10 Simple stpes to stop corruption ( Source : http://ipaidabribe.com/)
*************************************************************************************
*************************************************************************************
COMPARISION of 2 bills (Source : http://www.global-group.org/index.php?option=com_jmylife&view=item&id=51&Itemid=1 )
5. Easy to say, but how can we do this?
By voting. The constituencies that stand to benefit from economic reforms—the middle class—needs to vote in larger numbers. In the absence of the middle class vote base, politicians appease the poor by giving handouts and entitlements, and cater to the super rich by allowing the crony sector to exploit the half-reformed economy. It’s not easy, and we have to be innovative. See for instance, Atanu Dey’s interesting idea to form middle-class vote banks to induce good governance. *************************************************************************************
Is Parliament really supreme? – Mint Newspaper
A closer look at recent experience actually raises doubts as to whether Parliament has indeed lived up to this responsibility adequately
Expert View | C V Madhukar
In the weeks since the agitation on the Lokpal Bill began, there have been several assertions by a range of opinion leaders that Parliament is supreme. On paper, there is no doubt that Parliament is supreme as far as lawmaking is concerned. But a closer look at recent experience actually raises doubts as to whether Parliament has indeed lived up to this responsibility adequately—right from the way it has scuttled itself structurally to the way it has allowed several Bills to be passed with no discussion.
In our parliamentary system, the government has a dominant role in the lawmaking process. The Bills are drafted and introduced by the government. Parliament is expected to scrutinize these Bills and take a view on whether and in what form they will be passed. The first time that members of Parliament (MPs) actually get to see a Bill is a couple of days before it is introduced in Parliament. There is no demand from our MPs for a deeper consultative pre-legislative process in which draft Bills are circulated for wider public comment, and where MPs may also have the opportunity to study the proposed law and seek public feedback.
Once tabled in the House, most Bills are referred to standing committees. After several consultations, a standing committee produces a report suggesting changes to the Bill under its consideration. The report of the standing committee is recommendatory and the government is under no obligation to explain why the committee’s suggestions were not accepted. The least Parliament must demand of the government is an explanation as to why it won’t consider the recommendations of a committee of the House. If Parliament does not assert itself and demand from government what can be argued as a basic courtesy, if not a legitimate right, this erodes the power of Parliament in a very fundamental way.
When a Bill comes up for discussion on the floor of the House, there are many occasions when even the little time that may be allocated for debating it is not utilized, and even critical Bills are allowed to be passed with no debate. There are any number of occasions in recent years when Bills being passed with no debate has hit the headlines. So the power of lawmaking, which is one of the primary responsibilities of Parliament, is frittered away, thereby allowing the government to pass Bills without adequate scrutiny by the legislature.
Our parliamentary process allows individual MPs to introduce Bills in Parliament, independent of what the government might do. These “private member Bills” are allotted time for discussion on Friday afternoons, when most MPs are heading back to their constituencies for the weekend. If one looks at the number of private member Bills that have been even discussed in the 15th Lok Sabha, it stands at five (of the 173 introduced). The last time a private member Bill was actually passed was in 1971. There is no visible clamour by MPs to take private member Bills more seriously and allocate more time for this. If MPs don’t assert themselves in seeking space to discuss Bills where they themselves have taken the initiative, then who is to blame if people do not understand that Parliament is supreme?
To add to this, we have the Anti Defection Law, which basically reduces MPs to a headcount. Back in 1985, the Anti Defection Law was passed to prevent horse-trading. But while passing this, MPs have also signed away their right to act independently while voting on legislation in Parliament. They now have to compulsorily follow the stand of party bosses on any Bill. If they choose to vote in a way other than the party diktat, they stand to lose their seat in Parliament.
For a moment, let us forget all discussion about legislation and ask the more basic question about who has the power to convene Parliament. The Constitution has vested this power with the government. So the government chooses to convene Parliament for as little as or as much time as it wants. A good case in point on this is when the India-US nuclear agreement rocked Parliament in 2008 and a trust vote was held. The government convened Parliament for as little as 46 days that year—the lowest in the history of Parliament. And our parliamentarians have no say on this.
And then we have people reminding us that Parliament is supreme. At each step of the legislative process, when Parliament fails to claim and utilize its legitimate space, it is voluntarily eroding its supremacy. Going by the long list of ways we have seen so far, it is not surprising that it takes several opinion leaders to remind everyone that Parliament is indeed supreme. It is actually time that Parliament woke up and took back the power that it must have, to be, in fact, supreme.
C.V. Madhukar is a director at PRS Legislative Research, New Delhi
*************************************************************************************
A systemic approach to reducing corruption – Mint Newspaper
If we reduce monopolies, narrow discretion and increase accountability, corruption can be brought down dramatically
T R Raghunandan
In the anti-corruption debate that saturates the media today, everyone has their favourite fix. The Jan Lokpal supporters believe that the answer lies in creating a strong Lokpal with wide powers to detect, investigate, prosecute and punish the corrupt. They are right, too. India’s oversight of higher level government, including high-level politicians, bureaucrats and judges, is weak and fragmented. The result—few of them have lost jobs or faced criminal action for corruption.
