So the Empire strikes back! Again.

Anna Hazare JLP Committee was a "failed expriment" says Kapil Sibal. Reports suggest Sec 144 ready to be clamped at Jantar mantar ahead of Anna's fast. "Changes will in draft bill will only come out of consultations with other (political) parties". "We will bring a LPB this session of parliament".

What does all this indicate? A determined effort by political parties to recapture the lost territtory of "representing" people at large, a space they had completely vacated in their pre-occupation with themselves and looting the country. That's all.

Anna and even Ramdev jumped into this space - ironically after Anna had given public notice to the Congress and the Government and had recieved silence in response! Now, politcal parties who have no think tanks worth their salt find themselves "answering" to individuals who claim to represent people at large by showing large gatherings at their venues.

While some politicos will allege they are "sponsored" by hidden hands, others will attack them personally since thats all they can do when the ISSUEs find massive popular support. Thus the key question isn't whether the agitators are sponsored or not, but whether the issues are popular or not. As long as the issues are what the common man wants, it will not go away; at best it will simmer till the next blow out. Like volcanoes, when they erupt, they will destroy blindly.

Politicians realise this but prefer to focus on the short term as they are themselves insecure about the long term. But politcal parties like the Congress which are generations old must necessarily bother with the long term if thay are to survive. And that is their failure.

In trying hard to elimnate, minimise and deflect, the Congress, like the BJP is actually mortgaging the future of the country and not just the party. The seeds of an eruption are usually sown many moons before the event. Take Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and the like. The important of the Jat protests or the Telengana agitation has been overlooked by the Congress in its bid to save its won skin, little realising it will only end up killing its whole body.The answer lies in making democracy participative and decentralised.

But for now, the minions of the parties are in charge and the suppression will continue, till the people's volcano erupts.

Sec 144 clamped at Jantar Mantar in anticipation of Anna's announced fast will be the next trigger as people will only see it as gross injustice. The storyline gets interesting.... watch this space.

@jsvasan

For long now, many of us have been involved with specific initiatives like solid waste management, water conservation, renewable energy, street garbage, parks, public toilets, etc etc.

No matter what the subject, one common thread is that all these services and facilities are supposed to be run by government at one level or another, mostly city government. These initiatives bend their backs to TRY and get the government to listen and then HOPEFULLY implement some of them. Civil society is a beggar at the doorstep of their own government.

And no matter whether these civic initiatives are carried out by individuals, groups, RWAs, NGOs, Rotary, Lions, Round Table or other societies, the they have to run from BBMP Officials to Corporators to MLAs to use their influence to TRY and get their own government to act. So civil society are beggars at the hands of their own elected people.

There are some well meaning people in all these forms of power centers – Bureaucrats, Corporators and MLAs. It would be wrong to paint all of them with the same brush, as most of us know. However, these kinds of people in power are a micro-minority and are often stopped by the vested interests who have garnered the majority in these power networks.

The root cause of this malady is that we are a vote-only democracy instead of a participative democracy. The responsibility for this lies with us – the voter – with our political parties and their own lack of internal democracy and accountability, and, ofcourse, the sustained subversion of the federal nature of our constitution.

Our civic minded active citizen has thus far acted through individual channels that focus mostly on one issue, be it solid waste management, water conservation, renewable energy, street garbage, parks, public toilets, etc. Thus their clout is dissipated and like the Accenture TV commercial shows, the little fish have to run for cover when the political heavy weights enter the area.

All this usually results in everyone throwing up their hands in disgust, dismay or some similar emotion. Perhaps quite justifiably. But it also means the educated, emancipated active citizen has abdicated. The gap between a vote-only democracy and a participative one can and should be bridged. Waiting for ‘the system’ to change would be tantamount to abdication.

The Brazilian model where the NGOs et al got together and actually contested the municipal elections on a single platform in a bid to influence if not run local government not only enable successful transformation of their cities but has progressed to the national level. The silent citizen got an avenue to speak up and also determine their own candidates to local government.

It’s time that Bangalore showed the way in participative, local government.

So much for now. Comments most welcome!

Regards,

JS

+91 9880020366

Twitter: @jsvasan

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. - Marcel Proust

The GOI constituted a Lokpal Bill [JLPB] Drafting Committee that consists of civil society members nominated by Anna Hazare and only Congress Ministers. They declined to nominate any opposition party members nor did they include any ally in government or outside.

The significance at first escaped my attention, till DNA carried an article that pointedly mentioned that even allies were excluded. For a party that has repeatedly driven home the “compulsions of coalition politics”, why did they exclude allies, let alone the opposition?

The Congress isn’t a new kid on the political block. It is the oldest one! And such a move would have been well calculated. Consider this:

·         Everyone acknowledges that fighting corruption is the #1 political & mass issue in India today

·         Everyone feels the politicians & election funding are the single largest source of corruption

·         Everyone is fed up of the rank failure of the Congress (and it’s UPA) in tackling corruption.

·         Everyone believes the Congress is at the centre of the whole problem.

