Again, before I write this piece, I have to make the standard disclosure. I am not against Anna or the Lokpal Bill. I like everyone else, also think that corruption is a menace that the country can ill-afford and every effort must be made to remove it to the extent possible. I give credit to Anna for having brought corruption into the mainstream. But this is where my appreciation stops. And my worries take over. Anna appears to have become trapped by a desire for populism.....a desire to cater to the mood of the public. A mood whose author he himself is. He perhaps realizes that all is not well with his proposals. But it’s now proving to be very difficult for him to change his stance. In a way, Anna is trapped in populism.....
Since the first agitation in April this year, there has been a lot of time to analyze Anna’s specific proposals in greater detail. Numerous debates have brought out the pros and cons of of his proposal. Today, we are much better equipped to understand his specific proposals.
In my interactions with people, I find that I can classify them into two buckets. One – and admittedly the larger bucket – is made up of the “common” people. The general public. Without doubt, Anna has struck a chord with this group. Most of these people support Anna’s movement to the hilt, though most don’t understand the specific points raised in his Bill. Hardly anyone has actually read his draft. Most know that Anna is fighting the political class – and that brings great joy to them. On the other hand, there is the “intelligentsia” that has now analyzed Anna’s proposals from a far more practical stand-point. They are the experts, so to say. Those who have experience in law, politics, governance, jurisprudence.....global experience etc. And the opinion emerging from this class is clear: That several of Anna’s proposals are downright impractical.
For eg., the demand to include the judiciary under the purview of the Lokpal is considered by most to be a wrong demand. The cornerstone of any democracy is the separation of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary from each other. I might add “Media” to this list of august institutions. These are the four “pillars” as it were of any democracy. They need to work independently of each other, but should co-ordinate their actions with each other. If the absolute independence of any of these pillars is curbed, it will harm our democracy. Clearly, the judiciary must be kept out of the purview of the Lokpal. Take limiting the reach of the Lokpal to the higher echelons of bureaucracy as another example. Again, experts are of the view that to expect one single body to handle corruption charges against the entire system is impractical. I have argued in the past that this will make the Lokpal an extremely large organization – maybe having 20-30 thousand employees. It will become a bureaucracy in itself. There will be no way to prevent this bureaucracy from itself becoming corrupt. Thus, most experts are of the opinion that the Lokpal should focus on the highest levels of corruption (someone called it “spectacular” corruption in last night’s TV debate on NDTV) – involving ministers, senior bureaucrats and the types. Again, Anna must back off on this point. To be fair to the government, it has agreed to include the seniormost people under the Lokpal, not the juniormost. If it had been the opposite, one could have accused the government of protecting the big daddies. Now, all ministers can be prosecuted without any permissions being required. This is a big success for Anna.
Take the selection committee for choosing the members of the Lokpal. I think the government’s proposal is a fairly balanced one with only a slight advantage being wielded by the government. There are three politicians from the ruling party – the PM, the Speaker and one more Minister – while there are two from the opposition – the leaders of both house of Parliament. The rest are supposed to be apolitical people from the judiciary and other walks of life. I think we need to let the government have this slight edge so that we can see what “style” of governance and leadership they bring to the table. For instance, if the Congress is a corrupt party as many claim it is, it may attempt to push in weak members.....but at least we will know what it is up to. Likewise, a good party (is there one?!) will try to bring in good people and again, we will be able to see this. If on the other hand, the opposition has a stronger hand, then it will take all the calls, but the ruling party will have to take the flak. Similarly, on the Lokpal members itself, the government’s proposal is not half as bad as Anna’s team makes it out to be. There is one Chairman, who is a member of the Judiciary (not a politician). Four others are also from the judiciary. So a majority is apolitical.....
The main bone of contention is including the PM within the ambit of the Lokpal. Here, the opinion from the experts is that a blanket inclusion of the PM is not a good idea because of the way this can hobble the government. Ex-CJI’s including Justice Venkatchelliah have also said that the PM must be kept out. Besides, it’s not as if the PM is being kept out of the purview for ever. Once he/she demits office, charges can be brought against the PM also. I would prefer to include the PM under the Lokpal.....but I am quite ok to accept this proposal also.
Frankly, on nany points, there is a case for Anna to scale back. But here-in lies the problem. If Anna was to agree to any changes, he will be seen as “compromising”. Anna is probably worried that his followers will be upset with him for “climbing down”. In many ways, we are to blame for this. Just look at the words we use to describe a process of negotiation. “Compromise”, “climb down” are hardly the kind of words that Anna wants to associate himself with. Anna would anyday prefer to be seen as “going down fighting” against a “venal, authoritarian” government. It gives him far more glory to be an idealist that to be a realist. Who knows – if he agrees – some people may even accuse him of having slept with the enemy. Such is the fervor in the people that accepting anything less than the original demands will be seen as a major “defeat” for Anna. This is a trap. It scuttles the process of negotiations from the very beginning. It makes the outcome a pre-determined one even before the process of negotiations has begun. It makes the two sides, warring sides. (Why are they even called two sides – why not one side trying to find the best solution)? One side – with the aggressive, original demands – is the right side and the other side – the one that suggests practical changes – as the wrong side. I think Anna has become a victim of this. He is giving too much importance to what people will think. So, even if it means taking an extremely unreasonable stand, he feels he is better off doing that than going against the mood of the people.
This is the big difference between Gandhi and Anna. Gandhi was a pragmatist. He knew when to step off the gas. When to agree; when not to. He could take tough calls if required and then explain them to his followers. He was not trapped by people’s opinions....he shaped people’s opinions. Apparently, Gandhi coined the terms “duragraha” or “a-satyagraha” as meaning the opposite of satyagraha. Gandhi had the guts to stop a movment if he thought it was “duragraha”, even though its proponents thought it was satyagraha. He could go against his people if required. He had the guts to acknowledge his own weaknesses. He stopped the khilafati movement after the Chauri Chaura incident – because he believed his people had gone too far. Anna has never demanded that his followers stop giving bribes; start paying all taxes before they joined his movement. Never has he advised his team to take a pragmatic approach to removing corruption. Anna wants to remain an idealist. Even this would be ok, if his team was pragmatic.....but if all his team members want to be idealists – then we have a serious problem.
The real truth is that Anna must back down. He has to listen to the views of the intelligentsia. He must consider that his team may have made some mistakes He has to believe that not everyone in government is corrupt. He must have the patience to keep toiling and not expect to achieve all that he wants in one step. Surely he understands that after this Lokpal Bill is passed, there may be a need for change again in a few years.....He push for that then. For him to take a hard nosed stand right now could be suicidal for the entire movement. In fact, I already sense a change in tide. The media, the intelligentsia and even many in civil society are beginning to think that enough is enough .Anna has to stop.....
No comments:
Post a Comment