Then we have the lamenters, who burrow into history to extract stories of perfidy and intrigue, of deserting armies and spies bought over, to justify their case that Indians are incurably corrupt. If we are to believe these purveyors of the eugenics of corruption, then surely we have a pro-corruption gene lurking somewhere in our South Asian DNA.
Yet, studies across the world show that many countries have been able to drastically reduce corruption, so fast that we cannot attribute its demise to a sudden improvement in morals and ethics. They did this mostly through a series of system improvements and simultaneous crackdowns on the corrupt.
There are several rigorous theses that have been built around a “systems” view of corruption. One respected model is by Robert Klitgaard, who presents an understanding of corruption in a simple yet powerful formula, C=M+D–A, corruption equals monopoly plus discretion, minus accountability. Wherever these conditions exist, be it the public or private sector, corruption tends to happen.
The solution to corruption is self-evident in the formula. If we reduce monopolies, reduce discretion and increase accountability, corruption can come down dramatically. Demonopolization of the telephony sector shows how corruption has been eliminated in retail telephony services. The filing of e-returns for income tax, automatic assessments and sending of tax refunds directly to assessee bank accounts is an example of reducing corruption through the elimination of human discretion. Seen through the filter of this formula, the positioning of a strong Lokpal within an overarching anti-corruption system is in increasing accountability.
Klitgaard’s approach to reducing corruption makes sense because it does not look upon corruption through the lens of morality, as the lamenters do. He terms corruption as a crime of calculation, not one of passion. Nobody is born corrupt. However, as long as people anywhere find that rewards are high and punishments are unlikely, they will continue to drift into corruption. The taking of a large kickback on a contract, or cheating on medical and transport bills is prompted by the same calculation; temptation and the secure knowledge that one won’t get caught. That is why, many government and private officials start off being honest, then become corrupt over time.
Those who support a Lokpal must realize that this institution alone cannot reduce corruption. The most important shortcoming is that it focuses only on corruption involving public servants; private sector corruption is left out from its purview. Moreover, even in the public sphere, the Lokpal’s effect will be multiplied only if it goes hand in hand with systemic reform that simplifies procedures, reduces discretion and demonopolizes whatever can be demonopolized, so that citizens have a choice between service providers. In such situations, the corrupt service provider will be competed out of the market.
Ipaidabribe.com concentrates on finding systemic solutions to corruption. We analyse the burgeoning database of citizen-sourced experiences on corruption posted on our site, now more than 12,000, and suggest improved workflows to the government to reduce corruption- prone processes. Since our proposed solutions are data-driven and specific, they are difficult to be ignored.
Significantly, 14% of experiences reported on the site are of citizens’ successfully resisting corruption and of where they did not have to bribe, thanks to a good government officer or a streamlined system. We tease out from these what patterns of behaviour and strategies work, and help citizens to avoid bribe- paying situations by giving situation-specific and generic advice.
The lamenters do play a useful role, though. Their depressing dirges about the corrupt culture of Indians may hurt national pride enough, to spark an upsurge of societal disapproval of corruption. However, we cannot expect this to rise spontaneously; it has to be spurred by an initial concerted and successful effort in anti-corruption reform. It is when we stop and reverse corruption through systemic reform that society will change track from celebrating corruption, or standing by helplessly, to disapproving it.
What we need not waste our time on is in wishing that morals will improve or waiting for messiahs to rid India magically off corruption. Nobody is going to descend from heaven and banish corruption by waving a magic wand.
We cannot outsource our anti-corruption initiatives to agitations and hunger strikes either, if we are unwilling to combat corruption in our personal transactions with the government. If you can claim your passport and ensure that your flat is registered without paying a bribe, even if you have to endure considerable inconveniences, that is when you can hold your head up high and say that you have done something lasting to combat corruption.
T R Raghunandan is coordinator, Ipaidabribe.com, a website run by the Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy
*************************************************************************************
1. Government’s proposal
Lokpal will not have any power to either initiate action suomotu in any case or even receive complaints of corruption from general public.The general public will make complaints to the speaker of Lok Sabha orchairperson of Rajya Sabha. Only those complaints forwarded by Speaker of LokSabha/ Chairperson of Rajya Sabha to Lokpal would be investigated by Lokpal.This not only severely restricts the functioning of Lokpal, it also provides atool in the hands of the ruling party to have only those cases referred toLokpal which pertain to political opponents (since speaker is always from theruling party). It will also provide a tool in the hands of the ruling party toprotect its own politicians.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal will have powers to initiate investigations suo motoin any case and also to directly entertain complaints from the public. It willnot need reference or permission from anyone to initiate investigation into anycase.
