The camera's challenge

They say that technology changes reality and opens up possibilities in ways that nothing else can; the advent of satellites, for instance, frees TV in ways that governments and regulators would not have imagined either possible or desirable. And miniature cameras can record things that, in another age, remained hidden behind closed doors (in camera, rather than on camera). Both TV and miniature cameras have now combined in devastating fashion to intrude into the practice of democracy. Whether it is ministers accepting money for shady deals, party chiefs taking cash from bogus arms merchants, or now parliamentarians taking bundles of notes for simply asking questions, the electronic media (and this includes websites with their potentially universal reach) have forced a new kind of public accountability on reluctant political parties. The print media may claim greater credibility and perhaps more of a sense of responsibility, but seeing is believing""and the sight of MPs taking money from virtual strangers in order to ask questions has been definitive in a manner that nothing else could have been.

In an earlier age, those caught with their hand in the till could bluster their way through with fierce denials and muddy the water in other ways, hoping that with the passage of time and a change of political wind, they would be able to rebuild shattered careers if not their reputations. Not any longer, as Bangaru Laxman and others can testify""because images are near-indelible and can in any case be replayed endlessly. Indeed, it might be argued that those in the dock can continue to claim innocence in the Iraq oil deals, despite what the Volcker report has said, only because the reach and impact of the printed word can be blunted sufficiently to create room for the possibility of innocence. Not so when the camera has done its work and millions have seen the end result. If in doubt, compare the instant response of the leading political parties to the latest expose, with the way in which the bribes accepted by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha's parliamentarians were treated. There was full documentation of the JMM transaction in bank accounts, but even those who took the money remain largely faceless and therefore continue to function. Not so the MPs in today's spotlight. Even the Supreme Court may have to ask itself whether it was wise in declaring in absolutist fashion (in the JMM case) that parliamentarians cannot, by definition, be bribed""if so, what is wrong with taking money to ask questions?

Which brings up the real question. Only those in kindergarten can believe that the 11 MPs caught on camera are a breed apart. There is a larger problem with regard to parliamentarians' functioning and political funding which, if not addressed soon, will inevitably result in even more exposes and, heaven forbid, a gradual loss of system credibility. It is one thing for a problem to exist unseen, and quite another for it to surface and still not be addressed. The challenge, therefore, is to go beyond the 11 MPs and address the root problem. The Lok Sabha speaker, the chairman of the Rajya Sabha's ethics committee and all the party worthies who have been asked to declare verdicts on today's 11 sinners, had better consider whether that would be even half the job done, and whether they have the gumption to address the real underlying issue that everyone wants to evade.