There is today a growing confusion in what is being attempted to be achieved through this anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare today, specially because of the technicalities of the argument against the anti-corruption campaign that has spread across this country like a wildfire.
These technicalities uses words like "parliamentary democracy, supremacy of parliament, sole prerogative of the parliament, constitutional provisions for legislation, extra-constitutional/extra-parliamentary bodies, celebrity activism, kangaroo courts, dictatorship..." Both govt and non-govt spokesmen (state and non-state actors to quote a neighboring country) have unleashed the most malicious propaganda against the "civil society represtatives" invoking all the machinery (CBI, IT, CVC, what not) at their command to discredit these people. So much so that it is now being bandied that the entire political establishment (irrespective of their mask of support for Anna's movement - mainly for political mileage), are actually secretly conniving to trash the Jan Lok Pal Bill once it is tabled in parliament (as they claim supremacy of prerogative to pass a bill and make a law). TV reports also speak of a govt plan to retreat to fight another day - read remove Anna from the field later on to allow the movement run its course, lose steam, and
fizzle out.
And isn't it a simple reason to understand why? Because it is their ilk, their fraternity, who are going to the most affected and exposed, if a body with powers as that envisaged for the Lok Pal, comes into being.
The argument being made is there is no need to have another supervisory body. The fear being propagated is that that this body (or individuals that head it) would acquire demonic proportions and become dictators by dint of the powers vested upon them, and as a result per misguided/misinformation disseminating blogs such as http://mohamediqbalp.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/top-12-reasons-why-anna-hazare-is-wrong-and-lok-pal-a-bad-idea/, being quoted by myopic people, this body would need a super Lok Pal body to regulate it, and this super Lok Pal would in turn need a hyper Lok Pal to regulate it.. and so on and so forth. I agree with some of the contentions in this post, yes... like the need to liberalize and make for economic systems and economics, that reduce the opportunities of corruption, but I am skeptical of many other contentions made by the author and selectively quoted by others). I simply fail to understand why, in these apprehensive situations, these same people propose ways to build provisions into the original Lok Pal to take care of any such personality-driven, individualistic misadventure? Self-regulating mechanism is not hard to build in, it only needs one to rise above individual aspirations and submit oneself to the cause (The same way Ambedkar must have done decades ago, while drafting the constitution). Not only it is ridiculous to trash the creation/formation of a regulatory body with powers to address corruption because of these fears, it is also fraught with inherent danger to repose so much faith in the existing, but totally and unrevokably failed, institutions of democracy today.
Parliament and the constitution is not sacrosant. What Ambedkar proposed in the 40's was under a different set of circumstances and a different set of threats. He, together with all the architects of the nation, must already be turning in their graves, by the twist the cunning, unconscientious, unscrupulous, unprincipled, self-serving, divisive, and corrupt political establishment (with connivance of sections of the bureaucracy and judiciary) has given to what they had envisaged. Ambedkar, with all the visionary attributes he had, must never had imagined that the constitution he and his team so painstakingly drafted, would itself become the refuge for these set of criminal elements to be ideologically twisted to suit their most nefarious schemes and designs to unrepentently loot the nation. It's exactly like how the priests and keepers of religions world over have divisively re-interpreted the divine texts to conveniently suit their desire to hold sway and power over people.
An MMS or Kapil Sibal, or Manish Tiwari may shout out from the rooftops about they being the custodian of a failed institution. They may even have gained armchair supporters of this trend of thought, smugly optimistic about the faith they have reposed in these set of goons, who call themselves parliamentians - most of whom have got themselves elected due to a corruption-laden election process (mostly through election funding processes of the unscrupulous kind)! I reiterate my assertions that there is a very very thin line between optimism and foolishness, and the earlier people self realize and self actualize, the better it would be for them to accept the inevitable. We, at the other end, have nothing to lose... if nothing changes, we still go on living our lives in the corruption-prone environment we have gotten used to, maybe even live with the smirk of these people with their "I-told-you-so" expressions. But, if some change indeed happens as a result of this movement, I would be very sad at the unpalatable taste it will leave in such people's mouth!
Yes, we the people are responsible of electing them to the high-pedestal of democracy, the parliament, but it has been largely due to the fact that we don't have better alternatives. The intellectual and the honorable community mostly keep away from the election process because they have neither the guile, cunning, clout, and the black money to sway the largely gullible and illiterate voters. So we keep on electing the same set of goons, who keep exploiting the nation under the garb of what they think is their God-gifted right to Rule (read Rule, not govern or serve - as the constitution actually prescribes) over the population.
