Actually I still want to write that post about the foreign origins issue even though it is moot now, but it will turn out to be a long one and I won’t have the time for it for some time. So I want you people to do the hard work for me.
Defenders of Sonia Gandhi’s becoming PM point to the fact that she is a citizen and hence she is entitled to the post, period. Yazad asks me if I am having second thoughts about the rule of law, which is one of the principles I hold dear.
Actually no. But a law is supposed to have a rationale behind it. So my question is, why have the citizenship requirement at all?
I am not being facetious. I am asking Sonia defenders to come up with a serious answer to the question of why we insist that only citizens can stand for elections in India. For example, if we voters think that Margaret Thatcher is the right person to run India for a short period, shouldn’t we be able to elect her? Or, take a citizen of another country who is a long-term resident in India. Take a citizen of Nepal who is in India as an expatriate manager. Let’s assume that he has a (Nepali) wife who is really interested in the affairs of the city where they are currently staying. Shouldn’t she at least have the right to stand for municipal elections there?
I know that I am stretching the examples here, but that is not the point. The point is: the law is constraining the rights of the citizens to elect whom they want. My question is, why? Why shouldn’t we trust the judgment of the voters in this case?
I am sure we let non-citizens live and work here, and that I think is right. Ultimately it is a question of the rights of Indian citizens to do business with whom they want, including with non-citizens. Why do we make an exception for those who run our government? In fact, we also let one class of non-citizens to be our soldiers (Nepali Gorkhas). But even there the same question arises. Why don’t we hire whoever wishes to join our army, regardless of citizenship?
Please pretend that this is a serious question. What I really want to do is find the reason why we let only citizens stand for elections, and see where the reasoning takes me in Sonia’s case.
Economically it could be seen as signalling. If a person gives up their native citizenship, and volutarily becomes an Indian citizen, he/she signals that they have some extraordinary love of India. A person who really loves India, maybe more than the first person, but has not bothered getting citizenship is not making enough of an effort and is thus disqualified.
This is the argument used to explain why people with more education get higher wages, even if less educated people are more competent. The guys with the MBA or the PhD have signalled that they are capable of long hours of hard work.
I hate to do this to you, but it had to be done.
On a tangent, was there ever an incidence where (other than conquests, or s some sort of merger between two kingdoms (a maraige of convenience?) )an alien lead a kingdom/country?
Yazad, Yazad,
May I remind you of a wonderful line from “Yes Prime Minister”?
“Aggressive questions are like fast bowling. Unless it is deadly accurate, you can use the pace in your favour.”
Ravikiran, I would tend to agree with Yazad when he uses the slippery slope fallacy on this post of yours.
Your hypothesis that “the law is constraining the rights of the citizens to elect whom they want” can quite easily be taken down the slope to “the law is constraining the rights of the citizens to do anything they want” as almost each law(not just those related to elections and foreigners) will prevent some citizen from doing something s/he wants.
So your question really is, paraphrasing Yazad, “why have laws”?
Come on Ravikiran, did not expect this from you. The elementary fallacy of Slippery Slope?
Ravages, have a look at this post on my blog:
An Italian and Two Frenchmen (http://www.freerindia.com/gautam/archives/000066.html)
[PS: Ravi, I hope you don’t consider this spam :D]