The uproar is at its loudest. The R(evolution) word is echoing around with striking frequency. The media is having a flurry of field days – first with the world cup and now this. The fresh-from-the-oven update is that the first battle has been won by India Against Corruption (IAC), with the govt conceding their current demands. In this surcharged atmosphere, the peer pressure on people with a volunteering background to hop onto the anti-corruption bandwagon is humongous. I have been pinged by friends and acquaintances every day of this week to know when – not if – I am attending a protest. It’s another matter that at the rate at which IAC is garnering support – from spiritual gurus to Bollywood, they aint gonna run thin on numbers.
I unequivocally admire the commitment of Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejrival (whom I’ve had the good fortune to interact with in the past) and team; and am truly gladdened by the staggering mass galvanization they have managed to attain. But, I have few reservations which have kept me from taking an all-out plunge into this. I am in accord with the end (eradicating corruption), but not entirely on their means. Do note that the following is not an attempt to undermine the movement to which many friends have sincerely chipped in. It’s just me consolidating my exploratory thoughts.
Some of my apprehensions are articulated in this Indian Express editorial. Upon perusing the IAC draft (Jan Lokpal bill), you can’t help acknowledging that many of the clauses indeed 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”. Isn’t such a proposition fraught with extreme danger? Why do we believe that the morality and efficacy of the constituents of this body will be impeccable? If that belief is attributed to certain processes or selection criteria, why not look to revamp the existing law enforcement agencies in that mold? Then, there is a wider-ranging matter of the power that such non-elected, extra-constitutional bodies should be allowed to wield (having them serve in an advisory capacity as in NAC is a different ballgame). Make no mistake: I fully endorse the notion of a much more participatory system of governance than one that confines the ordinary citizen’s involvement pretty much to casting one vote once in a while. However, you have to be really wary of an unchecked Lokpal that can considerably dilute the elected institutions, the backbone of our democracy. Where lies the optimal tread-off? Is it that this proposed all-overriding Lokpal a perceived quick fix to the fundamental flaws in our political and judicial systems? The flaws may be dauntingly deep-rooted, but eventually is there any getting around them?
Moreover, isn’t the adage that the quality of governance correlates with the conscientiousness of the citizenry apt for today’s deplorable state of affairs? Let’s face it: Politicians and bureaucrats are not the only culprits. And, this is not confined to corruption. For instance, the law forbidding plastic bags has been around for quite sometime in Delhi, but how many of us have even tried to curb plastic? Where’s the talk being walked? It is undeniable that the movement spearheaded by Anna Hazare has infused a fresh sense of belief in many who were previously indifferent. I just hope that we will not just demand change, but also strive to be the change that we want to see – not just in terms of bribery, but in a holistic sense of responsible living. This, along with a more measured (rather than impassioned) outlook on governance issues is the need of the hour, in my modest opinion.
Filed under: General Musings Tagged: | abuse, agitation, constitution, corruption, Jan Lokpal, parliament, representative, sentimental, subversion of democracy, super cop, unrestrained power
