The best, or perfect (depending on the translator), said Voltaire, is the enemy of the good. That is precisely what activist Anna Hazare and his so-called “Team Anna” have converted their version of the anti-corruption ombudsman – the Lok Pal – into. Mr Hazare’s fivesome want a “Mr India” kind of all-powerful destroyer of malfeasance, which, they imagine, will wipe out corruption from India’s body politic. The United Progressive Alliance government has gone out of its way to give the four gentlemen and lady a patient and understanding hearing and, based on wider inputs, has framed what the government regards a “good” Bill. It is now up to Parliament to decide if it is happy with the “good” or wishes to make it “better”. At the end of the day, whatever Parliament does is unlikely to satisfy those who seek the “perfect”. So be it.
The official Bill, now being considered by Parliament, is a reasonable proposal and brings to a conclusion the four-decade-long process of trying to create an anti-corruption ombudsman at the national level. The government has put forth good reasons for the various inclusions and exclusions and it is up to Parliament to decide if the official Bill is worthy of its approval or not. Every citizen is free to have an opinion and lawmakers must pay attention to all views and adopt their own.
If Mr Hazare is not satisfied and wishes to go on a fast in protest, let him. There is no law against a fast that is reasonable and not fatal. But there is a law against suicide. Beyond a point, the government is duty-bound to intervene and end a fast that could result in death. Mr Hazare is perfectly within his rights to protest against whichever version of the Lok Pal Bill Parliament chooses to adopt in its wisdom. He and his team even have the freedom to ridicule it and call the new institution a “joke pal”. But to suggest that only Team Anna’s version of the Bill would meet the needs of the times and any other version is unacceptable, even if approved by Parliament, is the kind of ideological fundamentalism and extremism that all liberal opinion must reject. Democracy is about give and take. It is a system of governance based on the principle that majority opinion finally prevails in policy and lawmaking and that majority is determined on the floor of the legislature.
All those who wish to banish corruption and punish the corrupt need to realise that even the extreme measure of capital punishment does not prevent corruption. If that were the case, then there would be no corruption in China — corrupt officials are routinely hanged in that country. In the end, what is needed is a system of checks and balances, including internal checks and balances within institutions, a system based on incentives for honesty and disincentives against dishonesty, and a system based on affirmation of positive values rather than merely a rejection of negative ones. The idea that an all-seeing, all-powerful and incorruptible person or institution can cleanse the government of the ills that affect the entire society is a fanciful notion in which only the innocent and the deranged can believe.
