All's well that ends well. Parliament's acceptance of Anna Hazare's three major demands - bringing the lower bureaucracy under the Lokpal, setting up Lokayuktas in the states and introducing the concept of citizen's charters to deal with public grievances - has led to the septuagenarian crusader to call off his 12-day fast even as he was entering the 'danger zone' in medical terms.
The historic nature of the day cannot be overemphasized. That the parliament of the world's 'largest functioning democracy', in finance minister Pranab Mukherjee's words, bowed to what has been widely regarded as the wishes of the people could not but enhance its prestige.
In addition, the high quality of the debate did the same, especially the speeches of some of the young MPs. They underlined a level of awareness and sensitiveness which bodes well for the country. The manner in which the two main parties, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), came together to ensure the unanimous acceptance of the resolution incorporating the three points mentioned by Anna demonstrated how they could rise above partisan considerations when the need arose.
However, a few worrying signs remain because, even in their moment of victory, the conduct of the civil activists left a great deal to be desired. For a start, the fact that the resolution was accepted with the thumping of desks by the MPs and not through a voice vote, as was earlier expected, persuaded Medha Patkar, a prominent community worker, to describe what took place in parliament as 'part betrayal'. Her grouse was that the assurance given to her and her colleagues about a voice vote was not kept.
What this attitude underlined yet again was the combative insistence on having their own way which has guided Anna Hazare's foot soldiers. Although they finally agreed to only the passage of a resolution, and not the introduction of their Jan Lokpal bill, the basic intransigence of their attitude was again evident when they raised objections to the 'tainted' union minister Vilasrao Deshmukh carrying the resolution to the Ramlila grounds in view of his suspected involvement in the Adarsh housing society scandal in Mumbai.
Their earlier preference for a vote was also apparently motivated not so much by respect for democratic procedures as by a canny desire to find out the dissenters so that they could later be subjected to harassment and intimidation. It is this kind of in-your-face bellicosity which has led to a split in the Anna camp itself with Swami Agnivesh alleging that the Gandhian satyagrahi was being badly advised while Justice Santosh Hegde had said that the fast should have been called off earlier when the government accepted that the prime minister would be brought under the Lokpal's ambit. This division in the civil society ranks seems to have persuaded the government to approach Anna directly after the passage of the resolution, bypassing some of his obdurate aides.
The portents of this stubbornness are disconcerting. It means that the activists will continue to stir up trouble as parliament considers the bill and perhaps reject some of their favourite points. That the bill has many loopholes is undeniable. The most worrisome is the inclusion of virtually the entire gargantuan bureaucracy in the states and at the centre, which can make the ombudsman sink under the weight of complaints. Hence, the suggestion that it should deal only with the top-level politicians and the higher bureaucracy.
The size of the Lokpal itself and its extraordinary powers, which have the potential to make it prosecutor, judge and executioner, is another bothersome factor. Then, there is the question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards? If the all-powerful Lokpal shows dictatorial tendencies, who will call it to account? It is when misgivings like these are voiced in parliament that the activists are likely to foment trouble by accusing the politicians - who were mocked by Kiran Bedi, one of the leading lights of the movement, in the Ramlila grounds - of betrayal yet again.
Their only disadvantage is that they cannot persuade Anna to go on another fast - even if he is willing - because such a self-serving move can only invite ridicule. As Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray pointed out, some of the activists were playing with Anna's life. In a way, this was the movement's Achilles' heel, for their only weapon was the risk to his life which Anna was willing to take. It its absence, the movement would have stalled despite its noble objective.
There are several lessons, therefore, which the government and the campaigners can draw from the events of the recent past. The government has to appreciate that it cannot allow itself to be mired in charges of corruption without undermining its credibility to such an extent that it has to surrender to what has been called mobocracy. On their part, the activists have to learn that, however just their cause, their conduct can bring disrepute to the movement.
(Amulya Ganguli a political analyst. He can be reached at amulyaganguli@gmail.com)
Yahoo News
No comments:
Post a Comment