FAQ: Why Anna Hazare is 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment