From every news story in Indonesia on the KPK, Indonesia’s corruption eradication commission, one message screams out — India does not need to make Indonesia’s mistakes with the proposed Lokpal Bill. It has been nearly 10 years since the KPK was established by law in Indonesia. Ten years on, no surprises: Corruption has not been eradicated from Indonesia. Far from eliminating corruption, KPK continues to be at the centre of political intrigue in Indonesia.
The past week saw the KPK get a new leadership, by a process that can hardly be described as non-partisan. The Jakarta Post on December 5 carried a story on how the main Opposition in Indonesia intended to use the new leadership in the KPK to pursue a high-profile corruption case to the political disadvantage of the ruling party. In another report on the same day, the Jakarta Post carried further details of the political jockeying that went into the selection of the members of the KPK.
The same story also quoted an incoming commissioner talking of the need to set priorities on which cases are to be taken up or not to be considered. On December 6, the incoming KPK chairman himself had to issue clarifications denying a political deal behind his selection.
It comes as no surprise that even 10 years after it came into existence the KPK is still expected to prove that it is an independent organ and that its interventions are not politically motivated.
It is distressing that the phrase, ‘independent of Government’, has gained massive currency in the context of the Lokpal debate. It is understandable if those like the Leftists, who have no real chance of ever forming a serious and viable Union Government, lobby for an all-powerful Lokpal that will be accountable to none for all practical purposes.
Such an agency fits neatly with the kind of politics practised by the communists and the Left-leaning NGOs that are friendly to them. It is, however, incomprehensible that the BJP would bat for such a formulation, having been at the receiving end of judicial activism lobbied for by the same continuum of Left-leaning NGO activists. This raises questions on whether the BJP is even thinking beyond the next three years.
Politics in New Delhi is taking a similar trajectory as the politics in Jakarta, with a KPK-like Lokpal soon to be in place. We already have a deeply partisan political atmosphere that suffers from a massive trust deficit. We already have a tit-for-tat culture of politics where corruption cases are routinely foisted by one party over the other with every regime change.
Another ‘independent’ organ that will be swayed by the intoxicating power of feel-good activism will do little to change this atmosphere or to modify this culture. It will just end up adding a new dimension to conspiracy theories on corruption.
The leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Mr Arun Jaitley, must be complimented for bringing some clarity into the thought-process behind some aspects of the current draft of the Lokpal Bill that are under debate. His explanation on why the investigation arm and prosecution arm must be separated, makes eminent sense. However, the implications of a CBI independent of Government need to be examined more thoroughly, especially if the Lokpal is meant to be the administrative agency that oversees the CBI and is not intended to be directly accountable to either Parliament or the people for its actions.
If the Supreme Court cannot be the sanctioning authority and appellate authority to investigate and prosecute the Prime Minister, then why is the same logic not extended to the problem with Supreme Court being both the investigating authority and the appellate authority for any wrongdoings by the Lokpal?
In this over-eagerness to somehow achieve the ‘independent of Government’, a convoluted scheme is being concocted that will only result in runaway activism by courts and individuals who will come to see themselves as being above any kind of democratic checks and balances.
There is no dearth of such individuals in our public life as has already become evident from the tone and tenor of the Lokpal debate. If the experience from Indonesia is anything to go by, such independence is a myth. Any kind of formulation to search and select such an ombudsman will necessarily be influenced by politics.
If the desire here is for a political leveller by which an Opposition in the minority checkmates the democratic majority of the party in power, then we are headed into dangerous partisan times. A desire for such a leveller is understandable coming from those who don’t expect to ever wield real democratic power either because they are fringe parties with no mass base or fringe leaders with no real mass appeal.
But it defies all political logic for mass leaders who derive legitimacy from democratic strength to allow themselves to be checkmated by activism from those on the political margins, wielding an influence that is inversely proportional to their real political strength.
There can be no dispute over the genuine public desire for an effective anti-corruption mechanism. There also can be no dispute that status quo is not an option either. Some structural changes would be in order where by the investigation and prosecution functions are separated, the process by which the CBI director is chosen is made more transparent and accountability to Parliament is strengthened through a mechanism of Legislative oversight.
The United States has a reasonable model wherein the Attorney-General, who heads the Department of Justice despite being a political member of the Cabinet, enjoys a degree of autonomy, while at the same time being accountable to the legislature.
The integrity of justice delivery cannot be ensured by imagining it to be independent of the Government. We need an institutional culture of functional autonomy whereby a commitment to the law and justice delivery trumps political considerations of the day, while leaving limited room for political decision making as may be appropriate for the executive to function effectively.
It is still not too late to stop this madness of having a Lokpal.
