Model Lokpal Bill

Every government is expected to provide good and corruption-free governance to its citizens.  When it fails to do so, people demand the appointment of a Lokpal to mitigate their sufferings.  India is passing through this stage at the present moment.

The Institution of Lokpal is not a substitute for existing instruments of governance, nor is it an alternative to the judicial process.  At best, it is an adjunct of the governing process.

Obviously, there cannot be a single Lokpal for the whole country, covering all aspects of governance.  The need of the hour is to adopt a model Lokpal Bill which can be modified to suit different requirements of governance.

For example, from the point of view of governance, the three important pillars of the Indian Constitution are the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.  Each of these organs of the Constitution are independent and act as ‘checks and balances’ on each other.  Unfortunately, there is corruption and poor governance in all these institutions.  Since each of these bodies requires special skills and competences, we require three different Lokpals for them – not one.

India is a federation of States with a unitary form of government at the Centre.   There is division of labour between the Centre and the States.  The States collect taxes from people on behalf of the Centre and the Centre allocates resources to the States.  Since most of the public utilities come under the State government  or local bodies, the common man is affected by what happens at the local or State level.  If the States are to be governed by a Lokpal sitting at the Centre, it will make very little difference to the lives of people living at the village, town and State level.  Therefore, we require a separate Lokpal for each of the States. 

Most of the grievances of the common man have to do with bureaucracy – both at the Centre and in the States. 

Again, from the point of view of governance, bureaucracy can be divided into two parts – one, those who administer at the lower level and two, those who make policy and take decisions at the higher level.  Dissatisfaction with governance at the lower level is in the form of grievances, such as delays, harassment, bribery, etc., whereas dissatisfaction at the higher level is in the form of corruption, such as fraud, misappropriation of resources, misuse of office, favouritism, collection by way of commission, etc.  Now, we require a different Lokpal for the lower bureaucracy and one for bureaucrats at the higher level.  The one at the lower level will supervise, control and punish, while one at the higher level requires greater authority and sophistication to deal with professionals and not interfere with their decision-making and risk-taking capabilities.  In other words, we require a different type of Lokpal for the lower bureaucracy and a different one for the higher bureaucracy.

So far as legislators are concerned, the Lokpal will have to make a distinction between those who are elected members of legislative bodies and those who form part of the Civil Society.  Elected members of legislative bodies are governed by a different set of rules and regulations, so far as their work regarding law-making is concerned.  In other areas, they need to be governed by common law.  Here again, we require a different type of Lokpal.

The case of judiciary is totally different.  The judiciary not only upholds rule of law, but also interprets law and oversees the functioning of both the legislature and executive in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.  This requires a type of Lokpal who understands the functioning of the judiciary and is also an expert in Constitutional law.

Should the Prime Minister be under the purview of the Lokpal Bill?  My answer is yes, subject to the privileges which he enjoys as a Member of Parliament.  As things stand at present, the Prime Minister of India is the most powerful person in the country.  He has the army, police, paramilitary forces, CBI, RAW, CVC, Income Tax Department, Enforcement Department, etc., all under him.  Not only that, even the President of India is bound to act according to the aid and advice of the Prime Minister and his cabinet.  Under these circumstances if a person takes it into his head to overpower his adversaries, including members of his own political party, there is no stopping him or her from doing that.  So, there must be some sort of control of the unlimited powers of the Prime Minister.  Should there be frivolous or false allegations against the Prime Minister, he should be empowered to take legal action against those persons who make such allegations and get them punished.

So far as the three conditions raised by Shri Anna Hazare are concerned, it is not difficult to meet them.  Setting up Lokayuktas in States should be implemented with the consent of the States, if possible, and by law, if necessary. The Lokayuktas in States will, of course, have jurisdiction over the lower bureaucracy.

Having a citizens’ charter should not be problematic.  We are already having the Right to Information Act and the citizens’ charter can be added to that.  Even, otherwise, it is an administrative measure.

To sum up, it is the responsibility of every government to provide a clean, efficient and corruption-free government to its citizens.  In case this is not possible for one reason or another, the government should appoint Lokpal to mitigate people’s sufferings.  The institution of Lokpal should not be a replacement of the existing instruments of governance but an additional help in governance.  There should be separate Lokpals for judiciary, elected representatives and bureaucracy.    The Prime Minister should come under the purview of the Lokpal Bill, subject to certain specific conditions.  It should be applicable both to the Centre and States, higher as well as lower bureaucracy.

I don’t think it is desirable to make the institution of Lokpal a constitutional body like Election Commission.  If that happens, it will act in competition with the existing institutions of governance and will hamper good governance in the long run.  Moreover, it will require a constitutional amendment which requires two-third majority of Members of Parliament voting for the amendment and which is not possible in the near future.

Poll Reforms - Now is the Time

When India became independent, we adopted the British parliamentary system and electoral procedures. Little did we realize at that time that this system was full of flaws and needed to be replaced with a better system sooner or later. That time has come NOW.

One of the flaws of this system is the concept of “first-past-the-post”.

First-past-the-post voting means that the candidate who gets most votes in a constituency wins even if he or she falls short of 50 percent of the total votes cast.

In other words, such a candidate does not command the confidence of his constituency, let alone that of his State, country or region.

