KamaL;
In the USA,each state elects two senators,regardless of its size or population,which adds upto 100 senators, representing 50 states.Mr.Bezborua is right about the unequal representation of the Indian Parliament.New Delhi is a turf,dominated mostly by the heartland states and in that ambiance, a significant smack cannot be produced by the representatives of the peripheral states.
*** Some of the fine distinctions missing here are that the
US House and Senate are two distinctly different legislative
bodies constituted of elected members, who, act as checks and balances
against each other.
The House, the lower one ( similar to the Indian Lok Sabha), is
represented on the population strength. Thus it could indulge in
tyranny of the majority, and it DOES, all the time. However, the
Senate, the upper house ( I am not sure if its parallel is the Rajya
Sabha in its role), is a more deliberative body, where each state is
represented by two Senators. For a law to be enacted or budget
to be passed it has to be done by both the House and the Senate.
Therefore the House cannot always get away with passing majoritarian
legislation, if the Senate too does not go along with it, which it
often does not. So the House and the Senate delegate NEGOTIATING
panels to work out COMPROMISE solutions, in the best of democratic
traditions. But in spite of that, the President, the CEO, who is
elected by popular vote, and thus a direct rep. of the people, still
can VETO a bill if she/he decides it is not in the best of national
interests. However the House and Senate still hold powers over the
President, since they can OVERTURN a presidential veto, if both the
House and the Senate can produce a two thirds majority to do so. In
other words, the popular will could not be thwarted arbitrarily by an
individual in the Presidency.
Therefore in the US system there are three layers of checks and
balances on the legislative functions.
But that is not all, the courts still have the last say on a
piece of legislation. If the law passes thru the House, the Senate and
signed by the President into law, it still could be voided by even a
district court, if it does not meet CONSTITUTIONAL requirements. So
the legislative bodies cannot go and pass a law that is in conflict
with the provisions of the constitution, such as freedom speech,cut
rtailing of individual rights, right to privacy, freedom of
religion,separation of church and state--so on and so forth.
This has enormous ramifications in the
quality of democracy.
I understand where Dhiren da is coming from very well. In fact I
too harped on the unfairness of this lopsided equation of Indian
democracy from day-one in Assam Net. However I am more than a
little surprised that Dhiren-da did not attempt to delve into the
nuances, those critically important elements, of the checks and
balances in constitutional democracy, which he is attempting to strive
for, just like I and you and many others do too. But unless the
details are explained and the nuances highlighted, it would not raise
the discourse to the level of effectiveness. The devotees of the
status quo could still raise their voice to denounce Dhiren-da's
advocacy as UNDEMOCRATIC and he won't be able to defend it.
But there are ways to achieve it, democratically.
I am not familiar how the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha works,
whether they act as checks and balances against each other, or if the
courts have the kind of the authority those in the US have, in
evaluating the constitutionality of legislation. But all indications
are that these checks and balances, like everything else, are
either totally lax or non-existent.
Re: Assam Watch or other NGOs, are ultimately all interest
groups advocating this or that; some good, others of questionable
value, and some may even be corrosive to the public interest. But the
fact remains that the demand for Assam sovereignty -- secession from
India -- is not a matter of a small group of extremists' private
interests. Not everyone subscribes to it. But still the issue, at
best, is a contested one; and is not something fit to be
discarded as a merely a criminal action of a fringe group, regardless
of how a security freak like Ludra might view them as.
In that Assam Watch's activities of advocacy have just as much
legitimacy, if not more, as that of Ludra or RAW or loyal Indians who
deem themselves OWNERS of Assam:-).
c-da
At 8:06 AM -0700 6/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-language: en
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
In the USA,each state elects two senators,regardless of its size or population,which adds upto 100 senators, representing 50 states.Mr.Bezborua is right about the unequal representation of the Indian Parliament.New Delhi is a turf,dominated mostly by the heartland states and in that ambiance, a significant smack cannot be produced by the representatives of the peripheral states.
About Assam Watch--The focus of all the important human rights groups like Amnesty International,World Watch,Helsinki Watch,Human rights Watch ( these are NGOs,unlike Human Rights Commission which is an autonomous body,created by an act of Parliament) have been on the rights of a human being and seek to protect an individual against an mighty state.To the best of my knowledge,they donot advocate dismemberment of long-established political units.By the way,I donot have any knowledge about the writer ( I mean,Mr Ludra).KJD
_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