Even in its current form, the constitution provides for the voice of the people to consider in drafting legislature, specially it is when they are the most affected. Elections once in five year IS NOT a god-given divine right to Rule and Loot. The constitution says that elected representatives are to serve the people who elects them, not the other way round. The writing is on the wall... the current movement is the reassertion of the will of the people to reclaim some of their constitutional rights. It is not only foolish not to seize this moment, it is also criminal to let this opportunity pass!
My question is... if we have to amputate a gangrened arm or leg the existence of which threatens the entire body, why can't we at least find a way to repair the provisions of the constitution that has over the years begun to malfunction and been taken advantage of blatantly... and repeatedly? We have enough years of experience as a mature nation for a few good men with "IMPECCABLE INTEGRITY" (without being cynical about it), to find the loopholes been exploited over the years by these dirty politicians and come out with momentous modifications to the legistative draft. On the question of who could be these people with impeccable integrity? Why, it could be you (if you consider yourself one), or me, or Anna and team, or T N Seshan, or J Lyndoh, or APJ Abdul Kalam, or Narayan Murthy, or even some members of the current parliament (if there are any members left with conscience)... Anybody who is willing to partake and participate, of course under the guidance of constitutional experts, could be part of this process. Very recently, countries like Iceland and Ukraine have gone about and adopted re-drafted constitutions, because the earlier ones had run their course and desperately needed to be rehauled! Why can't our nation show maturity and undertake that exercise too?
The Jan Lok Pal Bill is in no way perfect, I concede. But it's definitely a huge step ahead in tackling corruption in this country, and definitely many steps ahead of what the Government proposes as a Jokepal. It is neither a knee-jerk reaction as many people contends, nor just an ambitious aspirations of a rag-tag coalition of members of the civil society. It is not only naïve, but also ignorance, one the part of anyone who considers the idea of an overarching anti-corruption body as a knee-jerk reaction to today’s environment of graft. To quote a prominent parliamentarian, “In the annals of the Indian Parliament, no Bill has had a more chequered history than the Lokpal Bill”. The first Jan Lokpal bill was introduced (and also passed, if you so know) in the Loksabha as early as 1969! It could not but get through the Rajya Sabha. Subsequently, Lokpal bills were introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005, and in 2008, yet they were never passed!! 42 years after its first introduction, the Lokpal bill is still pending in India… Each time, after the bill was introduced to the house, it was referred to some committee for improvements (a joint committee of parliament, or a departmental standing committee of the Home Ministry) and before governments could take a final stand on the issue, the house got dissolved (sic!). How many more years do we have to be patient and trusting of the established institutions to address this issue of bringing an anti-corruption body to watch over (mostly) their misdeeds?! In the global corruption perception index published in 2010 by Transparency International, India languishes at #87, and even if we allow for a 5% error quotient in the methodology of the study, I (and millions of other Indians like me) DO NOT relish being there. It is no place to be for a country known (I think “touted” is the better word today) to have one of the strongest moral fabrics and foundations in our historical, cultural, and social legacies in this world. Nor are we willing to wait patiently and endlessly for the existing lot of “elected representatives (thus legitimate goons)” alone to bring about a change in the public administration of this country. Yes, we are despondent… 1966 till now is a long time for this nation to have waited for an effective and meaningful Lokpal Bill to be passed. Our elected representatives started working on it before I was born, and I am afraid, they will still be working on it, till after I am dead, patiently having waited for them to do something!
When it comes to the question of the quantum of powers to be reposed in this body, it is imperative that it is empowered enough to drive in the scare of the law among those who knowingly commits graft. It is left to nobody’s imagination that today the entire buck of corruption in all spheres of lives today stops at the desk of the administrative and political body administering that domain. It is naïve to consider that political and administrative machinery will be paralyzed and work will stop for fear of admonishment by a powerful anti-corruption body. It is no less falling prey to the machinations of those who commit graft to agree to the argument that (political, administrative, or business) rivals will take advantage of this body to ensure no work gets done. What we possibly forget while we indulge in this intellectual auto-eroticism is that we were playing right into the hands of the political forces which have kept this bill at bay for 45 years, and will leave no stone unturned to keep this as such for the next 45. The psycho-babble emanating from various quarters seems to have mauled our collective senses, making us little realize that when a debate gets sucked into the vortex of some serious egoistical chest-thumping and intellectual self-projection, it just about sounds the death knell on any position other than a status quo – exactly as desired by the current regime in governance.
