Civil Society, Civil Society … Lokpal, Lokpal….Do we really need a “Lokpal bill”??

The term “Civil Society” has come to enjoy much political, administrative and intellectual currency in the recent years. However it has a fairly long history. Various political philosophers differentiated and separated civil society from the State. In words of S.K.Das “Civil society is the organized society over which the state rules” where as Jeffrey Alexender defined it as “an inclusive umbrella like concept referring to a plethora of institution outside the state. But in the context of the recent political chaos in India, the so called the civil society representatives under Anna Hazare is beyond the concept the above mentioned kind of civil society. The very basic reason is the that they are self proclaimed representatives of 1.21 billion people, who had democratically elected a government by spending around 1,120 crores of tax payers money, as budgeted by the parliament as election expenses in Feb,2009. Well I agree to the fact, that the civil society plays an important role in the welfare and development administration, as it forms a public opinion. To my understanding, Civil Society is nothing but “Us”. In a democracy- in particular, a healthy liberal democracy like India I think we require a public which is organized for democracy, socialized to its norms and values and committed not just to its myriad narrow interests but to larger, common, civic ends. Such a public is only possible with a vibrant civil society. So the question is “Are we a vibrant society”? Or only few among us like Anna Hazare, Kiran Bedi etc. are enough to represent the largest democracy in the world. India’s effective literacy rate according to the provisional census of 2011 is 74.04 % with an increase of 9.2%, where Literacy, as defined in Census operations, is the ability to read and write with understanding in any language. Whereas I think Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society. Hardly, any percent of the society is aware of their rights and duties as citizens. And even if they are aware of it, there is so much in everyone’s life like kids, inflation, job-shifts, un-employment, crime etc they delegate their part of responsibility to others, or say to the voluntary organizations in the society to act as the watch-dog of the public interest.

Modern democratic states are characterized by welfare orientation .Hence; the government has to play an important role in the socio-economic development of the nation. This has resulted in the expansion of the bureaucracy and the multiplication of the administrative process, which in turn increased the administrative power and discretion enjoyed by the government officials at different levels of the government. The earliest democratic institution created in the world for unfair administrative practices is the Scandinavian institution of Ombudsman. It was first created in Sweden in 1809, ‘Ombud’ is a Swedish term and refers to a person who acts as representative or spokesman of another person. The Ombudsman in India is called as Lokpal / Lokayukta. The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) headed by Moraji Desai submitted a special interim Report on” Problems of Redressal of Citizens Grievances’ in 1966. In this Report, the ARC recommended the setting up of two special authorities designated as ‘Lokpal’ and ‘Lokayukta’ for redressal of citizens grievances. The government of India accepted the recommendations of ARC in this regard.So far, 8 official attempts have been made to bring about legislation on this subject. In May, 1968 by the congress government headed by Indira Gandhi for the first time introduced the Bill in the Parliament. However, none of the bills afterwards were passed by the parliament due to one or the other reasons. No doubt, the Lokpal has not yet come into existence in our country, though its need was felt long ago that is 42 years back. With so much of the Political Chaos in the country recently by the Anna’s and the Baba’s, my question is do we really need a “LokPal Bill”?

I think the recent exposure of scams starting from CWG, 2-G, Adarsh society to the recent irregularities noticed by the CAG in the allocation of KG basin to the Reliance. The Government was under pressure to act, was it because of the agitation by the Civil Society? Or by the fear of impending Lokpal Bill? Well if we think away from the “Shor in the country”, It’s because of the democracy and the powers conferred to the institution like CAG, CVC and the Supreme Court of India that the State had to act. It is because of the existing Checks & Balances, the Political and Administrative reforms we had since Independence that we have the Ex-telecom minister in jail, the Daughter of the head of the Coalition party to the government in the Jail, along with the Babus. The hearing in the Courts are public, the Media is more than active to flash anything spicy as ever. So how can “Lokpal” make it look better? Is it the fact that we would feel proud of the fact, that we being the largest democracy in the World would have an establishment of the institution of Lokpal to inquire even the head of the State of the Country, who is elected by 1.21 billion people. I must say” What kind of a Lokpal we are talking about”? Who will be the Lok pal ? The 2001 Lokpal bill by the NDA government features, a Lokpal to consist of a Chairperson who is or has been a Chief Justice or Judge of Supreme Court and two members who are or have been the judges of the Supreme Court or the Chief justices of High Court. I wonder how exclusive it would be!

After all, Lokpal would be just another institution like CBI, CVC, Lokayukta and various tribunals. On a funny note, I am sure “Lokpal would surely be a Human Being” or ‘an Individual’? I hope so. It will be an authority just like the existing ones. But the question, Are the existing one functioning to their capacity? If so, then do we need another one? After all, the question of inclusion of Prime Minister is not going to curb the moral and ethical conduct of all of us. Who will define the so called” Corruption”? The words corruption and corrupt have many meanings starting from Political, Police, Corporate, Corruption(The philosophical concept) often refers to spiritual or moral impurity, Bribery, Systemic and the Rule of Law. And if the above definition is true, “Will Lokpal really curb the above mentioned forms of Corruption”? Or by including the Head of the State, i.e the Prime Minister will make a Statement in the International World Order. I think it’ll be a mockery of the status of the Head of the government of the Republic of India. In today’s modern democratic states, the existing Ombudsman is nothing more or less than a constitutional authority to supervise the compliance of laws and regulations, by the public officials and see that they discharge their duties properly. So I think, to include Prime Minister who is the de-jure executive and the head of the government under Lokpal, will be undermining the status of the Office of the Prime Minister. Today, PM is defined as ‘Primus inter pares’ (first among equals) and’ key stone of the cabinet arch’ and all the roads in the constitution lead to the Prime minister only. So, he cannot sit and answer the issues raised by an institution like Lokpal because of the nature of the duties which the Prime Minister has to deliver. In a parliamentary democracy, where the ministers of the executive branch get their democratic legitimacy from the legislature and are accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative branches are intertwined we don’t need a “Lokpal” at all. What we need is people’s participation in the electoral, administrative and the accountability of the various authorities.

People’s participation means citizens control over the administration or the public influence on administration. It is essential for the smooth and efficient performance of the administrative machinery. And for that matter, we need people‘s participation even if we have a Lokpal tomorrow. It makes the administration responsive to the needs of the people. I believe that a democratic government is based on the “Doctrine of popular Sovereignty” which means people are supreme in a democracy, or the final authority in the democracy is vested in the people. It transfers the representative democracy into participatory democracy. It facilitates what is known as “Bottom –up rule”. In real, people being ignorant and unorganized, cannot generally have a definite and regular influence on administration. Hence the public influence on political and administrative process is mainly indirect and informal. It exists in the Constitutional space which was very efficiently used by Mahatma Gandhi for the freedom of the India from the colonial rule. It is through prolonged popular struggle on moral, political and ideological level, where reserves of counter-hegemony builds up over the years through progressive stages. We can really use the constitutional space offered by the government without getting co-opted by it. People’s participation was and is the biggest need for a democracy to survive its dynamic phases of change and development. And in a democracy, we already have the power to express our opinions in relation to government policies via televisions, cinema, educational institutions, radio, press and public platform. What we need is a change in the attitude of the people this country, a change in the mindset which really does not come with the Lokpal bill. It took us 15O years during the colonial era, to build up a change in mindset to have what we wanted then. And today, we still need a change in mind-set to build the India of tomorrow.