The second flaw is that the very political parties which form a coalition government at the Centre compete against one another at the regional level. This results in corruption and blackmail.

The third flaw is that the Prime Minister of a coalition government is often chosen on the basis of opportunistic political alliances before and after the elections rather than on the basis of his or her competence and acceptability by the majority of Members of Parliament. As if this were not enough, a Prime Minister chosen in this way has the power to dissolve Parliament and call for fresh elections to improve his or her chances of success in the next election.

To rectify these flaws the British government intends to hold a referendum on May 5, 2011 whether to keep “first-past-the-post” or to switch to another system known as the Alternative Vote (AV).

Under AV, if no candidate wins 50% of the votes, the second preferences of voters who picked last-placed candidates are redistributed until someone reaches the 50%. AV falls short of proportional representation, but is nevertheless an improvement on the current system.

Maybe the Indian political parties would like to follow the British precedent once again and try to improve our electoral system in the light of our experience during the last sixty years.

IS AUSTERITY A VIRTUE OR VICE?

A few days ago I read an advertisement in The Times of India which began with the question: “How true is our fairness?” This set me thinking. What does it mean? Does it mean that we regard ourselves as fair while we are not? Does it mean that we are so obsessed with our being fair that we fail to notice our ugliness? Or does it mean that we are dark or fair only when compared with some other thing.

Let us take the first proposition: “Does it mean that we regard ourselves as fair while we are not?” How true it is in our daily life. For example, take the case of Shashi Tharoor. He thinks that if he stays in a Five-Star hotel, likes gym and privacy, pays for his stay in the hotel out of his hard-earned money, it’s fair enough. But a vast majority of people think otherwise. The same is the case with his boss, Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna.

If Sonia Gandhi travels by Economy class and Rahul Gandhi travels by train, they think they are being austere. But again a vast majority of people think otherwise.

Most of the time this is the case with all of us all the time, whether we are politicians, businessmen, doctors, engineers, scientists, policemen, teachers, man, woman, child, husband, wife, son, daughter, etc.

Let us take the second proposition: “Does it mean that we are so obsessed with our being fair that we fail to notice our ugliness?” Again take the example of Shashi Tharoor. He thinks that if he is paying from his own pocket for his stay in a Five-Star hotel, why should there be any objection to it. But when you think of it in the context of hundreds of people starving and some even committing suicide, does it not look ugly that he should be leading a life of luxury when the very people whom he is supposed to serve, protect and nurture are hardly able to make both ends meet? Many believe it does.

Similarly when Sonia Gandhi travels by Economy class and Rahul Gandhi by train, they believe that they are saving money for the nation. But when considered in the context of the money that is spent on their security and the harassment it causes to hundreds of people on account of their security arrangements, does it not look ugly that they should even pretend to be austere. Many believe it does.

Now let us take the third and last proposition: “Does it mean that we are dark or fair only when compared with some other thing?” Again, how true it is. We are what we are, fair, dark or in-between. We are more corrupt when compared with Western countries and less corrupt when compared with some Asian and African countries. Similarly, we are more secure economically and militarily when compared with Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc., but we are less secure when compared with China, Russia and the United States of America.

Thus, it will be seen that it is all a question of our mind. Mind is very, very mercurial. It rolls back from one extreme to the other within no time. So let us not waste our time on trivial things such as debate on austerity and continue our journey on the road to progress.

I know Dr. Amartya Sen must be giving his toothless smile and wondering whether all Indians are argumentative!

LET TRUE DEMOCRACY TAKE ITS OWN COURSE

The Congress has nominated Pratibha Patil as its candidate for the post of President of India.

The BJP too has nominated Vice President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat as an independent candidate.

Both parties have manipulated to push forward their own candidates in the hope that in the 2009 general elections if they fail to secure absolute majority, the President may invite the party which sponsored him or her in the first instance to form the government. Once the government is formed, other parties would line up to share power and would help the ruling party to secure a Vote of Confidence in Parliament.

The irony is that neither Congress nor BJP command absolute majority in the Electoral College for the Presidential Election. It is the regional parties who command absolute majority. Yet both the Congress and BJP are able to push forward the candidature of their own parties by dividing the regional parties.

So far as the Constitution of India is concerned, it does not recognise any political party or combination of parties such as UPA, NDA, UNPA, etc. For the purpose of electing the President of India the Constitution recognises only the elected members of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and State Assemblies. Who knows after the 2009 general elections there may not be any such bodies as UPA, NDA, UNPA, etc.?

India claims to be a federal polity with a strong bias towards a unitary form of government. It is the Centre, which calls the shots. The States are dependent upon the Centre for their share of revenues. The Centre appoints Governors of States and the States can be dismissed simply by an adverse report by the Governor. Under the present dispensation the States are treated as mere vassals of the Centre. Obviously, such a state of affairs is not conducive to the proper development of States and cannot last for long.

It is high time that regional parties put up their own candidate for the post of President of India. If elected, such a person will not act in a partisan manner at the time of 2009 general elections.

Moreover, if this experiment succeeds, it can be repeated at the time of 2009 general elections. This will also restore the balance of power in favour of the States vis-a-vis the Centre.

A Prime Minister who commands the respect of all the regional parties is anytime better than a person who is imposed upon the nation through convergence of fortuitous circumstances.

LET TRUE DEMOCRACY TAKE ITS OWN COURSE.