In one month, power passed to Nehru's daughter, Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister from 1966 to 1977. In June 1975, beset with deepening political and economic problems, Mrs. Gandhi declared a state of emergency and suspended many civil liberties.
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Emergency Powers and Democracy
Reading the US Department of State's 'background notes' on India, this part stood out:
In what situations do you think it is acceptable for a democratic leader to declare a state of emergency and suspend civil liberties? What does this say about democracy if when the domestic situation deteriorates a President/Prime Minister must resort to the use of emergency powers (and semi-authoritarian rule)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There would always be a lot of situational factors to consider. The fact that it is happening in the context of a democratic country would be more beneficial to the citizenry as there should be measures in place such as rule of law, separation of powers etc, to either address the ‘emergency’ or help deal with the aftermath, or contest it. Many argue that civil liberties have already been removed under anti-terror legislation in the U.K and U.S. It definitely indicates that the democratic political institutions should be looked into if they are unable to maintain for the state a suitable environment economically and politically and if their only mechanism of defence is the removal of civil liberties. There would be a lot more international pressure today with the United Nations etc, although India was a member in 1975 when they declared this. I guess with a democratic context it would be a balancing situation where the civil liberties are weighed against the states reasons for their removal and whether or not there are other means in which the problem could be rectified, and this result is what would be judged by other states who react accordingly.
ReplyDelete