2. Government’s proposal
Lokpal has been proposed to be an advisory body. Lokpal,after enquiry in any case, will forward its report to the competent authority.The competent authority will have final powers to decide whether to take actionon Lokpal’s report or not. In the case of cabinet ministers, the competentauthority is Prime Minister. In the case of PM and MPs the competent authorityis Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, as the case may be. In the coalition era when thegovernment of the day depends upon the support of its political partners, itwill be impossible for the PM to act against any of his cabinet ministers onthe basis of Lokpal’s report. For instance, if there were such a Lokpal todayand if Lokpal made a recommendation to the PM to prosecute A. Raja, obviouslythe PM will not have the political courage to initiate prosecution against A.Raja. Likewise, if Lokpal made a report against the PM or any MP of the rulingparty, will the house ever pass a resolution to prosecute the PM or the rulingparty MP? Obviously, they will never do that.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal is not an advisory body. It will have the powers toinitiate prosecution against any one after completion of investigations in anycase. It will also have powers to order disciplinary proceedings against anygovernment servant.
3. Government’s proposal
The bill is legally unsound. Lokpal has not been given policepowers. Therefore Lokpal cannot register an FIR. Therefore all the enquiriesconducted by Lokpal will tantamount to “preliminary enquiries”. Even if thereport of Lokpal is accepted, who will file the chargesheet in the court? Whowill initiate prosecution? Who will appoint the prosecution lawyer? The entirebill is silent on that.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal would have police powers. It will be able to registerFIR, proceed with criminal investigations and launch prosecution.
4. Government’s proposal
The bill does not say what will be the role of CBI after thisbill. Can CBI and Lokpal investigate the same case or CBI will lose its powersto investigate politicians? If the latter is true, then this bill is meant tocompletely insulate politicians from any investigations whatsoever which arepossible today through CBI.
Civil Society proposal
That part of CBI, which deals with cases of corruption, willbe merged into Lokpal so that there is just one effective and independent bodyto take action against corruption.
5. Government’s proposal
There is a strong punishment for “frivolous” complaints. Ifany complaint is found to be false and frivolous, Lokpal will have the power tosend the complainant to jail through summary trial but if the complaint werefound to be true, the Lokpal will not have the power to send the corruptpoliticians to jail! So the bill appears to be meant to browbeat, threaten anddiscourage those fighting against corruption.
Civil Society proposal
Deterrence has been provided against frivolous complaints inthe form of financial penalties against the complainant, however, Lokayukta isempowered to prosecute the corrupt and take disciplinary action against them
Lokpal will not have any power to either initiate action suomotu in any case or even receive complaints of corruption from general public.The general public will make complaints to the speaker of Lok Sabha orchairperson of Rajya Sabha. Only those complaints forwarded by Speaker of LokSabha/ Chairperson of Rajya Sabha to Lokpal would be investigated by Lokpal.This not only severely restricts the functioning of Lokpal, it also provides atool in the hands of the ruling party to have only those cases referred toLokpal which pertain to political opponents (since speaker is always from theruling party). It will also provide a tool in the hands of the ruling party toprotect its own politicians.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal will have powers to initiate investigations suo motoin any case and also to directly entertain complaints from the public. It willnot need reference or permission from anyone to initiate investigation into anycase.
2. Government’s proposal
Lokpal has been proposed to be an advisory body. Lokpal,after enquiry in any case, will forward its report to the competent authority.The competent authority will have final powers to decide whether to take actionon Lokpal’s report or not. In the case of cabinet ministers, the competentauthority is Prime Minister. In the case of PM and MPs the competent authorityis Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, as the case may be. In the coalition era when thegovernment of the day depends upon the support of its political partners, itwill be impossible for the PM to act against any of his cabinet ministers onthe basis of Lokpal’s report. For instance, if there were such a Lokpal todayand if Lokpal made a recommendation to the PM to prosecute A. Raja, obviouslythe PM will not have the political courage to initiate prosecution against A.Raja. Likewise, if Lokpal made a report against the PM or any MP of the rulingparty, will the house ever pass a resolution to prosecute the PM or the rulingparty MP? Obviously, they will never do that.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal is not an advisory body. It will have the powers toinitiate prosecution against any one after completion of investigations in anycase. It will also have powers to order disciplinary proceedings against anygovernment servant.
3. Government’s proposal
The bill is legally unsound. Lokpal has not been given policepowers. Therefore Lokpal cannot register an FIR. Therefore all the enquiriesconducted by Lokpal will tantamount to “preliminary enquiries”. Even if thereport of Lokpal is accepted, who will file the chargesheet in the court? Whowill initiate prosecution? Who will appoint the prosecution lawyer? The entirebill is silent on that.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal would have police powers. It will be able to registerFIR, proceed with criminal investigations and launch prosecution.
4. Government’s proposal
The bill does not say what will be the role of CBI after thisbill. Can CBI and Lokpal investigate the same case or CBI will lose its powersto investigate politicians? If the latter is true, then this bill is meant tocompletely insulate politicians from any investigations whatsoever which arepossible today through CBI.
Civil Society proposal
That part of CBI, which deals with cases of corruption, willbe merged into Lokpal so that there is just one effective and independent bodyto take action against corruption.
5. Government’s proposal
There is a strong punishment for “frivolous” complaints. Ifany complaint is found to be false and frivolous, Lokpal will have the power tosend the complainant to jail through summary trial but if the complaint werefound to be true, the Lokpal will not have the power to send the corruptpoliticians to jail! So the bill appears to be meant to browbeat, threaten anddiscourage those fighting against corruption.
