THE CONTEXT: Since liberalisation in 1991, the audiovisual media has undergone a massive transformation. From the freeing of broadcast media from government control to spread of internet have prompted an explosion in the quantity, if not quality of media offerings. In the process, Indian journalism have changed in style as well as substance drastically as well.

ISSUES

• Privileging sensation over substance: Currently media is driven by the “breaking news” culture and competing just for sensation and rating points. Media has given up any pretence of providing a public service and privileging sensation over substance.
• Social media: Social media with its culture of unverified fact and viral opinion compounds the problem as it offers a ready platform for material that pass without any scrutiny.
• Print media: Matter are not much better in the print media as well despite its ability to provide context, depth, and analysis that television cannot provide. As, with rise of social media and relentless 24×7 breaking news cycle pressurise print media to publish without the traditional recourse to fact-checking.
• Rush to judgement: In a rush to air the story, media has fallen prey to the inevitable rush to judgment. In this way it serves simultaneously as witness, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. Media has become an agent of malicious allegation and charges are reported uncritically which cause the irreparable damage to innocent people’s reputations.
• Distortion of facts: There has left no distinctions among fact, opinion and speculation, reportage and rumour which has blurred the relevance of today’s Indian media.
• Affects democratic structure: The media’s obsession with the superficial and the sensational news trivialises public discourse. It turns down the media responsibility in democracy as it serves as a weapon of mass distraction from the public from the question of accountability.

THE WAY FORWARD

• Ensure free press: An independent press and news-media press act as an important check on Government and Administrators. Therefore, there is a need for free and professional media which is honest and efficient to serve as both mirror to society and to probe wrongdoings.
• Enforce culture of fact verification: There is a need to promote a culture of fact-verification and accuracy that the industry currently appears to lack. Journalists should not feel pressed by their employers to “break the news”, but empowered to hold stories until they are sure their facts and accusations are accurate. The rush to judgment on the basis of partial information must stop.
• Training: There is a need to insist on better journalistic training at accredited media institutes that emphasise values of accuracy, integrity and fairness in their students. These standards should extend to media organisations when misleading statements are published, these outlets should issue retractions with equal prominence.
• Ensuring diverse perspectives: There is a need to welcome different perspectives in our newsrooms and not allow them to become echo chambers forcing an opinion onto their viewers. Newsrooms must be required to maintain a more diverse journalistic environment and must be required to provide some space for the alternative view.
• Welcoming feedback: The journalists must welcome comments and feedback from their viewers and readers, to generate both an environment of trust between the consumers and the media. For example, The Hindu is one of the newspapers to have a Readers’ Editor who serves as an Ombudsman for the newspaper and acknowledges mistakes of fact or emphasis in the newspaper’s coverage. This helps drive a natural cycle of loyalty and engagement between the paper and its readers.
• Laws and regulations: The government must introduce laws and regulations that limit control of multiple news organisations by a single business or political entity, thereby encouraging an independent and robust press in the country.
• Independent regulator: There is a need for an independent supervisor or regulator for print and television news companies, as recommended by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the parliamentary Committee on Information Technology. It would help limit the power of corporate and political over our media and help promote media standards.

THE CONCLUSION:

The media which is referred as fourth Estate have slipped from its true place in India is a serious concern for democracy.  For India to emerge as a responsible global player in the world and a model for 21st-century democracy, there is need of accountable and responsible media serving as the fourth pillar of our democracy.

UPSC PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTION

Q.1 Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy. (2017)

Q.2 “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have a profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss. (2020)

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTIONS

Q.1 Free and independent media are the lifeblood of our democracy. Discuss the significance of the statement and suggest measures that needs to be taken to ensure the freedom of press.

Q.2 The free press is both the mortar that binds together the bricks of our country’s freedom, and the open window embedded in those bricks. Comment.

SOURCE: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/indian-media-quo-vadis/article67753206.ece

THE CONTEXT: A fundamental purpose of democracy is to establish processes to negotiate differences among a diverse population that coexist. India’s leadership has put it above other countries in the international scenario but facing certain challenges. In this context, with the upcoming elections near the corner, India needs to set an example for the world to reset and bring back good faith in its politics.

ISSUES:

