Posts
Violating the due process to achieve a goal — and this is admittedly a noble goal — is adding to the problem. It sows the seeds of anarchy. This is trial by the media and trial by a kangaroo court. Who are Anna Hazare, Baba Ramdev or his followers to decide what should or should not be included in the Lokpal Bill? Leave it to Parliament. That’s what you elected them for. Our government is our government. We put them there, and often enough have booted them out every five years if we don’t like them.
Allowing extra-constitutional measures to be used to influence the process of lawmaking sets a dangerous precedent. Today, it’s taking on corruption. How do we know that tomorrow it won’t be used to push some other majority agenda like a fast for constructing Ram temple at Ayodhya; pressurising government to wage a war against Pakistan to resolve Kashmir issue and many more.If the whole bunch of Hindu wings - Shiv Sena, RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal etc throw their weight behind them. Then what?
India’s main strength lies in its ability to have maintained democracy for 63 years while all others who became independent around the same time have failed. The wellspring of the Indian democracy has been the strength of its Constitution and institutions. These are above all issues and above all people. They’re not perfect by any means but need to be upheld to ensure that every issue goes through the same due process. That is democracy. If Anna Hazare or Ramdev have a problem, and do not want to use the courts, then let them deal with them in the ultimate manifestation of public opinion — the ballot box.
Sometimes a sense of unbridled virtue can also subvert democracy. The agitation by civil society activists over the Jan Lokpal Bill is a reminder of this uncomfortable truth. There is a great deal of justified consternation over corruption. The obduracy of the political leadership is testing the patience of citizens. But the movement behind the Jan Lokpal Bill is crossing the lines of reasonableness. It is premised on an institutional imagination that is at best naïve; at worst subversive of representative democracy.
The morality of fasting unto death for a political cause in a constitutional democracy has always been a tricky issue. There is something deeply coercive about fasting unto death. When it is tied to an unparalleled moral eminence, as it is in the case of Anna Hazare or Ramdev, it amounts to blackmail. There may be circumstances, where the tyranny of government is so oppressive, or the moral cause at stake so vital that some such method of protest is called for. But in a functioning constitutional democracy, not having one’s preferred institutional solution to a problem accepted, does not constitute a sufficient reason for the exercise of such coercive moral power. This is not the place to debate when a fast-unto-death is appropriate. But B.R. Ambedkar was surely right, in one of his greatest speeches, to warn that recourse to such methods was opening up a democracy to the “grammar of anarchy”.
If you don’t trust Parliamentary democracy and do not want to participate in the processes, it has in place for people’s participation or even think through ways to reform the system to make it more responsive, what exactly is your alternative? Even with all the corruption within the present system, I would take it over a coercive and totalitarian movement such as Anna Hazare’s where he and his bunch of civil society activists are trying to thrust their version of a Bill down people’s throat through blackmail. The movement is spurious because it misleads people into thinking that it is a fight against corruption when it is basically only a fight to get 5 people’s version of a Bill enacted through coercion. If it was actually a fight against corruption, then where is their blueprint to reform other laws related to corruption, bring in more economic reforms that would take away the government’s discretionary powers and such other matters. It’s clear that this is nothing but a power trip for the activists who do not represent anybody but themselves, but want the power of a elected representative without ever winning or having the capability to win an election. If it were not so, there would have been other civil society activists on the Joint Committee who may not necessarily be supporters of Anna Hazare’s bill but have other ideas of their own.
There is more harm done by so-called “morally upright” people than the ones who do not claim moral uprightness! I have not voted for Anna Hazare or Ramdev, so I do not view him as my representative by any standards. I do not believe in his ideology nor do I support his blackmailing tactics. If he wants to represent people, he better do it through legitimate means ie election. In a democracy, that is the only legitimate means of deciding who is a people’s representative. If he thinks he cannot win an election (as he has said), but wants to enforce his point of view by force, then he wants to wield power to which he is not entitled! It is not the task of a civil society actitvist to draft a Bill. Drafting and debating bills is the primary task of an MP (that’s why he is called a legislator). Civil society can legitimately give its opinions through various points of engagement such as when standing committees invite comments or ministries invite comments for draft bills.
Corruption is a challenge. And public agitation is required to shame government. But it is possible to maintain, in reasonable good faith, that the Jan Lokpal Bill is not necessarily the best, or the only solution to the corruption challenge. The various drafts of the Jan Lokpal Bill are, very frankly, an institutional nightmare. They amount to an unparalleled concentration of power in one institution that will literally be able to summon any institution and command any kind of police, judicial and investigative power. Power, divided in a democracy, can often be alibi for evading responsibility. But it is also a guarantee that the system is not at the mercy of a few good men. Having concentrated immense power, it then displays extraordinary faith in the virtue of those who will wield this power. Why do we think this institution will be incorruptible?
But the demand is premised on an idea that non-elected institutions that do not involve politicians are somehow the only ones that can be trusted. This assumption is false. Institutions of all kinds have succeeded and failed. But the premise of so much accountability discourse is not just contempt of politicians, but contempt of representative democracy. This contempt is reflected in two ways. There are several mechanisms of accountability in place. They have not worked as well as they should; vested interests have subverted them. But interestingly, despite those interests, governments are being called to account. Most of us are as aghast as any of the agitators about the evasions of government. But it does not follow that creating a draconian new institution that diminishes everything from the Prime Minister’s Office to the Supreme Court is a solution. The net result of a “Lokpal” will be to weaken the authority of even other well-functioning institutions. No agitation focuses on sensible, manageable reform of representative institutions; all agitative energies are premised on bypassing them. Perhaps some version of a Lokpal is desirable but deferring to new institutions at the top of the food chain without attending to basics amounts to trying ‘B’ if ‘A’ does not work, is absurd. We should, as citizens, not be subject to the moral coercion of a fast-unto-death on this issue.
