Playing with fire
Vijay Darda Dec 23, 2011, 12.00AM IST

Irrespective of the much-maligned image of all politicians as the embodiment of all that is corrupt, there is no doubt that the entire political class has been working hard towards the framing of a strong Lokpal Bill. The sustained anti-politician campaign notwithstanding, Parliament did debate this issue. It came up with a sense of the House that was expected to satisfy Team Anna - and did, with Anna Hazare breaking his fast.

Then the expectation was that Anna and his supporters would let Parliament function in peace. It would get down to the task of framing the law without the constant pressure of meeting deadlines. But the experience of the past few months has left us parliamentarians a worried lot. We do want to pass the Lokpal Bill, but not with someone holding the threat of a fast-unto-death, like a gun, to our head.

 Civil society is expected to function like a pressure group in a democracy. In this respect, Team Anna has done its job remarkably well. It has sensitised not just the people, but the political class on the issue of corruption. The government too has responded with sensiti-vity towards its concerns. But when civil society adopts an `I know best` attitude and condemns those who disagree with it as corrupt, then it makes the transition from being a pressure group to being anarchist.

The reiteration by Team Anna that nothing except its own Jan Lokpal Bill is acceptable to it is anti-democratic at best and dictatorial at worst. The tone and tenor of its language is also reflective of its lack of faith in the basic principles of an elected and representative democracy.

There is hardly a person who would argue that we do not need to fight corruption. No one would claim that public services are in the pink of health, and corruption does not eat into their vitals. Truly, corruption is a malady that needs an urgent cure. But we do not want to end up with a remedy that is worse than the malady. As someone put it, we should not come to a situation where we need a `Dharampal` to police the Lokpal after a few years.

This is a legitimate concern as the workforce to man the various positions in the Lokpal organisation would be drawn from the same talent pool that is available to the various arms of the government. If Team Anna wants us to believe that the existing government machinery is totally corrupt, then where is the guarantee that the Lokpal functionaries would all be incorruptible? Surely, they would be Indians not aliens.

We parliamentarians also start having second thoughts about the real intent of Team Anna when we discover that it has no concern for the genuine issues raised by MPs. For example, the inclusion of the prime minister in the Bill has serious implications for the stability of our polity. No Westminster type of democracy like ours can function effectively if there is a body above the prime minister. Unlike the states - that have a provision for imposing governor`s rule if the chief minister has to step down - there is no such scope for an interim arrangement in case the prime minister`s position becomes untenable. A Lokpal without any accountability to Parliament that overrides the prime minister is a sure recipe for instability, more so in these times when governments at the Centre are formed through coalitions that have a built-in element of fragility.

Then there is the question of Group C and D employees. We all accept that ordinary people get hassled by these employees, but we have genuine concern about the huge burden on the Lokpal structure if all these employees come within its ambit. We parliamentarians wonder why Team Anna remains indifferent to the issues that are flagged by the government.

 If we MPs were all indeed compromised, the best option for us would have been to accept the Jan Lokpal Bill as suggested by Anna and Co, and get them off our backs. We could then have waited for the Lokpal to fail and become just another inefficient bureaucratic body. But then this is the difference between street movements and governments. No government can act without taking into consideration the future impact of its decisions.

Over the next few days, Parliament will surely debate the Lokpal Bill. As intense backroom work has gone into it, we may even have the Bill passed. But doubts will continue to persist in our minds: by creating an authority not answerable to the Parliament, would we have erred badly? We would keep feeling that merely on the whims of a few stubborn men and women who have, through design or luck, invoked the name of the father of the nation and donned a Gandhi cap without believing in his ideals of non-violence and self-restraint, we have gone in for a remedy that is worse than the malady.

We will keep wondering if we have not invited anarchy to the doorsteps of Parliament. After all, what prevents another self-styled reformist from mustering the support of thousands on the streets, especially with help from the `breaking news` driven media, and holding a gun to Parliament`s head? We still have a few days to reassert the primacy of the Parliament. We should not let this opportunity slip away.

The writer is a member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) and chairman of Lokmat Media.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Playing-with-fire/articleshow/11209549.cms