Civil Society proposal
Deterrence has been provided against frivolous complaints inthe form of financial penalties against the complainant, however, Lokayukta isempowered to prosecute the corrupt and take disciplinary action against them
6. Government’s proposal
Lokpal will have jurisdiction only on MPs, ministers and PM.It will not have jurisdiction over officers. The officers and politicians donot indulge in corruption separately. In any case of corruption, there isalways an involvement of both of them. So according to government’s proposal,every case would need to be investigated by both CVC and Lokpal. So now, ineach case, CVC will look into the role of bureaucrats while Lokpal will lookinto the role of politicians. Obviously the case records will be with oneagency and the way government functions it will not share its records with theother agency. It is also possible that in the same case the two agencies arriveat completely opposite conclusions. Therefore it appears to be a sure way ofkilling any case.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal will have jurisdiction over politicians, officials andjudges. CVC and the entire vigilance machinery of government will be mergedinto Lokpal.
7. Government’s proposal
Lokpal will consist of three members, all of them beingretired judges. There is no reason why the choice should be restricted tojudiciary. By creating so many post retirement posts for judges, the governmentwill make the retiring judges vulnerable to government influences just beforeretirement as is already happening in the case of retiring bureaucrats. Theretiring judges, in the hope of getting post retirement employment would do thebidding of the government in their last few years.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal would have ten members and one Chairperson. Out ofthem four need to have legal background (they need not be judges). Others couldbe from any background.
8. Government’s proposal
The selection committee consists of Vice President, PM,Leaders of both houses, Leaders of opposition in both houses, Law Minister andHome minister. Barring Vice President, all of them are politicians whosecorruption Lokpal is supposed to investigate. So there is a direct conflict ofinterest. Also selection committee is heavily loaded in favor of the rulingparty. Effectively ruling party will make the final selections. And obviouslyruling party will never appoint strong and effective Lokpal.
Civil Society proposal
Selection committee consists of members from judicialbackground, Chief Election Commissioner, Comptroller and Auditor General ofIndia and international awardees (like Nobel prize winners and Magsaysayawardees of Indian origin). A detailed transparent and participatory selectionprocess has been prescribed.
9. Government’s proposal
Lokpal will not have powers to investigate any case againstPM, which deals with foreign affairs, security and defence. This means thatcorruption in defence deals will be out of any scrutiny whatsoever. It willbecome impossible to investigate into any Bofors in future.
Civil Society proposal
There is no such bar on Lokpal’s powers.
10. Government’s proposal
Whereas a time limit of six months to one year has beenprescribed for Lokpal to enquire, however, subsequently, there is no time limitprescribed for completion of trial.
Civil Society proposal
Investigations should be completed within one year. Trialshould get over within the next one year.
Lokpal will have jurisdiction only on MPs, ministers and PM.It will not have jurisdiction over officers. The officers and politicians donot indulge in corruption separately. In any case of corruption, there isalways an involvement of both of them. So according to government’s proposal,every case would need to be investigated by both CVC and Lokpal. So now, ineach case, CVC will look into the role of bureaucrats while Lokpal will lookinto the role of politicians. Obviously the case records will be with oneagency and the way government functions it will not share its records with theother agency. It is also possible that in the same case the two agencies arriveat completely opposite conclusions. Therefore it appears to be a sure way ofkilling any case.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal will have jurisdiction over politicians, officials andjudges. CVC and the entire vigilance machinery of government will be mergedinto Lokpal.
7. Government’s proposal
Lokpal will consist of three members, all of them beingretired judges. There is no reason why the choice should be restricted tojudiciary. By creating so many post retirement posts for judges, the governmentwill make the retiring judges vulnerable to government influences just beforeretirement as is already happening in the case of retiring bureaucrats. Theretiring judges, in the hope of getting post retirement employment would do thebidding of the government in their last few years.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal would have ten members and one Chairperson. Out ofthem four need to have legal background (they need not be judges). Others couldbe from any background.
8. Government’s proposal
The selection committee consists of Vice President, PM,Leaders of both houses, Leaders of opposition in both houses, Law Minister andHome minister. Barring Vice President, all of them are politicians whosecorruption Lokpal is supposed to investigate. So there is a direct conflict ofinterest. Also selection committee is heavily loaded in favor of the rulingparty. Effectively ruling party will make the final selections. And obviouslyruling party will never appoint strong and effective Lokpal.
Civil Society proposal
Selection committee consists of members from judicialbackground, Chief Election Commissioner, Comptroller and Auditor General ofIndia and international awardees (like Nobel prize winners and Magsaysayawardees of Indian origin). A detailed transparent and participatory selectionprocess has been prescribed.
9. Government’s proposal
Lokpal will not have powers to investigate any case againstPM, which deals with foreign affairs, security and defence. This means thatcorruption in defence deals will be out of any scrutiny whatsoever. It willbecome impossible to investigate into any Bofors in future.
Civil Society proposal
There is no such bar on Lokpal’s powers.
