The Corrupt Rule the Roost

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