Opinion Going ‘Potti’ over corruption

I recall these episodes because Anna Hazare’s fast has led to a breakout of Parliamentary formalism among those who don’t agree with him. They argue that,in a parliamentary democracy,it is the MPs who make laws not civil society zealots. But even the best democracy does not function in a vacuum. If Parliament fails to perform its function of responding to public demands,then the public has a right to register its opinion. The only way it can do so is by public marches and demonstrations,which it hopes will register its mood. In India,the legislature is passive and the executive has taken over all the functions of the legislature. It controls the legislative agenda. But if the Prime Minister confesses his inability to proceed with the problem of rooting out corruption because of coalition dharma,then the public knows that it cannot expect Parliament to do its job.

Of course,Anna Hazare and his followers are idealistic. They make impossible demands. How else can the world be changed? The realist and the constitutionalist proceed at a pace which rushes to compromise even before trying to innovate. Hence it is up to the outside world to goad parliament to do what is needed.

UPA-II faces its ‘Potti’ moment in Anna Hazare’s fast. It cannot see that the standard assurances or fulminations of its spokesmen will not suffice. The argument that it is the government’s job to pass laws and the people’s to wait patiently will not do any longer. The central problem is distrust in politicians,despite their elective legitimacy. The answer that some GoM will do the job and some Standing Committee will debate it in Parliament has no salience. Events since last November—the scandals as well as the breakdown of Parliament repeatedly—have made the political process no longer credible as the solver of problems.

What we are witnessing is an innovation in Indian democratic practice. The movement is proposing an alternative draft. If there was any hope that someone within the Lok Sabha would suggest amendments,which then will be debated and passed (as happens for example in the UK Parliament as I know),I would understand the righteous anger of the formalists. But the Indian parliament does not function in that way. Little happens on the floor of Parliament except rushing to the well and chaos. Compromises are worked out off the floor of the House and deals done in Standing Committee quite opaquely.

To have a mass movement built around a draft bill is unique to India. Of course,the single bill will not solve all problems. Yet,in the arsenal of weapons the government can have along with RTI to fight corruption,the Lokpal Bill,once improved,will help. There will have to be more—reform of election finance,disqualification of convicted criminals from Parliament,prosecution of civil servants as well as MPs for corrupt behaviour.

A new generation has just discovered the joys of political action. It is faced with a smug gerontocracy which treats it with condescension. This way lies trouble. I have seen it before—in US civil rights campaigns,in the student movements in France,UK and US in 1968. Change can be forced on a system which has become moribund as the Indian parliamentary system has.

Of course,a smart system would make the changes itself and win back trust of the people. What’s the chance?