System against change! Is it?

Humans are humans only because it developed a system to guide every sphere of life. Social system to guide family and personal life, Cultural system to stop any sudden hiccups in established pattern and norms of the society and political system to stop any revolutionary development in the society. Well, nothing wrong in it, every society wants to remain stable, but for what cost? Have you ever thought? And even are we free to think something new? Answer is plain NO.

Russo has stated that we all born free but everywhere we are bonded in chains. If I see present sets of system I feel the same. There is a status quo. No one dare to raise voice against anything. All existing systems have been considered good and there is no need of change. But if you see all around, you find a great need for change. But certainly system has become an opaque thing; it would not permit you to persuade any change. The pivotal reason behind it is that the system and leadership are collaborator to each other.

Leaders form system and system helps leaders to be in power. System provides immunity to current leadership. In old systems where power was considered as divine authority it was very easy to control the popular sentiments and remain in power, irrespective of place and culture. We can see this phenomenon in various countries at present also, where there is a tyranny and royal line. But today we are living in modern and democratic world, where reticence is considered as awe. So question is, does democracy also help leadership to remain in power? Does democratic system also provide immunity to leadership?

The answer is YES! That’s why we see a concern among political fraternity when any perception related to change demanded or comes into light. Even leadership tries to create impediments to stop change and common people have to come into streets to sweep away these impediments.

Take some contemporary examples. What happened in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia is a clear example of raising hurdles in the path of change. In Egypt Hosni Mubarak was leading the nation for last 34 years and he was dethroned only when people gathered at Tehrir Chowk demanding his resignation. He was forced to resign and then after military took over till free and fair election is conducted. Now, there is a concern that military may derail the real change, again resulting into status quo. People led movements is still on in Tunisia and leadership seems disinterested to meet with the demands.

Take another example of India where we are facing a biggest movement after total revolution called by JP. This time reason is corruption and Gandhian leader Anna Hazare is leading this movement. Before going to discuss about hurdles created by present leadership let us know his demand and the historical prospect of his demand. He is demanding for an effective Lokpal, an institutional body to see cases against corruption. Well, there is nothing wrong in his demands as parliament itself tried to pass this bill for six times but failed. Now, government fast tracked the creation of an effective bill only when Anna sat on fast unto death, but again after such a huge furore, bill has not been passed yet. The kind of Bill demanded and put before parliament is different. I don’t want to go into the details of genuineness of these changes as it is highly debatable, but the way various leaders tried to and still trying to malign Anna and Anna team show that how desperate they are to save the present form of governance, again to maintain status quo.

Confused! Worried! Tensed! Whatever you are, philosophy is always there to heal. So, come to philosophy of freedom. In the name of stability any establishment should not undermine the basic philosophy of freedom. Freedoms are two types. First, positive freedom and second, negative freedom. Positive freedom allows you to do what you want to do, enjoy natural rights, which you possess right after your birth and political rights provided by constitution. Negative freedom is not allowed in any good and democratic society as it affects the society negatively. Take an example, if you want to commit suicide it can’t be permitted on the ground that it’s your life and you have right to end it, as it would affect the society adversely.

By applying this philosophy on current system, we can find that on the name of stability, peace and balance of the society, path of positive freedom is getting hampered. So, Anna hazare can’t ask government for lokpal and hold agitation. In the manner by which present political establishment deliberately tried to popularize it as challenge to parliamentary democracy, is it not a bid to negatively impact the political positive rights of citizens? And on the name of stability is it not our political community enjoying negative freedom?

We can see this phenomenon in social system also. Especially in India where society is divided on the basis of caste, religion etc, on the name of purity of blood, social balance and family pride, positive freedom is being captured by negative freedom. That’s the reason why we see several cases of horror killing and caste and religion based discrimination.

So, what is the solution? I think there is need of renaissance in India, which took place in west long back in 15th century and after that west started its journey towards scientific innovation led changes at all level, which brought modernity. Renaissance brought scientific temperament, reasoning and logic to accept and reject a particular thing. Renaissance promoted religious reformation, which loosened the grip of church on the society. Same thing is needed in India, where all the existing systems have greater control over positive freedom.