The hungerstrike by eminent social activist Anna Hazare on the question of the Lokpal Bill, and the findings of a Group of Ministers that the discretionary powers enjoyed by ministers need not be dispensed with, have once again raised concerns about how far we are prepared to go — institutionally and conceptually — to deal with the issue of corruption. Since a series of scandals relating to public funds, or the twisting of rules to benefit high officials, broke in the country late last year, a number of cases have gone to court (such as on the 2G spectrum
allocation issue), top individuals — including a chief minister — have been removed and proceeded against, and numerous inquiries are on at different levels. These are a good sign. But these are also an indicator of how widespread corrupt practices are, in the states and at the Centre. There is a feeling in the country which cannot be easily brushed aside — that the range of government actions undertaken to fight corruption was the direct consequence of sustained pressure applied through media exposures, and the exertions of Opposition parties and the judiciary. We saw this happen at the Centre certainly and in Maharashtra. But Karnataka has turned out to be a case of the ruling party and the chief minister playing surprising political games to get around the institution of Lokayukta, although the Lokayukta in that state is on a firmer footing than elsewhere, and is empowered to conduct its own investigations.
If the political executive might show little inclination to move, as appears to be the case in Karnataka, or is slow to respond until extensive public pressure is mounted, as we saw with the Centre and Maharashtra, then inbuilt institutional safeguards to deal with the malaise of corruption seem advisable. This is why questions relating to discretionary powers enjoyed by ministers and senior officials, and the creation of a Lokpal, or ombudsman, at the Centre become relevant.
When the UPA-2 government came under sustained scrutiny last year on corruption-related matters, Mrs Sonia Gandhi seized the occasion of the AICC session in December to make the telling comment that even as the country’s economic power had grown, its moral universe had shrunk. That observation echoed with many. But the system appears to have cleverly got around Mrs Gandhi’s proposal of doing away with discretionary powers. A Group of Ministers led by finance minister Pranab Mukherjee is learnt to be of the view that discretionary powers serve a purpose, and that these are exercised within a framework of rules. That is a self-serving argument. Discretionary powers can certainly be used to help the deserving, but sadly that is often not the case. The Congress leadership needs to review the matter and bring the subject for wider consultation in society, rather than leave it to a mere GoM, which in any case is an interested party. As for the Lokpal Bill, several governments have resisted the move. Many want the Prime Minister kept out of the purview of the Lokpal. This cannot be acceptable in a democratic system, although the PM does need to be shielded from vexatious and motivated quarters. Some aspects of the civil society proposals on the Lokpal, advanced by Anna Hazare, might appear presumptuous or excessive, especially those pertaining to the legislature. But there is something to be said for their broad direction. The government can avoid a discussion on these issues at the risk of its credibility. Mrs Gandhi’s National Advisory Council has started a dialogue with the Hazare group. That’s a good sign. Now it’s time for the Congress to bring pressure on its government to adopt a more helpful attitude in laying a sturdy template for combating corruption.