India has always been a slave to corruption. Today, the growing middle class has registered a protest by supporting Anna Hazare’s fight against corruption. Without the media’s support, however, Hazare’s protest would have ended with him being arrested, taken to a government hospital, and put on the drip.
That did not happen because commentators, news channels and editors committed themselves openly and vociferously to the movement for a strong Lokpal Bill and sank their teeth into public scandals, refusing to let go. Traditional, passive journalism restricted to reporting events and avoiding value judgments had been finally discarded.
We must remember that caste-, religion- and poverty-based vote banks are still intact. So are mafia outfits serving political parties. The poor do not see the relevance of corruption though they are its victims. Thus, to organise mass support in rural areas for the Lokpal movement might be an uphill journey. However, this movement has a sustainable base.
If the often spontaneous outpouring of support to Hazare’s movement is any indication, mass support will be forthcoming readily and at short notice in urban and semi-urban areas whenever required with continued media support. Anticipating the rapid rise of such a wave, the government surrendered.
The key to sustainability lies in ensuring honest leadership, especially for a movement dedicated to enforcing integrity. Therefore, pushing the father-son duo of Shanti and Prashant Bhushan into the drafting committee was a bad move. The fact that the Bhushans did not step down after failing to defend the UP government’s allocation of farm plots in Noida to them was worse. (When land allotment is opened to the general public, it must be done by drawing lots. If given to favourites, it is just corruption.)
Leaders must be able to defend their honesty convincingly before the media and clear any smears. The pathetic response that the allegations were meant to derail the movement was no defence and will weaken the movement.
There are multiple institutions in the country that are ostensibly engaged in the task of delivering justice. The jurisdictions of many of them overlap. Human rights commissions at the Centre and in the states, women’s commissions, and vigilance commissions with vigilance officers strewn in every department are examples of organisations advertised by a corrupt system to erect the facade of good governance.
They are carefully crafted to be toothless and ineffective and are manned by proven docile bureaucrats least likely to confront the establishment.
These institutions are glorified post offices that receive complaints that they then pass on to state government departments or the police. Ironically, they were set up to rectify the malfunctioning of these very agencies. They are not equipped to carry out investigations and prosecution in a law court. The annual report of the Central Vigilance Commission is stuffed with meaningless statistics of cases and recommendations sent to governments for “further action” and reports called for from them. Thus an independent and adequately empowered Lokpal is essential.
There is a school of thought propagated mainly by the bureaucracy which argues that if the Lokpal were empowered to enquire against senior public servants, it would bring decision-making processes, recommendations and file notes into the open and make them subject to challenge. This, they argue, would paralyse the administration because almost every decision pleases some segments while displeasing others. Offices would be loaded with complaints, there would be a flood of allegations against public functionaries, and decision makers would avoid making decisions or be under pressure to make decisions that are popular but not always the best.
These arguments are false, for the following reasons:
1. There are already laws in place to punish defamation, false complaints and so on. Therefore, unfounded allegations will not be generated though complaints will certainly rise, which should be welcome.
2. Transparency in decision making is desirable though offensive to a corrupt establishment because bureaucrats are comfortable working in dark corners.
3. Bureaucrats are already under pressure from ministers, MPs, MLAs, corporation members, corrupt bosses and powerful vested interests behind closed doors in the present system. If more decisions are opened for public debate through the Lokpal, this sinister pressure caused by secrecy will be reduced.
4. By uniting the executive and the legislature, the party system has lodged immense power in the Indian executive and degraded the legislature to a debating society. A strong Lokpal will be a major step towards diffusing power. It will introduce checks and balances that are crucial for good governance.
Judges, including those of the Supreme Court, cannot enjoy immunity because the judiciary is an important safeguard against arbitrary rule and must not be above investigation, and because courts have themselves now become corrupt. The present procedure is that a judge cannot be investigated without the permission of the chief justice. When the investigating officer (Anti-Corruption Bureau) seeks permission to investigate corruption charges against a judge (on suspicion or complaint), the officer is required to provide evidence first to justify the request. But very often, without some inquiry evidence will not emerge. In this comical situation, it becomes easy to deny permission. The Lokpal will dispense with this procedure.
Ultimately, the Lokpal will only be empowered to investigate and conduct prosecution and not to conduct trial. The main point is that barriers to investigation that protected corrupt public servants for years will be knocked down. These barriers include the procedure to proceed with investigations against judges accused of corruption and the notorious section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that prohibits criminal prosecution of a public servant by a citizen without the permission of the appointing (higher) authority.
It is preferable to give such power to a committee instead of an individual to prevent arbitrariness or capture by vested interests. There could be many models to select members, including the prescription of a qualifying exam and selection by draw of lots. The committee will head a fully equipped team of professionals recruited from the police force and the private sector who will constitute an independent cadre not linked to the department.
The term for the committee members could be six months. If a citizen jury in America can pronounce judgments, let us not fear participatory governance. It is the way to the future.
Finally, let every honest Indian support the demand for a strong Lokpal and not allow the establishment to impose on us yet another sycophant with a title, nominated by those he is mandated to confront in moving against corruption.
0 comments:
Post a Comment