Lokpal Bill: The third way?
|
COMMENTS 
The Lokpal is too simplistically visualised by the India Against Corruption campaign as the single solution to the problem of corruption, says Aruna Roy of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information. Instead, Roy proposes an alternative five-fold strategy in these excerpts from her open letter to government
The NCPRI’s (National Campaign for People’s Right to Information) involvement with legislation to deal with corruption and arbitrary use of power began with the demand for an RTI law in 1996. The Lokpal was flagged as a law that needed to be taken up along with the Whistle Blowers Bill to address the killing of RTI activists and establish accountability. A committee was set up in September 2010 for that purpose. The issue of the Lokpal was however taken up by some members of the NCPRI Working Committee, who formed India Against Corruption (IAC) and the NCPRI discussions remained suspended.
The Lokpal discussion has had an interesting trajectory. It began as the stated logical end of a large middle class mobilisation on corruption. The stated end of that campaign was the demand for the setting up of a Joint Drafting Committee for a Lokpal Bill. In common usage and understanding of corruption, the term refers to a range of corrupt practices. The political/governance spectrum is indeed more culpable than others. For it is mandated to maintain integrity in public life. This includes preventing the arbitrary use of power and corrupt practices. The Lokpal was too simplistically ordained by the campaign as a solution to all varieties of corrupt practices in our lives.
The assurance that all solutions to the entire gamut of corrupt practices could be worked out through a strong Lokpal has left us with a great sense of disquiet. Not only because it does not address the arbitrary use of power. But because it is an unrealistic promise to rising expectations that it is an alleviation of all ills through one Bill. It is also a question of the contents of the Jan Lokpal draft itself.
There have been public meetings but few consultations on the content of the Act in detail. While gestures and symbolic assent – like SMS and referendums – may approve the intent, drafting of an Act needs more informed debate. The Lokpal debate has had its share of general platitudes, we need now to go beyond that. We also have to place the role of dissent squarely in the fulcrum of the debate. The discussions, after all, flow from the acceptance that a strong Lokpal Bill is needed. Also that the earlier and even the current government draft is faulty, even on principles.
The NCPRI however did make efforts before April 5 to arrive at a consensus with the IAC in a meeting held on April 3 in the NMML. The NAC took up the matter independent of the NCPRI on April 4. The NCPRI had expressed reservations about the overarching and overwhelming structure of a law, which included grievances and corruption within its ambit. It was argued that though both are equally important, they require different mechanisms for implementation.
Subsequently events took over, and in the polarised discourse, it became impossible to make suggestions and/or suggest changes. Every critique was attributed to wrong intent and viewed with suspicion and mistrust by the civil society members of the Joint Committee. Critique of the Bill has evoked sharp reactions, and statements have been made that no amendments or change to the principles or the framework is possible, and that disagreement with the draft was tantamount to promoting corruption. We were baffled by such statements. The NCPRI however continued with the consultations to evolve an approach, a set of principles and measures to unpack the huge, unwieldy and much too powerful structure proposed by IAC.
Our approach to the Lokpal is different both from the Jan Lokpal and the government Bills. The NCPRI would like to share a set of principles and a framework for deliberation. The summary of our basic arguments is detailed below.
The consensus that emerged was that in place of a single institution there should be multiple institutions and that a basket of collective and concurrent Lokpal anti-corruption and grievance redressal measures should be evolved.
Summary of the NCPRI approach
Rationale: Vesting jurisdiction over the length and breadth of the government machinery in one institution will concentrate too much power in the institution, while the volume of work will make it difficult to carry out its tasks.
1. Unanimous endorsement of the need for accountability of all public servants, including the contentious issue of inclusion of the PM, with a few caveats. (No one is above the law, enforcing the rule of law)
2. An independent system for judicial scrutiny and standards.
3. An independent and strong institution to scrutinise corruption of public servants and issues, which require different administrative processes and organisational set-up.
4. A mechanism to redress grievances of the common citizen.
5. Whistleblowers’ protection.
The five measures proposed by NCPRI are:
1. Rashtriya Bhrashtachar Nivaran Lokpal (National Anti-corruption Lokpal): An institution to tackle corruption of all elected representatives, including the prime minister (with some safeguards), ministers and members of parliament and senior bureaucrats (Group ‘A’ officers) and all other co-accused including those in the private and social sector. The Lokpal will be financially and administratively independent from the government and will have both investigative and prosecution powers.
2. Kendriya Satarkta Lokpal (Central Vigilance Commission): Amending the Central Vigilance Commission Act to remove the single directive and empower the CVC to investigate corruption and take appropriate action against mid-level bureaucracy.
3. Nyayapalika Lokpal (Judicial Standards and Accountability Lokpal): To strengthen the existing Judicial Accountability and Standards Bill, that is currently before parliament, to ensure that the judiciary is also made effectively and appropriately accountable, without compromising its independence from the executive or the integrity of its functions.
4. Shikayat Nivaran Lokpal (Public Grievances Lokpal): To set up an effective time-bound system for grievance redressal for common citizens to make the government answerable in terms of its functions, duties, commitments and obligations towards citizens. The grievance redressal structure would have decentralised institutional mechanisms going right down to each ward/block level, and would ensure a bottom-up, people-centric approach so that complaints and grievances can be dealt with speedily and in a decentralised, participatory and transparent manner. It will integrate public vigilance processes like vigilance committees and social audits, and provide for facilitation for the filing of all grievances/complaints through the setting up of block information and facilitation centres in every block (rural) and ward (urban) in the country. The grievance redressal mechanism will be a three-tier structure consisting of grievance redressal officers at the local level within the department, independent district-level grievance redressal authorities and central/state-level grievance redressal commission. It will include and rationalise existing structures.
5. Lokrakshak Kanoon (Whistleblower Protection Lokpal): To strengthen the existing Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill that is currently before parliament, to ensure appropriate protection of whistleblowers.
These institutions, where relevant, will also be established at the state level. In addition there will be a common selection process to staff these institutions. We feel that all these measures need to be brought in simultaneously to effectively tackle corruption at all levels and provide a mechanism to redress grievances of citizens.
Source and further reading: http://righttoinformation.info
Infochange News & Features, August 2011