This one line summarises the current state of affairs in India. We have been faced with worst set of political and corporate scams and no one wants to make the wrong doers accountable and to make them answer tough questions. Actually, all we want to know and wish to know is how such a huge scam could occur and what lessons were learnt from it. Instead, we are baiting for the blood of these wrong doers and forgetting the lessons to be learnt. In such a scenario, another scam is just waiting to happen and we would once again be up in arms against the Government for napping. I do not understand once the case is heard by the court, why do we need to run a campaign on it. One thing, you are depriving the debate space for corrective measures by using it for harping on the scams and its political fallout, but most importantly, the court proceeding will not be affected by running a campaign on a sub judice matter. So we are in fact wasting our breath by still dissecting a problem long after it has been identified and when we should be discussing solutions.
Indian Parliament has so many self correcting mechanism that if they are allowed to function, no scam should ever occur. First, we have the option of discussion of bills on the floor of the house. It’s a forum to take into account where various political parties stand on any piece of legislation. Once the discussions are done and the view points noted, the bill moves to a standing committee which examines the bill threadbare and allows civil society an opportunity to provide the inputs. Then the bill is voted upon by both houses of Parliament and then seeks the approval of the President before it becomes a law. So, the laws of our country have the blessing of majority voice of Parliament and hence all the members are accountable for the laws we have. Secondly, we have all policy decisions being brought before the Parliament for informing the people about the Government policies and people who do not agree have a forum to register their disagreement. The Parliament has a Public accounts committee that goes through the Auditor report on Government spending and discrepancies. Also, there are sub committees headed by distinguished and veteran Parliamentarians for various Governmental initiatives where inputs can be provided by people who actually seek to make their voice count.
The law and order apparatus is also based on similar belief. It has a self correcting mechanism and it is incumbent upon the senior official to be accountable for the actions of those reporting directly to him. So if a constable is corrupt, then the SHO is accountable for it…so on …to the Police Sub inspector.. to the Circle officer …to the Superintendent … to the DCP and the Commissioner. Our Constitution provides for several levels of checks and decentralizes the duties but consolidates authority in the upward direction. Even the power of Governance is distributed between the Executive (headed by the Prime Minister), the Legislature (to make effective laws) and the Judiciary (so see that the letter and the spirit of Constitution prevail). Each leg of the Constitution acts as a check/balance for the powers of the other leg and together they run the show. If one of the legs malfunctions, the other takes it upon them to sound the errant and try for a course correction. If any systemic problem is identified then each leg of the Constitution must resort to self correction. I know this is a long and tedious process but it is the only effective and lasting solution.
Now, there is a case for creation of an ombudsman or “Lok Pal” who will look into malfunctions in the executive and bureaucracy. There is a huge outcry to include the legislature and the judiciary. I think we must ask ourselves one question, if we do not trust our elected representatives with absolute power and want a judiciary to keep a tab on them, how can we trust a nominated body like the ombudsman with absolute power to prosecute. Who guarantees that this unchecked authority will not get involved in system corruption like the one that’s crippling our other institutions? If several levels of checks provided by our constitution can fail, then it is only a matter of time that the ombudsman fails. When it does, don’t we need to install a proper systemic check so that it does not create a crisis beyond repair? I know, betting on the ombudsman to fail seems cynical and negative, but we must factor in the fact that all institution were created with the public good in mind, however, over a period of time, they began malfunctioning and corruption crept in. We need to factor in that eventuality and not wait for the malfunction to set in before we begin looking for checks and balances. Also, if we have decided not to trust any of our existing institutions, then aren't we being hypocritical in reposing all our faith on an institution that does not even exist. Are we in the wrong for saying, “if we had an ombudsman, this would never happen” when we are not sure how an ombudsman would actually function. Are we trying to seek momentary happiness by looking for a panacea for all our problems, so that we feel we are in safe hands? When this illusion ends, will we be better off or worse off? We need to ask these tough questions to ourselves and the dream merchants (read India against corruption campaign) who are trying to sell this dream. It is very easy to say all my problems would go away if I had a million dollars and was rich; until you actually have it, you can never be sure if you will be better off or worse off. So isn’t it better to make the best use of existing resources and force our institution to self regulate. It will take a long time… maybe 10 years.. maybe more. Trust me; it is the only solution that will last because no one likes a big brother watching over our shoulders. We have to enforce high accountability rather than increase the number of regulators because even the regulators can fail.
So long….
No comments:
Post a Comment