10. Government’s proposal
Whereas a time limit of six months to one year has beenprescribed for Lokpal to enquire, however, subsequently, there is no time limitprescribed for completion of trial.
Civil Society proposal
Investigations should be completed within one year. Trialshould get over within the next one year.
11. Government’s proposal
It does not deal with corruption of Bureaucrats. Corruptbureaucrats continue in their job without any actions against them.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal will have power to direct disciplinary action,including dismissal of a corrupt officer from job.
12. Government’s proposal
It does not talk of investigation of complaints againstjudges.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal will have powers to initiate investigations oncomplaints of corruption against judges.
13. Government’s proposal
Speaker would decide which complaints shall be enquired intoby Lokpal.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal will not be able to dismiss any complaint from publicwithout hearing the complainant.
14. Government’s proposal
Our entire governance system suffers from inadequate publicgrievance redressal systems, which force people to pay bribes. Lokpal bill doesnot address this issue.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal will have the powers to orders redressal in a timebound manner. It will have powers to impose financial penalties on guiltyofficers, which would be paid to complainant as compensation.
15. Government’s proposal
Large number of people raising their voice against politicalcorruption are being murdered. Lokpal does not have any powers to provideprotection to them.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal will have powers to provide protection againstphysical and professional victimization of whistleblowers.
16. Government’s proposal
Nothing has been provided in law to recover ill gottenwealth. A corrupt person can come out of jail and enjoy that money.
Civil Society proposal
Loss caused to the government due to corruption will berecovered from all accused.
17. Government’s proposal
Under the present law, there is Small punishment forcorruption- Punishment for corruption is minimum 6 months and maximum 7 years.
Civil Society proposal
Enhanced punishment - The punishment would be minimum 5 yearsand maximum of life imprisonment.
It does not deal with corruption of Bureaucrats. Corruptbureaucrats continue in their job without any actions against them.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal will have power to direct disciplinary action,including dismissal of a corrupt officer from job.
12. Government’s proposal
It does not talk of investigation of complaints againstjudges.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal will have powers to initiate investigations oncomplaints of corruption against judges.
13. Government’s proposal
Speaker would decide which complaints shall be enquired intoby Lokpal.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal will not be able to dismiss any complaint from publicwithout hearing the complainant.
14. Government’s proposal
Our entire governance system suffers from inadequate publicgrievance redressal systems, which force people to pay bribes. Lokpal bill doesnot address this issue.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal will have the powers to orders redressal in a timebound manner. It will have powers to impose financial penalties on guiltyofficers, which would be paid to complainant as compensation.
15. Government’s proposal
Large number of people raising their voice against politicalcorruption are being murdered. Lokpal does not have any powers to provideprotection to them.
Civil Society proposal
Lokpal will have powers to provide protection againstphysical and professional victimization of whistleblowers.
16. Government’s proposal
Nothing has been provided in law to recover ill gottenwealth. A corrupt person can come out of jail and enjoy that money.
Civil Society proposal
Loss caused to the government due to corruption will berecovered from all accused.
17. Government’s proposal
Under the present law, there is Small punishment forcorruption- Punishment for corruption is minimum 6 months and maximum 7 years.
Civil Society proposal
Enhanced punishment - The punishment would be minimum 5 yearsand maximum of life imprisonment.
*************************************************************************************
Lokpal bill: Necessary, but not sufficient
Arvind Kejriwal, Member, Lokpal Bill Drafting Panel
The Lokpal is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to fight corruption. Under the present anti-corruption systems in our country, there is not a single anti-corruption agency which is independent of the government control and, therefore, has the powers to independently investigate and prosecute the guilty. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has the powers, but not independent.
The Central Vigilance Commission ( CVC) has independence, but no powers. In short, the government has ensured there are enough loopholes in the laws to keep these anticorruption agencies ineffective. The people will be shocked to learn that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, even if a person is convicted, there is no provision to recover the losses he/she caused to the government or the money the person made through corrupt means. With such a toothless anti-corruption system, no wonder corruption has become a zero-risk, high-profit business in our country.
All that the proposed Jan Lokpal Bill will do is to ensure the certainty and swiftness of punishment in corruption cases. Next time any individual indulges in corruption, he should know he will be investigated, prosecuted, punished and will lose his job. According to the proposed Jan Lokpal Bill, the investigations into the cases have to be completed in two years so that the guilty is punished in a time-bound manner.
An ordinary person always faces demands for bribe to get his works done. The Lokpal will ensure justice for him and punishment for those who harass him. The proposed Bill has also taken care to ensure the selection process of the Lokpal and its functioning remains totally transparent. Strong measures of accountability have also been incorporated in the proposed Bill to guarantee the Lokpal itself does not become corrupt or undemocratic.
In addition to the Lokpal Bill, many more institutional reforms like electoral reforms, judicial reforms and decentralisation of political powers are needed to make the fight against corruption more effective. The India Against Corruption Movement will take up these issues one by one.