·         Everyone gives the Congress absolutely no chance of winning in 2014. A friend even said they’ll even never ever win again.

·         Everyone feels the BJP has also failed as an opposition.

Under these circumstances, everyone agrees that only a miracle will save the Congress. Well, one is round the corner!

Since it is the butt end of jokes, everyone also thinks (like I almost always did!) that the Congress is now a bunch of idiots who have no capacity to think let alone think strategically. The Congress is seen as arrogant, opaque and tyrannical. Thus their obituary is being written on front pages and OpEds every day.

STOP, to think.

The congress’s apparent volte face on inclusion of the PM and CJI and lower bureaucracy in the purview of the JLPB is pure strategy.

They hope to garner support of all political parties when the bill is placed before parliament, since the political class does not want a strong JLPB. How can I say that? The JLPB has not materialized since a decade and a half. If any party wanted to bring it forth, everyone had their chance.

When the bill gets all parties committed to watering it down, the Congress will have yet another change of heart, another volte face, this time by the leader of leaders, Sonia or Rahul Gandhi, and it will bring a bill that meets and perhaps exceed the expectations of all people.

Then one of two things can happen:

1.    The bill may get through parliament because publicly opposing it would mean political oblivion. In such an event, the Congress re-emerges as the People’s Champion, after RTI. It regains its political supremacy.

2.    The GOI falls due to opposition. Snap elections on this ONE issue will give it 2/3^rd majority it will demand for amending the constitution to fight corruption.

The third option of a watered down version is a no-win for all parties. Makes no sense for the Congress.

Either way, the Lokpal Bill may well turn out to be the Congress’s miracle failsafe.

Unless the opposition, as also all other political parties get on the JLPB wagin before the congress does, they may start writing off 2014 (or earlier) and conceding to the Congress!

Twitter: @jsvasan

FB: Srinivasan Jayaraman

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. - Marcel Proust

The very fact that a ‘debate’ is running of who is ‘presumed to be above board’’ and is therefore excluded from the purview of an anti-corruption agency is erroneous. Here is why:

Based on a search of public domain (on line) information on the world wide practices of Anti Corruption Agencies (ACAs).

Finding:

1.    The later the enactment, the fewer the constraints (if any) are placed on any independent agency to combat corruption.

2.    Jurisdiction was more about geographical areas and country boundaries rather than who is to be excluded from its purview.

3.    The UN Toolkit as well as other country’s acts specify jurisdiction by the definition of “Public Official”. In Australia, the act specifically includes private parties & companies who may be performing subcontracted work for governmental agencies.

4.    The Judiciary is often specifically included in the definition of ‘Public Official’.

5.    EU countries are now debating the need for ACAs that transcend boundaries in view of the global nature of corrupt practices and flows of funds that must be seized.

Some Excerpts of note:

1.    The practices in Eastern Europe and CIS are reviewed in a paper: click here. The following excerpt of note is below:

“The model of ACA introduced in Latvia and Lithuania is recognized as one of the most effective among the countries that joined the EU in 2004. Their good results are of course to be analyzed and understood in relation not only with the prerogatives and structures and rules regulating their work, but also with regard to coordination with other agencies and the broader administrative environment in the framework of far reaching anti-corruption strategies. Nevertheless these agencies are not immune to problems and criticism.

In Latvia the establishment of the KNAB faced several difficulties, political parties were reluctant to accept the control of the office; there were also rivalries among the KNAB, the police and the Prosecutor General Office, while there were had high expectations for the work of the KNAB and the public expected quick results. 

In November 2007 Mr. Aleksejs Loskutovs, the head  of the KNAB was  suspended by the government of the  Prime Minister Aigars Kalvitis, who suspended him alleging fiscal improprieties. Critics accused the Prime Minister of overstepping his powers and said the move was politically motivated as Mr. Loskutovs had been investigating possible campaign violations by Mr. Kalvitis' People's Party. 

The KNAB under the supervision of Mr. Loskutovs had built an impressive record: hundreds of officials, businesspeople and politicians had been arrested and convicted for corruption thanks to the work of the agency. The prime minister was accused of  actively destroying the reputation of the institution,  thousands of people protested in the streets against his controversial moves against KNAB; the prime minister was  forced to re-instate Mr. Loskutovs and decided to resign in December 2007.”

The links for KNAB:

http://www.icac.org.hk/newsl/issue15eng/button5.htm

http://www.knab.gov.lv/en/knab/

The admitted weakness is that the KNAB (like the CBI) is UNDER the Cabinet. YET it does NOT have any restriction in investigating anyone as the above excerpt shows.

2.    The Australian “Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 No 35” (ICAC) was created UNDER the Prime Minister, but is NOT restricted from investigating anyone. For the Act, click here where “Public Authority” is defined. It includes bodies under The Crown (i.e. The UK connection/s), Judiciary, etc., and is not limited to government servants but any person performing a public service function or act with public funds.

a.    The NSW implementation summarises jurisdiction here and excerpt is below:

“The jurisdiction of the ICAC extends to all NSW public sector agencies (except the NSW Police Force) and employees, including government departments, local councils, members of Parliament, ministers, the judiciary and the governor. The ICAC's jurisdiction also extends to those performing public official functions.”