But the claim that the “people” are not represented by elected representatives, but are represented by their self-appointed guardians is disturbing. In a democracy, one ought to freely express views. But anyone who claims to be the “authentic” voice of the people is treading on very thin ice indeed. It is a form of Jacobinism that is intoxicated with its own certainties about the people. It is not willing to subject itself to an accountability, least of all to the only mechanism we know of designating representatives: elections. The demand that a Jan Lokpal Bill be drafted jointly by the government and a self-appointed committee of public virtue is absurd. Most of us sharply disagree with elected government on matters even more important than corruption. But no matter how cogent our arguments, it does not give us the right to say that our virtue entitles us to dictate policy to a representative process. In an age of cynicism, Anna Hazare is a colossus of idealism. It is a dangerous illusion to pedal that badly designed new institutions will be a magic wand to remove corruption. All they will do is promote wishful thinking and distract from the myriads of prosaic decisions that will be required to get a better politics.
The nation is energized about Anna Hazare’s fast and Ramdev’s following. But no party is raising a fundamental question. What is the necessity of post or institution called Lokpal? The question can be debated on two levels. First, there is no guarantee that corruption at the top echelons of government will decrease by the appointment of Lokpal. The appointment of Lokayuktas at state levels indicates to the same. But this is minor or superficial level. The main question lies much deeper. Why should there be any need of institutions like Lokayuktas or Lokpals? Whosoever is corrupt should be punished legally. There are laws to prevent corruption. The laws should be applied properly. The responsibility for judging corruption lies with the judicial system. The administration’s responsibility is to investigate and collect necessary evidence for the trial. If the administration doesn’t perform its duty properly, then the judicial system takes the responsibility to get the task done properly. But the crux is-everyone performs the duty which is delegated to him.
Herein lays the logical and fundamental irrelevance of posts like Lokpal or Lokayukta. Why should any other institution carry out the duty of the court? The court itself should get active to implement the prevailing anti-corruption laws to prevent corruption at the top levels of government. The judiciary can recommend creation of stringent laws if necessary. But it is meaningless to create a parallel judicial system for that purpose. That is why in matured democracies of developed countries this kind of parallel institution is a rarity. Two different judicial systems create unnecessary confusion, which can invite major complications in the judicial process. Simultaneously, it is harmful to the dignity of the court. In our country the tendency to create multiple posts or institutions for a single purpose is ancient, well-known, and practically omnipresent. This is a bad habit of Indian society and government. This habit leads to obesity of the government. Accumulation of excess fat is not an indicator of good health. Neither for a person, nor for a country.
But this is just one side of the story. The other side is also important. The presence of a separate judicial system for trial of corruption of high-ranking government officials violates one of the major fundamental rights of democracy. The right that all citizens are equal in eyes of law. If everyone is equal in the eyes of law, then why the corruption cases of government officials can’t be tried in the court where the ‘aam aadmi’ is being tried? Those involved in the movement for methodology for appointment of Lokpal and its legal complexities are not even raising this fundamental question. This indicates, this society is still incapable of understanding the nature of government of a mature, modern democracy. Indian democracy has a long way to go.
Corruption like many other problems is a symptom of poor governance. However as history shows us, in a democracy , these symptoms remain short lived in the long run. The indian republic was founded as a constitutional representative democracy. This is the very basis of India as a nation state , and this basis will never disappear in the long run. A social activist no matter how famous, is undermining the democratically elected government. This creates a precedent that self appointed guardians of our society have the right to browbeat our representative government. While their goal is laudable, their methods call in to question the very legitimacy of our constitution , and the precedent their fasts have set is very dangerous.
Also, the demand that an equal number of civil society activists be involved in the drafting of the Lok pal bill is again unacceptable. The fact is that self appointed citizens cannot hijack the constitutional process of legislation. No man, no matter how noble, can undermine an institution on which our country is democratized, in this case, parliament. The effect of Hazare’s demand is that he implies that he is superior to the institution of parliament.
As a country we need to realize , that corruption is a symptom of ineffective governance. The only way we can eradicate corruption is by concentrating on building our capacities at the rural level. Corruption has only one cure, and that is the principle of democratic accountability which is based on a premise that the voting public shall exercise a rational choice. As long as large swathes of our country are faced with the blight of illiteracy and poverty, voters will never exercise a rational choice. And the elite or the politicians of this country will know that irrespective of the number of scams or scandals they are implicated in, in the end, they only need to trick voters into electing them. If political parties can still hope to get votes by promising a populist handout of a color television, corruption will never leave this country.
Finally, Shouldn’t we stop and ask ourselves why it is that the government was so eager to accede to their hunger strikes, while there have been much more strident efforts for more horrifyingly basic issues of life, homestead and livelihood (I’m thinking of the hunger strikes by the NBA as well as of Irom Sharmila, but there are numerous other examples). Why is a government that has repeatedly proved its ability to simply force feed individuals and therefore stave off the unbearable result of a hunger strike, acceding to this fast even before it has rightly begun? Is it possible that the movement has been so extraordinarily successful because what it does is to reaffirm the current loci of power in its very attempt to counter them? Is this just that literal an example of what Walter Benjamin called law-making violence?
No comments:
Post a Comment