(The author is among the leaders of the Jan Lokpal movement)
*************************************************************************************
Source : http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2011/08/14/faq-why-is-anna-hazare-wrong-and-lok-pal-a-bad-idea/
Don’t fall for the miracle cure that is being offered. Corruption must be fought differently and it’s not easy.
1. Is Lok Pal is necessary to fight corruption?
No, not only is it unnecessary, it will make the problem worse. Corruption in India arises because of too much government, too many rules, too much complexity and too much ambiguity. Adding one more, huge, powerful layer to an already complex system will make the system even more complicated. Complexity creates the incentives for corruption–both on the part of the bribe giver and the bribe taker.
No, not only is it unnecessary, it will make the problem worse. Corruption in India arises because of too much government, too many rules, too much complexity and too much ambiguity. Adding one more, huge, powerful layer to an already complex system will make the system even more complicated. Complexity creates the incentives for corruption–both on the part of the bribe giver and the bribe taker.
1A. Is the government’s version of the Lok Pal bill better?
No. We don’t need a Lok Pal at all. Making existing constitutional institutions—like CAG, CVC, CBI and the Election Commission—more independent will serve the purpose equally well. If we have been unable to prevent the politicisation and undermining of these instutitions why would we be able to prevent the Lok Pal from being politicised and undermined? If we can prevent Lok Pal from being politicised and undermined, why can’t we restore the independence and credibility of CAG, CVC, CBI and the Election Commission?
No. We don’t need a Lok Pal at all. Making existing constitutional institutions—like CAG, CVC, CBI and the Election Commission—more independent will serve the purpose equally well. If we have been unable to prevent the politicisation and undermining of these instutitions why would we be able to prevent the Lok Pal from being politicised and undermined? If we can prevent Lok Pal from being politicised and undermined, why can’t we restore the independence and credibility of CAG, CVC, CBI and the Election Commission?
2. What’s the alternative to Lok Pal then?
The alternative is to proceed with second-generation reforms, or Reforms 2.0. Contrary to conventional wisdom reforms have reduced corruption, albeit by moving it to higher up the government. In 1989 an ordinary person would have to pay a bribe to get a telephone connection. By 2005, there was no need to pay a bribe at all and anyone could get a phone in minutes. Yes, 2010 saw the 2G scam in telecoms, but that was because the UPA government reversed the reform process.
In fact, data show that perceptions of corruption are lower in some sectors of the economy, usually those that have been liberalised.
If you are interested in exploring real alternatives, you can start by reading Atanu Dey’s slim, easily readable and inexpensive new book, “Transforming India”.
3. Doesn’t Hong Kong have an Ombudsman and doesn’t it enjoy low corruption?
This is a specious argument. There is little evidence to prove that Hong Kong has low corruption because it has an Ombudsman. On the contrary, there is empirical evidence from across the world suggesting that countries with high economic freedom are perceived to suffer from less corruption.
Hong Kong is one of the freest economies of the world, and therefore, incentives for government officials to be corrupt are relatively low. The Ombudsman is useful to address the residual corruption in economic sectors and in sectors like law enforcement that do not have discretionary powers over economic sectors.
4. How can we have economic reforms if the corrupt politicians don’t allow it?
We have not really demanded them at all, actually. If we did, they are bound to register in the national political agenda. We should persuade politicians that their political future is linked to implementing economic reforms.
We have not really demanded them at all, actually. If we did, they are bound to register in the national political agenda. We should persuade politicians that their political future is linked to implementing economic reforms.
5. Easy to say, but how can we do this?
By voting. The constituencies that stand to benefit from economic reforms—the middle class—needs to vote in larger numbers. In the absence of the middle class vote base, politicians appease the poor by giving handouts and entitlements, and cater to the super rich by allowing the crony sector to exploit the half-reformed economy. It’s not easy, and we have to be innovative. See for instance, Atanu Dey’s interesting idea to form middle-class vote banks to induce good governance.
Whatever may be the claims made by the people promoting Lok Pal, there is no miracle solution. They are peddling miracle weight-loss pills. Sadly, such pills usually don’t work and can cause severe damage to your health. If you are cautioned not to take those pills, you can’t ask “which other miracle weight-loss pill do you recommend”? The answer is in diet and exercise, which is hard work.
6. In the meantime, what’s wrong with Jan Lok Pal?
This question has already been answered above, but it’s usual to encounter it again at this stage. The problem with Jan Lok Pal is that it’ll make the problem worse. Does anyone seriously think we can hire tens of thousands of absolutely honest officials who will constitute the Lok Pal? Who will keep watch on them? Maybe we need a Super Lok Pal, and then a Hyper Lok Pal to watch over the Super Lok Pal and so on…This isn’t sarcasm, this is the logical extension of the Lok Pal argument.
This question has already been answered above, but it’s usual to encounter it again at this stage. The problem with Jan Lok Pal is that it’ll make the problem worse. Does anyone seriously think we can hire tens of thousands of absolutely honest officials who will constitute the Lok Pal? Who will keep watch on them? Maybe we need a Super Lok Pal, and then a Hyper Lok Pal to watch over the Super Lok Pal and so on…This isn’t sarcasm, this is the logical extension of the Lok Pal argument.