Agreeing to these charges only reinforces the fact that we, the citizens of this country, have accepted corruption as the only way to get work done. Yes, I agree that a Lokpal may not root out all everything corrupt – practices along with their perpetrators – but does NOT having one solve the problem?
What I don’t understand is continual reference to failed states such as Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, and their ilk (most of which do not have any history with a parliamentary democratic form of governance) when we discuss the possible fallouts of implementing a Lokpal system as an institution. Why don’t we talk about the successful implementation of the Lokpal system (ombudsperson, as they are called there) in the Scandinavian countries, which has played a very effective role in checking corruption and wrong-doing? These countries make a clear distinction between the individual and the chair the individual occupies. Whilst the chair is granted constitutional immunity and protection against any motivated campaign against it, the individual occupying it is not! The individual is as accountable and answerable to the ombudsperson for charges of graft as is any other member of the polity. The ombudsperson institution has an inbuilt check-and-balance system of identifying and bringing to book any frivolous or malicious attempts to wrongfully discredit an officer of the government. Exoneration by the ombudsperson from charges of graft automatically reinstates the individuals (with their dignity intact) to the chair they had been removed from to defend themselves in the court of the ombudsperson.
Yes, I agree that the functioning of this body cannot be allowed to paralyze the functioning of established (some of which are no less than failed) institutions, most notably of that of the office of the Prime Minister and The Chief Justice of India, the contentious two offices in today’s debate. So fine, go ahead and identify those extraordinary situations – those concerning national security, breakdown of law and order, etc. – in which the Lokpal will not have jurisdiction. You cannot NOT have a strong Lokpal because of that argument! To make a far-fetched idiom relevant, elephant dung may not be the answer to elephantiasis, but it doesn’t mean you leave elephantiasis untreated for never-ending time and wait for gangrene to set in and ripen the infected part for amputation.
Nothing may come out of this movement, but I will rest in peace knowing I tried to change what I have been cribbing about day in and day out, and will continue to have to do so for God knows how many more years. I will at least not have my conscience to deal with by attempting to dissuade my sphere of influence with cock-and-bull assertions of malafide recourse to misguided ideological discussions.
These technicalities uses words like "parliamentary democracy, supremacy of parliament, sole prerogative of the parliament, constitutional provisions for legislation, extra-constitutional/extra-parliamentary bodies, celebrity activism, kangaroo courts, dictatorship..." Both govt and non-govt spokesmen (state and non-state actors to quote a neighboring country) have unleashed the most malicious propaganda against the "civil society represtatives" invoking all the machinery (CBI, IT, CVC, what not) at their command to discredit these people. So much so that it is now being bandied that the entire political establishment (irrespective of their mask of support for Anna's movement - mainly for political mileage), are actually secretly conniving to trash the Jan Lok Pal Bill once it is tabled in parliament (as they claim supremacy of prerogative to pass a bill and make a law). TV reports also speak of a govt plan to retreat to fight another day - read remove Anna from the field later on to allow the movement run its course, lose steam, and
fizzle out.
And isn't it a simple reason to understand why? Because it is their ilk, their fraternity, who are going to the most affected and exposed, if a body with powers as that envisaged for the Lok Pal, comes into being.
The argument being made is there is no need to have another supervisory body. The fear being propagated is that that this body (or individuals that head it) would acquire demonic proportions and become dictators by dint of the powers vested upon them, and as a result per misguided/misinformation disseminating blogs such as http://mohamediqbalp.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/top-12-reasons-why-anna-hazare-is-wrong-and-lok-pal-a-bad-idea/, being quoted by myopic people, this body would need a super Lok Pal body to regulate it, and this super Lok Pal would in turn need a hyper Lok Pal to regulate it.. and so on and so forth. I agree with some of the contentions in this post, yes... like the need to liberalize and make for economic systems and economics, that reduce the opportunities of corruption, but I am skeptical of many other contentions made by the author and selectively quoted by others). I simply fail to understand why, in these apprehensive situations, these same people propose ways to build provisions into the original Lok Pal to take care of any such personality-driven, individualistic misadventure? Self-regulating mechanism is not hard to build in, it only needs one to rise above individual aspirations and submit oneself to the cause (The same way Ambedkar must have done decades ago, while drafting the constitution). Not only it is ridiculous to trash the creation/formation of a regulatory body with powers to address corruption because of these fears, it is also fraught with inherent danger to repose so much faith in the existing, but totally and unrevokably failed, institutions of democracy today.
