Corruption has been a powerful focus for movements in the past, and battling it is a global idea. In our neighborhood, "corruption" has been used by army generals in Pakistan, Bangladesh and even Myanmar to do away with elected governments. Latin America was assaulted by corporates from the United States, for centuries, arguing that the "corruption" of the local elites in mismanaging the boundless possibilities of resources justified annexations and invasions, generating the fascinating term "banana republic."
Fixing the generically "corrupt" is a win-win at the moment. It is heretical to question it. Yet, there is a deep tussle over the central idea that is at the heart of what "corruption" is.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, there were ideas of freedom from corruption and the tyranny of the state, as economists like Friedrich von Hayek and even David Ricardo understood the phrase. Adam Smithian ideas rested on the freedom of entrepreneurship, under a benign law-and-order minimalism. The Depression of the 1930s and the economics and politics of the World Wars brutally reconfigured these ideas. Keynesian notions were on the necessity of broadening the ambit of the state; and, over the years, freedom from the tyranny and "corruption" of private profit, as opposed to social good, was in currency. The anti-milawat and anti-mehangaai agitations in India, for example, in the late sixties, found a focus at the doors of traders, as seen in several of the popular movies of the time that villainised the shopkeeper.
However, as the world changed once again, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire, caused by "corrupt" and bureaucratic insensitivities and the negation of personal freedoms there, free enterprise was once again a winner. But now, the mood in Europe and elsewhere, particularly its annoyance at corruption and malfeasance, is also demanding freedom from unregulated, self-serving business interests. After Lehman and Madoff, the West is introspecting not only on the role of corporations but also that of NGOs, and the need for accountability and transparency in the causes they front and the shows they put up. Scrutiny is not simply limited to the state.
In India, after two decades of economic reforms, there is a flourishing private sector. But this agitation is not quite clear about what and whose corruption it is so doggedly opposed to? CII, FICCI, big industries and several corporations, in a fabulous PR move, were the first to get off the block and ride the Anna annoyance wave. It has been a smart move to pre-empt the identification of other sources of corruption.
Fight Against Growing Menace
While Anna Hazare is fighting nonviolently against corruption with strong willpower with the support from the people of the country, the manner in which people's representatives sitting in the country's Parliament are fighting against corruption, neither is there honesty in it, nor will power.
The manner in which both sides put their points across on corruption issue on 24 August in both houses of Parliament; there were more things against each other than against corruption. Both sides tried their best to humiliate each other, which is utterly shameful. You can never fight decisively against corruption with such attitude.
Role of Congress
The Congress has, since 2004, argued for a redefinition of the role of the state in India, and seen it as a crucial vehicle for the uplift of those below the breadline. Their understanding of rural poverty programmes; their social vision; even their understanding of the Maoist problem stem from a concept that there is too little of a "good and effective" state.
The Two Indias idea -- one India desperately needing redress and programs, food security, employment guarantees, a right to information and freedom even from private contractors, with a dutiful state being refashioned to allow aspirations to take flight -- is the bedrock of this idea and its politics. The fact that these two ideas were interwoven (either cleverly or by chance) before the 2009 elections, and that they clicked, should have provided the regime an impetus to push ahead and aggressively question whether the narrow focus on a particular sort of corruption of this movement was at all fair.
Rigid Stance
There is lack of willpower in the ruling parties and opposition parties both. The elected representatives have made the biggest contribution in encouraging corruption. During the debate, MPs admitted partially that corruption is growing under the present system. The institutes that are established to prevent corruption are themselves encouraging it. Therefore, change in the system is essential, otherwise, in the coming days, people of the country would never forgive political parties and elected representatives.
Hazare's Proposal
The question now is: How to rein in corruption? Had the government taken such concrete steps, there would have been no need for Anna Hazare to agitate. Hazare's proposal of the Jan Lokpal bill is a step in the direction of preventing corruption, which is unacceptable to the government. The task of enacting the law is of the Parliament. It is supreme, but one would also have to think about the kind of mentality and character those sitting in Parliament have.
Had the MPs and ministers been honest, there would not have been such big scams in the country today. That is why they are also talking about bringing the behavior of MPs inside Parliament also under the ambit of the Lokpal. Political parties would have to clarify their policy on the corruption issue. Political parties themselves are unclear. The offer of resignation by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)MPs Yashwant Sinha and Shatrughna Sinha is an example of the party's dual character. Not only the BJP, but all other parties also have such dual character. They would have to correct this character.
