After about three months of engaging alone with a particular activist group on the proposed Lokpal Bill, the government was able to bring other political parties into the frame on Sunday. It must derive some satisfaction from this, as it is now evident that the Anna Hazare group has been effectively sidelined.

While the meeting of political parties called by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh resolved to introduce an “effective and strong” legislation, clearly a loose formulation that will permit debate and discussion within the political system, the full scope of this will no doubt be revealed during negotiations between parties in Parliament during the Monsoon Session. But one thing is certain: the legislation will be shaped in keeping with “established parliamentary procedures”. Whimsical ideas from extraneous sources, such as individual civil society bodies, are clearly out. This is necessarily a good thing.
Whatever the merits of particular suggestions by the Hazare group, its recommendations on the whole appeared quirky. To give one example, it wanted one per cent of GDP — around `20,000 crores — dedicated to servicing the Lokpal institution, so sweeping was the ambit of the ombudsman as visualised by this particular civil society group. The Hazare group gave the impression of being sanctimonious as they sought to dictate ideas that appeared to be in conflict with the constitutional order. Many people, including some with long years of governmental experience, began to worry about the import of the totality of the Hazare group’s suggestions. To some, these appeared directed towards installing a council of guardians outside the country’s constitutional system, which then naturally begged the question — “Who will guard the guardians?” — as tellingly observed by jurist Fali Nariman in an interview to this newspaper. Others wondered if the whole idea did not amount to setting up just one more state authority — one that could challenge the Prime Minister outside of Parliament and potentially unleash political instability — when the real malaise in the system is one of insufficient enforcement and implementation of laws and rules that have indeed been created after some thought. If only these are paid due attention, corruption, especially in high places, can be fairly effectively countered.
Mr Hazare is committed to going on yet another hungerstrike if a Lokpal Bill to his taste is not introduced in Parliament by mid-August. But this time around his non-violent coercion might not find the kind of echo that his first protest sit-in did. Various political parties will no doubt mount such criticisms of the government as might suit them, but none of them like the idea of playing second fiddle to civil society groups when it comes to lawmaking, which is the exclusive preserve of the legislatures. They could quite rightly argue that the consultation process with civil society — though with just one set of activists — was exhaustive, and should now be allowed to rest.
The political parties and their representatives in Parliament must now wrestle with basic questions. Some of these are: Why a Lokpal at all if we already have enough laws to vanquish corruption? What specific gaps will such an institution plug? If the institution is to be established, should it be a statutory body or a constitutional one? Once these are answered satisfactorily, then the parties will have to contend with the issue which was the bone of contention between the Hazare group and the government representatives on the joint drafting committee: should the Prime Minister be subjected to scrutiny by the Lokpal? The country has been on a rollercoaster ever since Mr Hazare agitated the waters. It is now time for purposeful reflection.