Fear is the key
Doubtless, there is reason for politicians and civil society activists to be in a self-congratulatory mood for being able to push through enabling legislation to install an overarching authority to check and punish corrupt practices across the country. But it cannot be forgotten that the idea for an ombudsman that oversees the highest political authority and down the layers of administration which was discussed from 1952 and proposed by the Administrative Reforms Commission in 1966 has met many deaths through the years because all politicians have been vary of it cramping their style. The public agitation for a Jan Lokpal that Anna Hazare launched two years ago and the electoral humiliation of the Congress and BJP by Arvind Kejriwal’s party that sprung from the Anna movement, ultimately forced the major parties to pass the Lokpal Bill in a hurry. Even if it was only Mulayam Singh who voiced fear of a Lokpal, none of the parties can say hand-on-the-chest that they did not help ward off this bogeyman until they were forced to make this something-better-than-nothing move. The Lokpal Bill was welcomed by Anna Hazare—who had to fast again last week to get it taken up and passed—only in that sense, while Kejriwal supporters of the Jan Lokpal movement voiced dissatisfaction with a bill that had been weakened.
One sticking point with the parliamentary committee that re-drafted what the Anna movement proposed was about who appoints the Lokpal—a nine-member body that will be beyond the control of the government of the day. The Bill awaiting presidential assent to be law, gives that power to a five-member committee where politicians are in majority, unlike the Jan Lokpal proposal for seven members where jurists and officials outnumber politicians. The other big demand of the Anna movement was to place the CBI completely under the Lokpal, while the MPs managed to retain government’s control of the CBI through powers of appointment and transfer. Also the demand for the Lokpal model to be replicated in states has been rejected, with discretion on Lokayuktas given to states, although with a deadline of a year to form those. Protection for whistleblowers is also not provided in the new bill. The common refrain of parties that backed the bill was nothing is perfect and those who want amendments can again agitate and fast.
States like Goa where the Lokayukta is headless and dysfunctional, and those which are yet to set up Lokayuktas, will have to set the corruption-fighting machinery in place while the Lokpal is formed and gets into the act. Politicians and officials who report to them understandably feel uneasy about somebody beyond their control, even in name, holding them to account. From the creation of the world’s first ombudsman in 1713 in Sweden, the political thought was that such accountability over and above periodic electoral test of public will, was essential to enforce true democratic authority. As Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar said the other day, politicians are always under pressure because people who vote them keep seeking favours. Indeed, everyone has a sinful side and the fear of getting caught may be the reason for the public uprightness of many. It is not for want of laws that India gained a reputation for inefficiency and corruption. It’s by insincerity in enforcing the law. Awareness of that weakness led to the public outcry for a supervisory body to try keeping our public life clean. We must make this effort succeed.
