It’s not about privilege, but accountability
The current stop in Karnataka between the legislature and the media reflects the “gray areas” in the functioning of Indian democracy. To be fair, we must recognize that this is not the first time these conflicts have arisen.
This may be the last. Our democracy seems more eager to present the “privileges” of focusing on “responsibilities.”
It is assumed that these privileges are enjoyed to allow one to exercise and fulfill their responsibilities for oneself.
In this controversy, both sides seem to have turned the battle into a “rights and privileges” rather than “accountability and responsibility.”
During the launch of The National Herald Benglauru, Rahul Gandhi said, “the government requires everyone to be silent,” referring to the Center. These criticisms of the position adopted by the state legislature could also argue that Gandhi’s words were not heard by his party mates.
In the same sense, we also have to ask who will “keep our guard”? What happens if the press that exists to freely and equitably articulate the different contours of the public debate, does not respect and does not respect the norms of fair play. The “fence” that can afford to eat the harvest?
The current situation of stagnation in Karnataka, where the President of the Assembly ordered the police to arrest two journalists for defaming the legislature and its members, has many facets.
First, what constitutes the “privilege” of a chosen house? Can a legislative office, by itself, prevent the press from violating the privileges and the question that must be arbitrated by an institution independent of the two? Opposition MPs have already made assumptions about the President’s motion and asked if the house wanted.
It was also reported that the House’s privilege committee would hesitate to demand the arrest of journalists. In addition, one of the complaints against journalists was presented by the President, when it was the home of a private member.
It is important to ask yourself, when you can have the “power” to take action, does not prudence encourage “to act in moderation” in relation to “the exercise of power”? We must also recognize that the media investigative journalism and the unilateral presentation of various issues leaves much to be desired.
Many reports in the media address a problem or event, either as “black” or “white,” and it is in this context that the article raised the issue of ‘keeping watch. ”
While we respect the unequivocal freedom of the press, it may be useful to think of moderation and the most powerful ombudsman means to deal with the media.
Institutions in a democracy must be respectful, do not require it. Will all the parties involved be willing to go beyond prestige and exercise greater moderation in the interest of the common good?
This does not seem likely, but it is a movement that must begin immediately, so over time, various institutions recognize and respect the role of each as the pillars of mutual democracy.
The political scientist and director of the research center for social sciences and education