3.    The Swedish “Parliamentary Ombudsman – JO” is more of the nature of Indian PAC and reports to Parliament.

“The Institution has no jurisdiction, however, over the actions of members of the Swedish Riksdag (Parliament), the government or individual members of the cabinet, the Chancellor of Justice or members of county or municipal councils. Nor do newspapers, radio and television broadcasts, trade unions, banks, insurance companies, doctors in private practice, lawyers etc. come within the ambit of the Ombudsmen. Other supervisory agencies exist for these areas, such as the Press Council (Pressens opinionsnämnd), the Financial Supervisory Authority (Finansinspektionen), the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) and the Swedish Bar Association (Svenska advokatsamfundet)”

BBC: “Meanwhile the Swedish National Anti-Corruption Unit (NACU) is understaffed and has to rely on police from other departments to help investigations.” Click here. Sweden continues to have one of the weakest ACUs as per WW opinion. Click here and here. There is no website that shows up on Google for the NACU.

4.    The UN Toolkit is perhaps the most comprehensive document in the public domain. It can be found here. A search of this document for “jurisdiction” throws up many references.

One reference of note is reproduced below:

“In jurisdictions where criminal bribery necessarily involves a public official, the offence is often defined broadly to extend to private individuals offered bribes to influence their conduct in a public function, such as exercising electoral functions or carrying out jury duty. 

Public sector bribery can target any individual who has the power to make a decision or take an action affecting others and is willing to resort to bribery to influence the outcome. Politicians, regulators, law enforcement officials, judges, prosecutors and inspectors are all potential targets for public sector bribery.”

Specific types of bribery are also defined in this document.

By making the jurisdiction of the Lokpal to even investigate an issue, and renegading on its own GOM proposal, the Government has revealed its true intention. The United Nations ‘model’ has no such restrictions recommended. Only if there is prima facie evidence will the Lokpal even investigate the matter, let alone take it up for sanction.

You decide what should be done!

@jsvasan

The world saw the way the Tunisians and Egyptians had to shed blood to get their Dictators out of office. The world is watching Yemen and the other "uprisings" for similar "Freedom".

But in India we are SUPPOSED to have a Government BY, For & Of the People - i.e. Democracy. Yet, after a Nationwide peaceful agitation to bring a Lokpal Bill that has teeth and reach, the Government of India not only opposes any reach it also wants a watered down version of its own draft proposal!

WHAT is the difference between Indian Democracy and the Arab Dictatorships? You tell me!

Given that the Congress (I) has written off beyond 2012 as one news paper said on its front page, maybe they've decided to make the country bleed for any largesse to be shown in the LPB - a decision that even a dictator like Hosni Mubarak spared his country.

So who cares more for the country? Hosni Mubarak or Manmohan Singh? You decide.

Twitter: @jsvasan

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. - Marcel Proust

Article 13 of the proposed bill released today (26-05-11) states:

“13. Dereliction of duty.- When any person who is or was a  public servant not removable from his or her office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, authorized to act under any provision of this Act:

(a) exercises the authority vested in him or her colourably or in a manner otherwise than provided under law for the time being in force, which causes or is likely to lead to an offence of communal and targeted violence or by which he or she intends to screen or knowing

it to be likely that he or she will thereby screen any person from legal punishment; or,

(b) omits to exercise lawful authority vested in him or her under law, without reasonable cause, thereby fails to prevent the commission of communal and targeted  violence,  breach  of  public  order  or disruption  in  the  maintenance  of  services  and  supplies essential

to a group,

shall be guilty of dereliction of duty.”

Commentary:

This (ABOVE) is an admission that Article 311 of the Constitution is sought to be overridden by this bill – purely because the Central Government may think the State Government protects the bureaucracy that is guilty of dereliction of duty.

In other words, the IAS bureaucracy all over India must now follow the directions of the Central Government (and hence the party in power) whether or not they work in State Governments. To pass judgment that they SHALL be guilty of dereliction of duty even without so much as an enquiry or prosecution illustrates how the Congress now wants to keep the protection of Article 311 where it suits them but reserves absolute power where they choose to go against a State Government (or “rogue” IAS officers who do not toe their line.

THE PROBLEM IS THE EXISTENCE OF ARTICLE 311 IN ITS PRESENT FORM. It is a legacy of the British Raj and retained for the new Brown Sahib in power. IT MUST GO.

HOW COME there is no provision for “Dereliction of Duty” clause for ALL of Government work? Whether in the States or at the Central Government?

This selective usurping of power to be exercised by the very top of Central Government is a DANGEROUS move and could destroy the Federal Fabric of India, let alone stoke communal disharmony.

ARTICLE 311 SHOULD BE AMENDED TO LET MERITS OR DEMERITS OF PROSECUTION BE DECIDED IN A COURT OF LAW UNDER COMMON LAW AND PROCEDURES.

@jsvasan

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. - Marcel Proust