Parliament and the constitution is not sacrosant. What Ambedkar proposed in the 40's was under a different set of circumstances and a different set of threats. He, together with all the architects of the nation, must already be turning in their graves, by the twist the cunning, unconscientious, unscrupulous, unprincipled, self-serving, divisive, and corrupt political establishment (with connivance of sections of the bureaucracy and judiciary) has given to what they had envisaged. Ambedkar, with all the visionary attributes he had, must never had imagined that the constitution he and his team so painstakingly drafted, would itself become the refuge for these set of criminal elements to be ideologically twisted to suit their most nefarious schemes and designs to unrepentently loot the nation. It's exactly like how the priests and keepers of religions world over have divisively re-interpreted the divine texts to conveniently suit their desire to hold sway and power over people.
An MMS or Kapil Sibal, or Manish Tiwari may shout out from the rooftops about they being the custodian of a failed institution. They may even have gained armchair supporters of this trend of thought, smugly optimistic about the faith they have reposed in these set of goons, who call themselves parliamentians - most of whom have got themselves elected due to a corruption-laden election process (mostly through election funding processes of the unscrupulous kind)! I reiterate my assertions that there is a very very thin line between optimism and foolishness, and the earlier people self realize and self actualize, the better it would be for them to accept the inevitable. We, at the other end, have nothing to lose... if nothing changes, we still go on living our lives in the corruption-prone environment we have gotten used to, maybe even live with the smirk of these people with their "I-told-you-so" expressions. But, if some change indeed happens as a result of this movement, I would be very sad at the unpalatable taste it will leave in such people's mouth!
Yes, we the people are responsible of electing them to the high-pedestal of democracy, the parliament, but it has been largely due to the fact that we don't have better alternatives. The intellectual and the honorable community mostly keep away from the election process because they have neither the guile, cunning, clout, and the black money to sway the largely gullible and illiterate voters. So we keep on electing the same set of goons, who keep exploiting the nation under the garb of what they think is their God-gifted right to Rule (read Rule, not govern or serve - as the constitution actually prescribes) over the population.
Even in its current form, the constitution provides for the voice of the people to consider in drafting legislature, specially it is when they are the most affected. Elections once in five year IS NOT a god-given divine right to Rule and Loot. The constitution says that elected representatives are to serve the people who elects them, not the other way round. The writing is on the wall... the current movement is the reassertion of the will of the people to reclaim some of their constitutional rights. It is not only foolish not to seize this moment, it is also criminal to let this opportunity pass!
My question is... if we have to amputate a gangrened arm or leg the existence of which threatens the entire body, why can't we at least find a way to repair the provisions of the constitution that has over the years begun to malfunction and been taken advantage of blatantly... and repeatedly? We have enough years of experience as a mature nation for a few good men with "IMPECCABLE INTEGRITY" (without being cynical about it), to find the loopholes been exploited over the years by these dirty politicians and come out with momentous modifications to the legistative draft. On the question of who could be these people with impeccable integrity? Why, it could be you (if you consider yourself one), or me, or Anna and team, or T N Seshan, or J Lyndoh, or APJ Abdul Kalam, or Narayan Murthy, or even some members of the current parliament (if there are any members left with conscience)... Anybody who is willing to partake and participate, of course under the guidance of constitutional experts, could be part of this process. Very recently, countries like Iceland and Ukraine have gone about and adopted re-drafted constitutions, because the earlier ones had run their course and desperately needed to be rehauled! Why can't our nation show maturity and undertake that exercise too?
