In what should be seen as a victory for deliberative democracy, the Lok Sabha passed the Lok Pal and Lok Ayuktas Bill, 2013, on Wednesday with near-unanimity among political parties. Only the Samajwadi Party and the Shiv Sena objected in the end, and they chose to walk out rather than vote against the Bill or disrupt the House. The Rajya Sabha had passed the same version of the Bill on Tuesday, which means that it is now ready to be signed into law. This follows a long and complicated process, which included fasts, the formation of a new political party, fraught negotiations with representatives of civil society, and many false starts at legislation. That a law has now been passed that retains some of the useful features of the original proposal but removes many of the most dangerous and worrying provisions demonstrates that the process of reasoned negotiation that underlies parliamentary democracy may work slowly and poorly, but can still provide sensible outcomes.
The Lok Pal, if set up in conformity with the spirit of the new law, could theoretically now be a useful mechanism for oversight and accountability, with less danger than earlier of becoming a loose cannon that arbitrarily goes after popularly chosen representatives. One key concession to activists is that the prime minister will be subject to Lok Pal investigations - with the exception of the post's national security-related functions. The new law also recognises the importance of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), setting up a new director of prosecution who will be appointed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner, not the law ministry in the serving administration. The CBI director will now be appointed by the same collegium that selects the Central Vigilance Commissioner. The government gave in to demands from the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party on several points, such as curbs on the transferring of CBI officers investigating Lok Pal-related cases without the Lok Pal's assent.
However, this new legislation is not enough. Certainly, it is a landmark in that a new organisation has been created; hopefully the Lok Pal will follow the example of the Election Commission, for example, and become a check on the unscrupulous misuse of power. Many other countries have such ombudsmen, and they work well. In Indonesia, the equivalent body leads anti-corruption investigation into major allies of the ruling party. In South Africa, the ombudsman is probing allegations of state expenditure in building a home for President Jacob Zuma, which has led to pressure on Mr Zuma to step down. But the Lok Pal should be followed by various other measures to increase government accountability. A grievance redressal Bill, like some states have implemented, is overdue at the Centre. Most importantly, however, the steps towards autonomy of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) taken through this law and by recent actions of the Supreme Court should be followed up. The CBI should be neither subservient to the government nor an unrestrained body that is free to level any charge, however dangerous, without accountability. An investigative body that is free of political interference and yet is accountable to the people's representatives is a must. Perhaps parliamentary supervision is the answer. Either way, work must begin on finding a middle ground.
