contradiction to overall national interests? Or against the spirit of the constitution?

I ask these questions because I feel the concept of reservations is flawed in a number of ways. Reservations were introduced during the early days of independent India, as a device for bringing about social equality. Though I am not aware of any formal connections, the idea of reservations does seem very marxist in character. Initially, it was estimated that social equality shall be attained by the 60s and reservations will be abolished thereafter. And we all know what has happened since then!

So what are the problems I see with reservations? First and foremost, I have my doubts whether the gains of reservations reach the under-privileged at all. For instance, we shall soon have 5% reservation for Muslims in AP. However, there are any number of affluent Muslims there and I feel it is these upper class Muslims who will reap the benefits. Were they the intended targets of the largesse? No. This is a general problem with caste/community based reservations. It is clear that always the stronger members of the caste/community shall be the principal beneficiaries.

In this context, the idea of reservations based on economic well-being has some appeal. After all, doesn't an utterly poor upper caste youth need help more than a relatively well-off lower caste citizen does? I can never understand why the communal angle had to be added to reservations. If the objective was to help weaker sections of the society, then wouldn't the first most obvious solution be to help all who are poor. Our leaders must have had good reasons for introducing reservations as they are, but I'd sure love to hear about them.

The second problem I feel is that reservations tend to segment a society and go against the aim of overall national integration. When people have to wear their caste/religion on their sleeves to get jobs, it sends a strong message: Being an Indian does not get you a job, but being a Yadav does. Would you then fault a person if he feels he is a Yadav first and an Indian second? The more number of times a person is forced to explicitly think about his caste/religion, the farther he goes from being a mainstream Indian.

The last problem with reservations is that they directly contradict India's secular character. In India's context, secularism does not only mean equality of all religions. In a country like India which has so many castes, the definition of secularism should naturally be extended to equality of all religions, castes, ethnic groups alike. And when the state favors a particular caste, this spirit of secularism is dealt a serious blow. As a result, the utterly poor upper caste youth is left languishing because the state actively discriminates against him - much like a theocratic state would have discriminated against citizens adhering to a different religion.

And that is why I feel communal reservations are bad. And this leads me to ask the question - is plain democracy the best political system for a developing country? We give each one of our citizens a chance to nudge our country in the direction (s)he wants it to go. At the other end of the spectrum are countries like China where a few leaders decide the fate of millions. At times I feel our system is too vulnerable to the irrational decisions taken by huge, ignorant sections of the electorate. It is too vulnerable to politicians who use schemes like reservations as weapons in their vote-bank politics. Wouldn't it be good if only responsible people got to vote! And then I notice the inherent arrogance of the statement wherein I label myself knowledgeable, rational and responsible. What if someone better than me were to suggest that I was not rational enough. And what if he were to say that even I did not make the grade for being a responsible voter? And these ifs then leave me confused ...