7. Don’t we have the right to protest peacefully? Why do you say that a fast-until-death lacks legitimacy?
Of course we have the right to protest peacefully. But it’s not about whether we have the right or not. It’s about are we using that right wisely. (You have the freedom of speech but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to blast Eminem using a loudspeaker at 2am in a residential district.)
Of course we have the right to protest peacefully. But it’s not about whether we have the right or not. It’s about are we using that right wisely. (You have the freedom of speech but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to blast Eminem using a loudspeaker at 2am in a residential district.)
As Ambedkar said while introducing the Constitution in November 1949, once the Constitution came into force, we should avoid all non-constitutional methods like protests and satyagraha, for they are the grammar of anarchy. If two persons go on fasts until death for two opposing reasons, we cannot decide the issue by allowing one person to die first.
Fast until death is political blackmail. It is a form of theatre engaged in to coerce the government into doing something that the agitators want. Whatever may be the cause, a single person cannot be allowed to dictate laws to the whole nation.
8. Doesn’t Anna Hazare have the right to fast until death?
Anna Hazare has the right to protest peacefully. However to the extent that his actions amount to an attempt to commit suicide, they are illegal. The government can legitimately prevent him from killing himself whatsoever the reason he might have to attempt suicide.
Anna Hazare has the right to protest peacefully. However to the extent that his actions amount to an attempt to commit suicide, they are illegal. The government can legitimately prevent him from killing himself whatsoever the reason he might have to attempt suicide.
9. You are an armchair intellectual. Shouldn’t we trust activists more?
Pilots don’t design aircraft. Practicing doctors don’t discover new drugs and treatments. These jobs are usually done by armchair intellectuals. So being an armchair intellectual is not a disqualification.
Pilots don’t design aircraft. Practicing doctors don’t discover new drugs and treatments. These jobs are usually done by armchair intellectuals. So being an armchair intellectual is not a disqualification.
You shouldn’t trust intellectuals or activists because of what they are. You should examine their arguments and make your own judgement. Most of the people supporting Lok Pal have not examined what the proposal is, have not tried to consider opposing arguments and blindly accept it as a solution because some famous people said so.
11. Aren’t those who oppose Anna Hazare’s agitation supporting the corrupt politicians?
No. It takes an enormous amount of arrogance to claim that Anna Hazare and his supporters have the exclusive hold on the right way to fight corruption.
No. It takes an enormous amount of arrogance to claim that Anna Hazare and his supporters have the exclusive hold on the right way to fight corruption.
In the real world, it is foolish to expect 100% clean and non-corrupt politicians. The real world challenge is to achieve good governance with imperfect constitutions, imperfect institutions, imperfect leaders and imperfect citizens. This requires us to realise that individuals respond to incentives. If we remove incentives for taking or giving bribes, then corruption will be lowered. We can reduce incentives for corruption by following through with the reforms that started in 1991 but have stalled since 2004.
It is entirely possible to oppose the UPA government’s politics and policies, while recognising that it is the legitimately constituted government of the country. Individuals and parties might suffer from a legitimacy deficit because of flagrant corruption, but the Government of India as an institution remains the legitimate authority to make policy decisions for the whole nation.
12. Why is fasting illegitimate when Mahatma Gandhi used it in our struggle for independence from the British?
There is a huge difference in context between 26th January 1950 when the Constitution of India came into force and the time before it.
There is a huge difference in context between 26th January 1950 when the Constitution of India came into force and the time before it.
Mahatma Gandhi used civil disobedience against laws imposed on India by the British government. Indians had no say in how the laws were made and how they were implemented. Indians could not repeal laws we didn’t want. Civil disobedience was justified in this context.
Gandhi also used it to coerce Indian nationalist leaders too, including Ambedkar and the Indian National Congress, into accepting his views. Whatever might be the wisdom of Gandhi’s intentions, this was undemocratic and created a culture of ‘high command’ that lives on to this day. Fasting was not justified in this context. This part of Gandhi receives little attention in the dominant narrative of Indian history.
With the formation of the Republic of India on 26 January 1950, things changed profoundly. All Indians have a say in how laws are made and how they are implemented. We can amend or repeal laws that we do not like. There is, of course, a method to do this, which must be followed. These are the constitutional methods that Ambedkar referred to in his grammar of anarchy speech. When constitutional methods are available, there is no case for non-constitutional methods like satyagraha or hunger strikes.
There is thus no equivalence between Gandhi’s satyagraha against the British ruling us and Mr Hazare’s hunger strikes against we ruling ourselves
My counter to those who think the Hazare movement and Jan Lok Pal bill are a bad idea:
(This article is a reply to the article by Arundhati Roy publisehd in The Hindu 2 on 22nd Aug. Here's the link to her article : http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2379704.ece?homepage=true )
I do have a strong set of issues with the supposed 'intelligentsia' response to the Anna Hazara / IAC movement / Jan Lokpal bill - I use the terms loosely and interchangeably.
