It is easy to get caught up in patriotic waves when they arrive and equally easy to forget what the core problems of this country are. I will probably be accused of being anti-society or unpatriotic for putting forth the following completely reasonable arguments. That is hardly relevant. What is relevant is that I see hordes of highly educated and highly intelligent people getting caught up in a wave of what is clearly a very flawed objective. I want to make it clear that I do not accuse Anna Hazare of being a bad or a corrupt man. But I do accuse him of being a misguided one. He genuinely wants the betterment of this country and it is creditable how he has rallied the nation for a cause and united it. But all that support is working toward a bill that is inherently problematic.
Starting with the salient features of the bill (quoted from the freely available draft online):
1. As in the case of the Supreme Court and Cabinet Secretariat, the Lokpal will be supervised by the Cabinet Secretary and the Election Commission. As a result, it will be completely independent of the government and free from ministerial influence in its investigations.
This point is self-defeatist wherein it agrees that the Supreme Court is a body independent from the government. If the Supreme Court were so (assuming it actually is) then it should have been able to tackle the problem of corruption. Any person can file a 'case' in the court against a corrupt official and get an independent verdict. Even in Lokpal a complaint has to be filed.
So if the Supreme Court is indeed independent then Lokpal is redundant and if it is not, then there is no reason to believe that Lokpal would be independent.
2. Members will be appointed by judges, Indian Administrative Service officers with a clean record, private citizens and constitutional authorities through a transparent and participatory process.
To determine who has a 'clean record' is counter intuitive and a subjective. And what are people without 'clean records' doing in the administrative service anyway - the fact that a 'bill' acknowledges the existence of such people as a part of the constitutional framework proves that there is a need for a deeper purge. 'Treat the disease not the symptom'. It is like the origins or Rajya Sabha or the 'House of lords' as is known in Britain. It is supposed to comprise of people who are elite and wise old men who can ensure the young kids in the Loksabha don't run rampant. Today it is hardly an advisory watch-dog but more a back-door entry for politically weak ministers who can never get elected. It's easy to use the words transparent and participatory and unfortunately they have been used often in our constitution. But without implementation they are just words. And throwing more words at corruption has repeatedly proved to be futile.
3. Investigations of each case must be completed in one year. Any resulting trials should be concluded in the following year, giving a total maximum process time of two years.
Again here a generic statement of what should be doing at a 'philosophical level' is given. No one is arguing that cases should be tried quickly, but how. The court hasn't been able to do it so why would another body achieve the same. It's the same people from the same country in the same system. What happens when the case overshoots this target? Even the full bill draft fails to mention the consequences of such an overshoot. If enforced the judge panel may be forced to cut corners to due-process. There is no doubt there's a problem with our judiciary where we take far too much time to try cases. So revamping the judiciary should be a higher priority rather than creating a new body and hoping it will achieve something that has never been done before.
4. Complaints against any officer of Lokpal will be investigated and completed within a month and, if found to be substantive, will result in the officer being dismissed within two months.
Another vague statement with no guidelines on how to achieve this end. And this is hardly a new or unique feature. In any organization complaints against lower officers/employees if proved right leads to dismissal. These usually prove less than effective due to existing internal camaraderie.
5. Whistleblowers who alert the agency to potential corruption cases will also be provided with protection by it.
Noble, but again we come to how. The bill does not mention its own security or policing wing. Most likely they will use existing security forces which include the CBI and state police forces. In which case witness protection provisions exist under the judicial system and we come back to the problem of effective implementation and 'corruption' within agencies outside Lokpal itself.
6. Powers and jurisdiction of Lokpal.
Lokpal has the power to: initiate prosecution of anyone found guilty, police powers as well as the ability to register FIRs, Power of Lokpal to utilise services of officers of Central or State Government, Provisional attachment of assets, recommend discontinuance of activity connected with allegation of corruption, anti-corruption wing of CBI.
In summary Lokpal has the power to completely de-stabilise and disrupt the functioning of an existing elected government. Even the Prime Minister is not safe from prosecution. How is a government supposed to function when the opposition can bombard the Lokpal with frivolous complaints? Yes there are fines to frivolous allegations and they are predictably feeble punishments, hardly a deterrent to malicious petty complaints. (Maximum penalty of 1 lakh, think about the bankroll of any of our ministers).
7. Complaints against Lokpal will be handled by independent boards set up in each state.
Do we see a pattern emerging here? Think 'inception'- A police to police the police in charge of the police.
In the end it is easy to see how the opposition and the ruling government’s enemies may misuse the system. But we cannot ignore the fact that the Lokpal itself is powerful enough to become a dictator. The bench has the power to control the fates of government officials across the spectrum. If history is any witness such ‘committees or groups’ turn tyrannical in no time. The bench members are to be respected people appointed by the govt judges and honourable citizens. But once appointed these benches are nearly invulnerable, very akin to the election commissioner. The difference is that they have far more power. At the risk of sounding clichéd, ‘Power corrupts and absolute power does corrupt absolutely'.
The parliamentary democracy we have functions on the simple balance and checks of power between the legislative, the judiciary and executive. No one wing of the government can seize the power without consequence (including the military). The Lokpal bill proposes and omnipotent body that has the jurisdiction to put a spanner in the functioning of any of the aforementioned wings of government completely undermining the prime tenets of the system. Change is needed. But change for the sake of change is a very dangerous thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment