The Joke’s on US!!
The Lokpal Bill has generated a lot of debate in India recently. The wave of public participation in rallies supporting this law came in the wake of exposure of an unusually large number of corruption scandalsinvolving powerful members of the Indian government and excessively high amounts of money. A “committee” was constituted to draft the Lokpal Bill, consisting of a non-majority of “civil society” members, their leader and chief mentor being Anna Hazare. Not unexpectedly, the final draft Bill was not acceptable to the civil society members of the committee.
Hazare and his team have several grievancesagainst the government’s draft of the Lokpal bill – including the proposed exclusion of the PMO from the ambit of the Lokpal, the discretion given to state governments to choose whether they want a state-level Lokayukta, the rejection of the idea of an independent investigative agency attached to the Lokpal and the lack of accountability for the judiciary and middle level bureaucracy in the bill. Hazare is threatening now to fast unto death until the government cedes to his demands on the details of the bill.
Leaving aside legal arguments in relation to the freedom to protest, it would be problematic for the government of a nation, which owes its very existence to a freedom struggle of which non-violent protest formed a central part, to take a principled stance against the right of an activist to protest against government policy. However, many of us feel distinctly uncomfortable with the implication of “blackmail” that a fast unto death tends towards. Effectively, if the government does not cede to such demand, it is morally responsible for the death of the faster. How far can such a demand go? Is it irresponsible on the part of the faster to make demands without going through democratic processes? Does the democratic process account for such aberrations in the making of government policy? Importantly, what about other fasters such as Iron Sharmila who are not lucky enough to be fasting on an issue that has captured the imagination of our friends in TV news studios?
In an interview with Tehelka, Aruna Roy, a noted activist, has raised concerns regarding this uncompromising position by Hazare and his team. Roy explains certain concerns regarding the constitution of Hazare’s committee, which included certain saffron groups. She also touches upon the lack of information among the public on the details of important issues. You can find the full interview here.
The mass support for Hazare’s movement has been on the back of public anger over recent episodes of corruption. The supporting public wants reparations for this large-scale corruption. While the government’s draft bill does not instill confidence in the government’s avowed intention to tackle corruption, Hazare’s draft will not wipe away corruption either. Yes, it may be a more robust version of the law, but there are other alternative versions of this draft as well (for instance, MKSS’ basket of measures), and who is to say Hazare’s version is more what the public wants than MKSS’ proposals? Using the same principle, one could even argue that the government’s draft bill isa more legitimate version, since it is the stand of the elected representatives of the majority of the country. There is, therefore, only a thin and shaky moral ground over which Hazare’s demands stand.
Popular movements take longer to reach fruition when they abide by procedures set out in the Constitution, but as was the case with the Right to Information Act, these slow procedures also allow for extensive debate and acceptance by different interest groups. That is what provides legitimacy to such acts, the process, which is the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy.
Public opinion is powerful tool in a democracy. The debate raging over the Lokpal, even if over-dramatised by channel-hopping guest speakers and motivated anchors, is good for building informed public opinion. Hazare’s protests and fasts could turn public opinion against this government, if he speaks to the people of India. With his efforts to confront the government himself, he istaking upon himself the task of voicing people’s concerns and deciding which features of the bill are worth fasting over, without going through a democratic check. In doing do, he is exposing himself to charges ofimmaturity in demanding from the outside, but not taking responsibility to clean up the mess in a manner consistent with democratic principles hard won sixty-four years ago.