The Jan Lok Pal Bill is in no way perfect, I concede. But it's definitely a huge step ahead in tackling corruption in this country, and definitely many steps ahead of what the Government proposes as a Jokepal. It is neither a knee-jerk reaction as many people contends, nor just an ambitious aspirations of a rag-tag coalition of members of the civil society. It is not only naïve, but also ignorance, one the part of anyone who considers the idea of an overarching anti-corruption body as a knee-jerk reaction to today’s environment of graft. To quote a prominent parliamentarian, “In the annals of the Indian Parliament, no Bill has had a more chequered history than the Lokpal Bill”. The first Jan Lokpal bill was introduced (and also passed, if you so know) in the Loksabha as early as 1969! It could not but get through the Rajya Sabha. Subsequently, Lokpal bills were introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005, and in 2008, yet they were never passed!! 42 years after its first introduction, the Lokpal bill is still pending in India… Each time, after the bill was introduced to the house, it was referred to some committee for improvements (a joint committee of parliament, or a departmental standing committee of the Home Ministry) and before governments could take a final stand on the issue, the house got dissolved (sic!). How many more years do we have to be patient and trusting of the established institutions to address this issue of bringing an anti-corruption body to watch over (mostly) their misdeeds?! In the global corruption perception index published in 2010 by Transparency International, India languishes at #87, and even if we allow for a 5% error quotient in the methodology of the study, I (and millions of other Indians like me) DO NOT relish being there. It is no place to be for a country known (I think “touted” is the better word today) to have one of the strongest moral fabrics and foundations in our historical, cultural, and social legacies in this world. Nor are we willing to wait patiently and endlessly for the existing lot of “elected representatives (thus legitimate goons)” alone to bring about a change in the public administration of this country. Yes, we are despondent… 1966 till now is a long time for this nation to have waited for an effective and meaningful Lokpal Bill to be passed. Our elected representatives started working on it before I was born, and I am afraid, they will still be working on it, till after I am dead, patiently having waited for them to do something!
When it comes to the question of the quantum of powers to be reposed in this body, it is imperative that it is empowered enough to drive in the scare of the law among those who knowingly commits graft. It is left to nobody’s imagination that today the entire buck of corruption in all spheres of lives today stops at the desk of the administrative and political body administering that domain. It is naïve to consider that political and administrative machinery will be paralyzed and work will stop for fear of admonishment by a powerful anti-corruption body. It is no less falling prey to the machinations of those who commit graft to agree to the argument that (political, administrative, or business) rivals will take advantage of this body to ensure no work gets done. What we possibly forget while we indulge in this intellectual auto-eroticism is that we were playing right into the hands of the political forces which have kept this bill at bay for 45 years, and will leave no stone unturned to keep this as such for the next 45. The psycho-babble emanating from various quarters seems to have mauled our collective senses, making us little realize that when a debate gets sucked into the vortex of some serious egoistical chest-thumping and intellectual self-projection, it just about sounds the death knell on any position other than a status quo – exactly as desired by the current regime in governance.
Agreeing to these charges only reinforces the fact that we, the citizens of this country, have accepted corruption as the only way to get work done. Yes, I agree that a Lokpal may not root out all everything corrupt – practices along with their perpetrators – but does NOT having one solve the problem?
What I don’t understand is continual reference to failed states such as Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, and their ilk (most of which do not have any history with a parliamentary democratic form of governance) when we discuss the possible fallouts of implementing a Lokpal system as an institution. Why don’t we talk about the successful implementation of the Lokpal system (ombudsperson, as they are called there) in the Scandinavian countries, which has played a very effective role in checking corruption and wrong-doing? These countries make a clear distinction between the individual and the chair the individual occupies. Whilst the chair is granted constitutional immunity and protection against any motivated campaign against it, the individual occupying it is not! The individual is as accountable and answerable to the ombudsperson for charges of graft as is any other member of the polity. The ombudsperson institution has an inbuilt check-and-balance system of identifying and bringing to book any frivolous or malicious attempts to wrongfully discredit an officer of the government. Exoneration by the ombudsperson from charges of graft automatically reinstates the individuals (with their dignity intact) to the chair they had been removed from to defend themselves in the court of the ombudsperson.
Yes, I agree that the functioning of this body cannot be allowed to paralyze the functioning of established (some of which are no less than failed) institutions, most notably of that of the office of the Prime Minister and The Chief Justice of India, the contentious two offices in today’s debate. So fine, go ahead and identify those extraordinary situations – those concerning national security, breakdown of law and order, etc. – in which the Lokpal will not have jurisdiction. You cannot NOT have a strong Lokpal because of that argument! To make a far-fetched idiom relevant, elephant dung may not be the answer to elephantiasis, but it doesn’t mean you leave elephantiasis untreated for never-ending time and wait for gangrene to set in and ripen the infected part for amputation.
Nothing may come out of this movement, but I will rest in peace knowing I tried to change what I have been cribbing about day in and day out, and will continue to have to do so for God knows how many more years. I will at least not have my conscience to deal with by attempting to dissuade my sphere of influence with cock-and-bull assertions of malafide recourse to misguided ideological discussions.
No comments:
Post a Comment