Backpage

THE skirmishes between the government and the ‘leaders/spokespersons’ of the anti-corruption/accountability movement are now beginning to resemble a farce. A pity, because just a few weeks back, the ‘civil society’ upsurge seemed to enjoy a moral edge and the government, seriously buffeted by an endless stream of corruption charges, appeared more willing to be accommodative and introduce needed correctives. After years of vacillation and prevarication on the Lokpal Bill, seen by many as a critical component of broader accountability and transparency measures, particularly of individuals occupying high offices, there were signs of a forward movement.

It is often asserted that legislation is the prerogative of the legislature; that while ‘civil society’ can and should raise issues that the legislature must engage with, even lobby and pressure for necessary changes, it should not go beyond. Otherwise, it weakens and delegitimizes the organs of the state. Possibly this is why many analysts were deeply concerned by the decision to institute a joint civil society-government drafting committee for a Lokpal Bill, even fearing that the legislature was outsourcing its core function.

It should, however, not be forgotten that even though a joint drafting committee is a rare first, we do have many prior examples of draft legislations (on the Forest Rights Bill, Right to Information, Right to Education, Food Security, to name a few) proposed by civil society groups and social movements, many of which were subsequently taken up and adopted by Parliament. And this before the innovation of the NAC. To thus argue that civil society intervention in legislative matters per se delegitimizes due constitutional processes does appear somewhat stretched.

Unfortunately, the developments of the past few weeks, in particular the Baba Ramdev interlude, have served as a great spoiler. In part this is because the yoga entrepreneur and tele-evangelist, despite his substantial following, is a deeply controversial and divisive figure. Both his rapid accumulation of wealth, ostensibly through questionable means, and the less than credible claims about the healing prowess of his yogic practices and ayurvedic medicines, generate deep disquiet. Similarly, many are uneasy with his association with and support from right-wing Hindu ideologues and organizations as also his barely hidden political ambitions. Baldly stated, he is an unlikely icon for transparency and probity in public life.

The official spin on why the government decided to give him undue importance, rushing ministers to parley and negotiate with him, remains a mystery. Equally ham-handed, once the deal with him did not fructify, was the midnight crackdown on his supporters at the Ramlila maidan and the many charges now being levelled against him. All that the government managed in the entire handling of the Ramdev challenge is to come across as deeply divided, insecure and duplicitous. Fortunately for them, Ramdev’s antics – his consistent over-reaching, posturing, bluster and machinations – have only exposed him and damaged his credibility. For the moment, he appears a spent force.

Emboldened by its ‘success’ in defusing the Ramdev challenge, the government now seems to have gone on an offensive, not just hardening its stance in the joint-drafting committee but questioning the credentials and legitimacy of the civil society interlocutors, thus placing serious question marks on the entire process. In this, they have been greatly assisted by the behaviour of the Anna Hazare team.

Both in failing to build upon the many areas of agreement with government and thereby strengthen institutional processes, as also continually upping the ante, accusing the government of perfidy and engaging in public acrimony, they have not only alienated many erstwhile supporters but also helped further increase the intransigence of officialdom. It is instructive that while radical demands and statements make for good media copy, they are often a poor basis for negotiations and consolidation. In so acting, they have only strengthened the worst fears of their critics, including many within civil society whose record in battling corruption and demanding accountability is in no way inferior to theirs. The inability to appreciate honest difference of opinion, both on substantive issues and process, reflects a self-righteous rigidity that bodes ill for negotiated settlement.

Attempts at leveraging its contingent advantage and further boxing in the civil society interlocutors will, however, be a serious error on part of the government. For one it will demonstrate that the government and the political class is imbued with an instrumental consciousness – appear to negotiate when on the back foot and disregard when strong. Only by seriously engaging with the many issues raised by civil society and instituting needed changes can the government hope to regain the trust and confidence of the people. Otherwise, even as it feels it has won the battle, it will lose the war.

Harsh Sethi