• Behaviour of ruling regime: The ruling regime has recently behaved impatiently in the Parliament even for democratic formalities. It has wielded state power in wholly undemocratic ways to neutralise the Opposition and clampdown on dissent.
• Stand of opposition: There is a section of the Opposition, especially civil society, which has pursued a strategy of embarrassing the government. It is not just that there is ideological opposition to the government but it is very clear that this section refuses to acknowledge the very legitimacy of the government.
• Erosion of faith: Decline of good faith in politics has resulted in a mindless rivalry where only the most partisan can prosper as opposed to those motivated by the public interest. This status quo, if left unaddressed, would be tragic for country.
• Issue of anti-defection law: There is another concern of anti-defection law which subverts representative democracy by constraining legislators to party leadership’s order. There has not been enough discussion on the effects of the anti-defection law on inner party democracy and issue-based mobilisation across parties.
• Lack of intra party transparency: It is a common knowledge that power in all political parties has concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. While political parties are notionally democratic, in-house elections lack transparency.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• Acknowledge the behaviour on both sides: There are a range of behaviours by the government but also those opposed to the government which need to be acknowledged from the both sides. There is no need for more explanation on the government’s misuse of state power, which includes defections, imprisonment, and intimidation.
• Role of individuals: Individuals of all ideological inclinations, who value civility and moderation in the politics, can play a crucial role. Many of these individuals wield influence within politically relevant institutions, either officially or through their networks. This group can play a pivotal role in restoring basic democratic principles in our public life by exerting influence.
• Reform with party system: Though partisanship is an important driver of multi-party democracy but constant demands for a blind, aggressive allegiance will only make partisanship and cynicism worse. Instead, party members must use their influence to restrain their own party’s excesses and reorient focus towards substantive issues.
• Address anti defection: There is a need to develop consensus of individuals across party lines on getting rid of the anti-defection law to limit potential instability in political parties. Also, dispersal of power to party’s elected representatives can create avenues for internal negotiations as well as horizontal issue-based mobilisation.
• Media’s role needs scrutiny: The mass media plays a pivotal role in opinion-making and instead of informing the electorate, the media often contributes to polarisation. It is in the interest of every citizen to promote responsible journalism and rebuild trust in the media. Individuals with influence over their party or media institutions can help create an environment to support a more public-interest media.

THE CONCLUSION:

India, like many other liberal democracies, is at a similar crossroads of ideological diversities. Therefore, concerned citizens across the ideological divide needs to come together to restore trust in our political institutions and preserve our democratic framework.

UPSC PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS

Q. Parliament’s power to amend the constitution is limited power and it cannot be enlarged into absolute power”. In light of this statement, explain whether parliament under article 368 of the constitution can destroy the basic structure of the constitution by expanding its amending power? (2019)

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTIONS

Q. Faith in India’s political institutions seems at its lowest with the erosion of its credibility. Critically examine the statement and suggest ways to restore trust in politics.

SOURCE: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/bringing-back-faith-in-indias-politics/article67710670.ece

THE CONTEXT: The  suspension of more than 140 MPs is being seen merely as a political contest between the government and the Opposition. However, it is rather the expression of a radical change in this regime which is collapse of parliamentary democracy.

ISSUES:

• Unconstitutional concentration of power: The biggest challenge is the pseudo constitutional appearances of terminologies. The rules of procedure, legal redress, constitutional morality, institutions or even the terminology of parliamentary democracy is not appropriate. The recourse to this formal language of democracy serves increasingly to provide a unconstitutional concentration of power.
• Parliament as dead institution: The weakening of Parliament leads to accretion of a disproportionate power in other institutions, disregard the system of checks and balances, and Parliament is effectively now seen as dead as an institution.
• Misuse of press: The media which is a site of public opinion formation recklessly worships power, or even creates appropriate diversions for it.
• Separation of power: The separation of powers has long been dead as an idea and in most parliamentary democracies, executive and legislative power has increasingly been fused. This has been a process long in the making and has roots in the nature of party government.
• Not a representative institution: For Parliament without Opposition is simply the unbridled power of the executive. It is not a representative institution, but a Parliament that now rests entirely in the persona of the leader.
• Personification of popular will: Democracy now is about the personification of popular will. This is the popular will institutionalised in a single person and enacted through the party. In this conception, the person wields power, without any seriously effective constitutional limitations. This leads to elected dictatorship and unprecedented concentration of power and monopolisation of all organs of the state.
• Monopolisation of power: Monopolisation of power is altering the fundamental nature of our regime, it is nothing short of a constitutional coup d’etat. Civil liberties are weakened to give the government more powers of surveillance and control. The three criminal code bills that the Lok Sabha has just passed and the Telecommunications Bill are just the two most recent instances.

THE WAY FORWARD

• Democratic Participation: Disruptions in Parliament are necessarily counter-productive. Thus, the government needs to be more democratic and allow the opposition to put their ideas in a free manner.
• Ensure productivity of parliament: There is a need to monitor the productivity of the day-to-day working of both Houses of Parliament. The overall productivity of the session also can be studied and disseminated to the public on a weekly basis.
• Ensure political accountability: There is a need to ensure political accountability. It can be done by allowing proper representation and right to seek answers and hold the government accountable to the parliament to ensure their responsiveness.

THE CONCLUSION:

There are diverse and often competing, even conflicting, views in political discourse. However, the plurality of views is the very essence of parliamentary democracy. The ability and willingness of the ruling party and the opposition to engage in a dialogue serve to demonstrate accountability in public governance.

PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS

Q.1 Explain the structure of the Parliamentary Committee system. How far have the financial committees helped in the institutionalisation of the Indian Parliament? (2023)

Q.2 Discuss the role of Presiding Officers of state legislatures in maintaining order and impartiality in conducting legislative work and in facilitating best democratic practices.(2023)

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION

Q.1 “Mass suspensions of legislators not only undermines principles of representative democracy but also leads to executive captures of parliamentary democracy.” Comment.

SOURCE: https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/imfs-message-9078117/