The Corrupt Rule the Roost
Arun Kumar
CESP/SSS, JNU.
The Hindu, January 7, 2012
Lokpal has failed to become the law of the land in 2011. The
Lok Sabha passed it after some acrimony but the Rajya Sabha did not even vote
on it. Three distinct views emerged during the debate both inside and outside
the Parliament. First, it is a weak bill not worth passing in its present form.
Secondly, it is better to have some sort of Lokpal even if it is not what it
ought to be. Lastly, the Bill would create a monstrous institution that will
undermine Indian democracy, especially because it would affect the functioning
of the legislators and the PM.
Many parliamentarians (publicly and/or privately)
understandably supported the third view given that either they themselves or some
of their party colleagues (current or former) face charges of corruption. They
argue that Indian democracy is one of the best in the world so why disturb it by
creating a new institution which would have powers over the people’s
representatives. While this has some merit, perhaps the real worry is the truncation
of their capacity to wheel and deal. Do they not see that the public is angry
with the political class because it believes that they undermine democracy? A
Chief Minister resigns because of corruption charges but installs his wife as
the CM. Many accused of corruption have become CMs or Ministers. Politicians often
make public statements only to blatantly deny them soon thereafter, showing utter
disregard for public opinion which has reacted by increasingly becoming
contemptuous of them.
The middle position prevailed in the Lok Sabha but did not pass
muster in the Rajya Sabha. The argument is that it is better to have some kind
of Lokpal than none. A middle path is favoured over the extreme positions.
However, one may ask whether the middle of two incorrect positions can
automatically be correct or even the middle of one incorrect and a correct
position be the correct one? It was argued, for instance, that even if the CBI remains
under the government’s control it may be granted more autonomy. The moot
question is whether such a CBI can be effective?
Some suggest that not having the constitutional status would
weaken the Lokpal. It is true that the constitutional status rather than a
statutory one is better but how would that by itself make the functioning of
Lokpal effective. It is argued that a government unhappy with the Lokpal can
remove her/him, as had happened earlier in the case of the Punjab and Haryana
Lokayukta or have the Bill modified through a simple majority in Parliament.
However, in today’s environment, this would be difficult since now the movements
against corruption are much stronger than earlier. The moot question is how
would a constitutional position help in curbing corruption if the Lokpal itself
is weak because of the inadequate provisions in the Bill? India has several constitutional
authorities (like, CAG and CVC) to check malpractices in institutions but illegality
has only grown.
Is it the case that because the Election Commission is a
constitutional body, it is successful? Elections to five states were announced last
week. Since this is the season for fighting corruption, the Election Commission
announced steps to reduce the role of black money in elections. Income tax
officers will be posted to monitor expenditures, separate bank accounts will
have to be opened by candidates to receive and spend funds and so on. These
seem timely since much black money is used in elections resulting in forging of
ties between the politicians and the corrupt. Most candidates spend way above
the election expenditure limit since they buy votes, hire workers, travel, organize
meetings and so on. The politicians accepting funds know that a quid pro quo is
expected of them. There are also the wealthy fighting elections using their own
black funds. They also pay off the party leadership to get the nomination. They
may not be obliged to others but their motive is not selfless service but to
further their business interests.
Election Commissions have tried to curb the role of black
money in elections but no matter what they have tried, the politicians have
proved cleverer and have circumvented everything thrown at them. Mr. Sheshan,
as Chief Election Commissioner, cracked the whip but many politicians have said
in private that he only succeeded in driving spending underground. There are
reports of large cash movements during election time. It is good that this is to
be monitored but will that be effective? One election organizer of a candidate in
the last parliamentary elections admitted that money came in sacks. Apparently,
counting machines were installed in safe houses where cash coming in suitcases was
counted and distributed to candidates.
In the last two decades none of the election commissioners have
been accused of being corrupt even though there have been accusations of biases.
Yet, it has not been successful in checking the malpractices in elections that
result in the compromised getting elected who then claim legitimacy and propagate
corruption with impunity. Yes, booth capturing has declined but new forms of getting
votes have emerged. There are election expenditure limits but these are a
pittance compared to the actual expenditures. Parties and candidates are
supposed to get their accounts audited but can unrecorded transactions be
audited? Now candidates will be required to maintain a separate bank account
for election purposes. But the black money donated to the candidates and
parties will not be deposited in these accounts.
The failure of a constitutional body like, the Election
Commission to check the growing scale of corrupt practices in elections has
important lessons for reform of the existing watchdog institutions and for Lokpal.
India has a multitude of watchdog institutions – constitutional and statutory. What
is their experience?
The CAG audits government departments to track malpractices
but those in power have found ways to get around it. Intelligence agencies (IB,
Revenue intelligence and so on) keep tabs on important people and their
wheeling and dealing and have vast amounts of information but illegality has
only grown. There are the CVC, CBI and the various police agencies. Each government department has its Vigilance
wing. There are agencies to protect the environment but the powerful are
violating environmental laws with impunity, like, in the case of Lavasa or the
Adarsh Society building in Mumbai. The Reddy brothers in Karnataka obtained the
silence of those that mattered. There are regulatory authorities (like, SEBI
and TRAI) to check private businesses but they have not been able to prevent the
2G scam or insider trading in the stock markets. The RBI regulates the financial
institutions but repeatedly it is found wanting as in the Harshad Mehta scam,
failures of Cooperative Banks and so on.
The Information Commission oversees the Right to Information
which has shown some success but increasingly the whistle blowers are being
eliminated and its success has remained limited to the highly literate. Media
is a watchdog which has exposed innumerable cases of corruption but now it is
increasingly entangled in the phenomenon of paid news and is found to be hobnobbing
with the powerful and the compromised.
Last but not the least, judiciary
is an independent constitutional body yet the number of cases of corruption
against judges is increasing. Cases are piling up and now the number of pending
cases has crossed four crore resulting in miscarriage of justice in many
instances.
In brief, neither independence of functioning nor
constitutional status has helped watchdog institutions to effectively perform
their assigned task. The reason is that democracy, the super watchdog which
should deliver all round accountability, is weak. The ruling class has played
havoc with the watchdog institutions so as to control them for their narrow ends.
That is why the demand for a strong Lokpal. Democracy ought to have ensured
accountability of institutions. Vote should have weeded out the corrupt but it
is doing the opposite - the honest rarely win elections.
Democracy has become formalistic. Legislatures should check
corruption but it would not be so if the elected are beholden to the corrupt or
are corrupt. The problem is political that cannot be resolved by technical fixes
or having more laws that are anyway circumvented. A weak democracy presents a
no-win situation: if democracy is weak the corrupt get elected and misuse their
autonomy; if the legislators’ autonomy is curbed, democracy weakens. Only a highly
conscious public can deliver autonomous and incorruptible legislators and not
rules. That is why there is a need for political movements that can change the
national consciousness, a task being addressed by the movement against
corruption and for Lokpal. So, the question is, can there be strong watchdogs
in a weak democracy?
arunkumar1000@hotmail.com