The key stands, summarising Nitin Pai, Amba Salakar, Arundhati Roy et al seem to be:
1. "We (the civil society experts / bloggers / hand-wringers) know how to fight corruption, but this is not the way".
My comment: yeah, who died and made you Gods Of Knowing How To Fight Corruption?
Social change does not a pattern follow. If this is the form of protest it takes to change one aspect of Indian life - endemic corruption, and this form of protest has found itself large national acceptance and support, with an impact many times that of what has ever happened before, then this might probably be a likely way to make change happen.
I'm sorry that it's not how you think it should be - because, let's face it, that way (whether it is re-writing the constitution, or some vaguely defined "Reforms 2.0" or Salakar's defence of current legislation) hasn't worked yet, and shows no signs of working yet.
2. "Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal are unfit to lead this movement (for various reasons)" without a mention of who else might be. Or even if the movement should have no leader.
Arundhati Roy does the classic knife-the-rival-to-the-socialist-throne by suggesting somewhat loosely that Hazare, Kejriwal et al are American stooges - a point of view that puts her in bed, incongruously, with the ruling party.
She whines that "Kejriwal received a Ford Foundation grant" when she herself received some half a million pounds as publication advance for her book from Evil Western Capitalists. But she doesn't go as far as suggesting who else the movement might be led by.
Nitin Pai defends the right to be an armchair intellectual and not really do anything on ground with the reasoning that "pilots don't design airplanes".
Yes, Mr. Pai. but armchair intellectuals don't either. People who know the principles of flight do - and then they usually go test-fly the damn thing themselves, risking life and limb before they prescribe their designs to the hoi polloi.
3. "The Indian constitution is sufficient. Why add a layer of complexity?"
Well, the supposedly sufficient Indian constitution has resulted in us having an enormous amount of corruption in our lives. However sufficient it might be in theory, it's not sufficient in practice. Perhaps another body - like Hong Kong's ICAC - can help.
Adding a layer of complexity is not in itself a bad thing. It is probably the fastest way to cut through the Gordian knot of legislation and systems we currently have.
Suddenly our keyboard revolutionaries want to defend our constitution and the status quo.
And to Nitin Pai, I lived in Hong Kong, and yes there was a lot of corruption that the ICAC unearthed - and it was a truly feared force among businesspeople and government folks.
Here, even the once-feared threat of "CBI investigation" holds no menace to most folks. They know, ultimately, that some flaw, somewhere in the system will let them off.
4. "This won't help the poor, the 80 crores who earn Rs. 20 a day"
Really, how do you know it won't?
If a Sharad Pawar has siphoned billions using his position as Food & Agriculture Minister and Sugar Baron among other positions - what other mechanism might help? You don't know, and I don't either.
But the status quo won't do a thing. This just might have a chance of doing so.
Let's start with the 8 crores who earn Rs. 200 a day, or the 80 lakhs who earn Rs. 2,000 a day. These are the folks protesting.
Even if it cures some part of corruption for them and does nothing for the 80 crores, that's fine. It's a heckuva lot more than anything you've ever done or managed to get done before this.
Give it a shot. Your way hasn't worked. This might.
5. "This is draconian"
And you believe anything less than draconian will work here where politicians slime out of even murder cases in our current legislative system with impunity?
6. The elephant in the room is that none of the experts write about the government counter of the proposed bill with a much-diluted version that is closer to becoming law.
If there was really no need for a bill, why would the government offer one - is there not some realisation that yes, we are corrupt, let's try to do a little to either fob off this Hazare fellow like we did last time, or to stem a little of the flow of loot.
The government proposals, from alleged "constitutional experts" and "defenders of the parliamentary way" is way more asinine than the Hazare version of the bill. The Hazare version is not perfect - we all know that, but what the government proposes takes the cake in de-testiculation of intent of legislation.
There is an obvious government move to leave gaping Sharad-Pawar sized holes in the bill for him and his ilk to sneak through. This Government version is actually a bill proposed before parliament, and it is somehow instructive to find neither Roy, Pai or Salalkar makes a mention of that impending legislation.
Instead, each seems more eager to derail the populist protest movement, as though the issue that is more important is not the Government's crappy bill that is going through parliament, but to reclaim the crown of "Civil Society Thought Leader" from these damn upstarts Hazare and Kejriwal back for themselves.
7. "Hazare should stand for election and become a member of parliament if he wants to change the laws"
Really, why?
Why does someone need to get into the system necessarily to fight it? Why not fight from the outside? To use your Gandhian example should Mohandas have joined the British Civil Service and then worked for an independent India?
The number of people who have turned out against corruption is far larger than the number that voted for the legislators who are representing those constituencies. The very same legislators who are desperately frightened of the bill and are working hard to derail it.
8. "But who will monitor the monitors?"
Surely, there's a process to do that. But let's have monitors in the first place - it's far easier to monitor the monitors than to not have monitors at all
Because we have none currently, we get robbed blind.
In my lifetime, this is the best shot we've had yet of ridding India of the thieves who constitute our politicians, bureaucrats and government servants.
Let's not screw it up by being crabs-in-the-can who pull down the ones trying to get out.
Let's try make this wor