Fixing the generically "corrupt" is a win-win at the moment. It is heretical to question it. Yet, there is a deep tussle over the central idea that is at the heart of what "corruption" is.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, there were ideas of freedom from corruption and the tyranny of the state, as economists like Friedrich von Hayek and even David Ricardo understood the phrase. Adam Smithian ideas rested on the freedom of entrepreneurship, under a benign law-and-order minimalism. The Depression of the 1930s and the economics and politics of the World Wars brutally reconfigured these ideas. Keynesian notions were on the necessity of broadening the ambit of the state; and, over the years, freedom from the tyranny and "corruption" of private profit, as opposed to social good, was in currency. The anti-milawat and anti-mehangaai agitations in India, for example, in the late sixties, found a focus at the doors of traders, as seen in several of the popular movies of the time that villainised the shopkeeper.
However, as the world changed once again, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire, caused by "corrupt" and bureaucratic insensitivities and the negation of personal freedoms there, free enterprise was once again a winner. But now, the mood in Europe and elsewhere, particularly its annoyance at corruption and malfeasance, is also demanding freedom from unregulated, self-serving business interests. After Lehman and Madoff, the West is introspecting not only on the role of corporations but also that of NGOs, and the need for accountability and transparency in the causes they front and the shows they put up. Scrutiny is not simply limited to the state.
In India, after two decades of economic reforms, there is a flourishing private sector. But this agitation is not quite clear about what and whose corruption it is so doggedly opposed to? CII, FICCI, big industries and several corporations, in a fabulous PR move, were the first to get off the block and ride the Anna annoyance wave. It has been a smart move to pre-empt the identification of other sources of corruption.
Fight Against Growing Menace
While Anna Hazare is fighting nonviolently against corruption with strong willpower with the support from the people of the country, the manner in which people's representatives sitting in the country's Parliament are fighting against corruption, neither is there honesty in it, nor will power.
The manner in which both sides put their points across on corruption issue on 24 August in both houses of Parliament; there were more things against each other than against corruption. Both sides tried their best to humiliate each other, which is utterly shameful. You can never fight decisively against corruption with such attitude.
Role of Congress
The Congress has, since 2004, argued for a redefinition of the role of the state in India, and seen it as a crucial vehicle for the uplift of those below the breadline. Their understanding of rural poverty programmes; their social vision; even their understanding of the Maoist problem stem from a concept that there is too little of a "good and effective" state.
The Two Indias idea -- one India desperately needing redress and programs, food security, employment guarantees, a right to information and freedom even from private contractors, with a dutiful state being refashioned to allow aspirations to take flight -- is the bedrock of this idea and its politics. The fact that these two ideas were interwoven (either cleverly or by chance) before the 2009 elections, and that they clicked, should have provided the regime an impetus to push ahead and aggressively question whether the narrow focus on a particular sort of corruption of this movement was at all fair.
Rigid Stance
There is lack of willpower in the ruling parties and opposition parties both. The elected representatives have made the biggest contribution in encouraging corruption. During the debate, MPs admitted partially that corruption is growing under the present system. The institutes that are established to prevent corruption are themselves encouraging it. Therefore, change in the system is essential, otherwise, in the coming days, people of the country would never forgive political parties and elected representatives.
Hazare's Proposal
The question now is: How to rein in corruption? Had the government taken such concrete steps, there would have been no need for Anna Hazare to agitate. Hazare's proposal of the Jan Lokpal bill is a step in the direction of preventing corruption, which is unacceptable to the government. The task of enacting the law is of the Parliament. It is supreme, but one would also have to think about the kind of mentality and character those sitting in Parliament have.
Had the MPs and ministers been honest, there would not have been such big scams in the country today. That is why they are also talking about bringing the behavior of MPs inside Parliament also under the ambit of the Lokpal. Political parties would have to clarify their policy on the corruption issue. Political parties themselves are unclear. The offer of resignation by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)MPs Yashwant Sinha and Shatrughna Sinha is an example of the party's dual character. Not only the BJP, but all other parties also have such dual character. They would have to correct this character.
