These are laudable ambitions. But the real question is the position taken by the activists to achieve what we would like our country to be? In an ideal world, I believe, that keeping the activities of people in power in rein through the institution of a Lokpal is right. Many countries in the world have Ombudsmen that play this role and there are many countries where there is no such institution and yet governance mechanisms work effectively. What is right for India?
Were the world an island and each country run only on the basis of its internal environment and were there no constitution, the solution proposed by the activists would be correct. But the real world is different. We live in a globalized world and we live in a geography that is highly unstable. We also have a constitution that provides for separation between the executive and the judiciary. These factors should impact our view on the Lokpal Bill.
I would like to opine that in an unstable neighborhood the strengthening of the governance system is of critical importance. The Prime Minister is its head. He is involved in decisions on war and peace, internal and external security, covert and overt operations, on a daily basis. In a globalized world India is jockeying for a position in world forums. It is heavily dependent on investments from FII and looking for sensitive technologies from external sources, etc. Weakening the governance system will not just impact the government but the international standing of the country. We already see the negative impact of the dissensions in civil society on investments by FIIs in the stock market, today.
Furthermore, we in India have created a constitution with checks and balances. We have separated the institution of the executive from that of the judiciary. It has worked very well for the last six decades. The way forward, I believe, is to strengthen this separation. That is not to say that the judiciary should not have accountability, but that civil society should press and convince the judiciary to have their own equivalent of the Lokpal Bill.
The basic issue that really comes out of this debate is the belief that politicians are untrustworthy and an external agent is trustworthy. This is a fallacious assumption. I am sure; no member of the Drafting Committee would fault the personal honesty of Dr. Manmohan Singh; yet that assumption may not be true for the Prime Minister’s office or for that matter for other Prime Ministers, who would be in office. Let us now look at the other side. There is a proposal to have Lok Ayuktas in each state and the centre. Lokpal or Lok Ayukta institutions cannot operated alone by the head. There have to be people to process complaints and take actions at different levels in the system. A rough guesstimate, assuming around 100 critical decision makers in each unit, would mean around 3000 people would influence the actions of this system in different ways. When we look into the future, at different times there would be different people who would have this type of influence.
In a society like ours; a feudal society divided into linguistic, caste, religious, and social groups; where different levels of ethical distortions have found social sanction; finding 3000 people of the required ethical standards is impossible. And, trusting them more than the elected head of governance of the country is undermining our democratic system itself.
Taking the argument further, how much do we know about people in public life? They say nine tenths of an iceberg is not visible, so is it with people. Persons, who have qualified on the basis of their public records, to the highest positions in trust and integrity, are being questioned for these very qualities some members of civil society. One can even question the ethics of civil society members in the drafting committee. One of the members was a Union Minister of Law. What did he do as the law minister? After all, corruption has been an endemic phenomenon.
The Government is complaining about the attitude of civil society members. It is true this is the only government in Indian history that has gone this far in accommodating activists. Actually, this understates the issue. It is perhaps the only government in the world that has done this. Strategically, this was not a wise step. Activists get their preeminent position in society because of their very strong and uncompromising position on specific subjects. They are seldom flexible. Therefore, most governments find other means to take their concerns on board; they do not incorporate them into the system. When the government took the activists on board as members of the drafting committee, they should have realized that they are riding a tiger. They can blame no one but themselves for the position they find themselves in. However, the intent of the government to tackle corruption cannot be questioned.
No country in the world can meet its ambitious goals if the very foundation of the governance system is weakened. Corruption is not a political issue but a national issue. Let us not make politics out of it. Let us fight to reduce it even if we cannot get rid of it.
