0.10 Dynamics behind ombudsman bill

April 07, 2011 (Thrusday) : Dynamics of ombudsman bill

There is a bit of surprise there as to why people are so eagerly latching on Anna Hazare. More than Lok-Pal (ombudsman) bill, the frustration with rampant corruption appears to be the underlying concern which has been driving people to identify with him. The Lok-Pal bill is aimed to bring the public servants under the scanner of probity. Besides, the bill seeks to bring vigilance apparatus of the Government like Chief Vigilance Commission, CVC, and other such establishments within its ambit. An expanded understanding beyond Lok-Pal bill is that Ann Hazare has initiated a campaign which aims to cleanse the system plagued by corruption and mismanagement.

At the highest level, genesis of corruption lies in the process of election itself fueled by the tendency of politicians to subvert democratic institutions and practices in various unconceivable manners. In India, the legal funding of election is miniscule in comparison to the actual cost involved. Some independent estimate puts the figure as high as 20 crores i.e. 4 million dollars per Lok-Sabha (Indian parliament) seat. Clearly, each of the political parties needs to have enormous unaccounted money to be in the fray. This brings in the money provider (donor) who provides money in anticipation of favor, fund manager who controls the fund and finally money keeper who keeps the fund till it is required.

Both fund provider and keeper influence Government business processes by way of getting contracts or favors or by seeking lucrative appointments. As far as fund keepers are concerned, they are double sword. It can be best understood in terms of a saying “when you owe 100 dollar, then Bank owns you, but when you owe 100 million dollars then you own the Bank.” For this reason, some of the very influential fund keepers, being custodian of party funds, are ominously potent and owns the party to a great extent. In addition to a say in the business process, they influence appointment of ministers, nominations to Rajya Sabha (upper house), assemblies etc besides having a say in the appointments of bureaucrats and public sector executives. People, in the know, call it the political cost of democracy that people are bound to pay for the governance they enjoy (?).

In the recent past, matter worsened exponentially due to additional reasons. The verdict of people in two general elections had been fragmented. This necessitated the need of a coalition Government with the Congress party as the largest party within the formation. Election fund being the primary requirement of participating parties, a proportionate sharing of various ministries (departments) were agreed upon with a very candid understanding of relative values of each of these departments and ministries. After a great deal of bickering which was well documented by newspapers and media, final arrangements were agreed among the political parties forming the Government. In a way, corruption had the express and direct sanction of political participants and indirect sanction of electorates as they are essentially partisan in their mindset and incapable to send a national verdict based on performance. For this reason, when A. Raja resigned in the aftermath of 2G scam, Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam (DMK) party insisted that new incumbent would be decided by Karunanidhi, the DMK boss and not by the Prime Minister. It was against the well established constitutional arrangement where selection of council of ministers is essentially a prerogative of Prime Minister.