All of a sudden, Anna Hazare and his team seems to have lost the support and sympathy of a lot of people. Here are my views on what’s probably happening.
Common man would not have a goal so specific as having a Lokpal to check on the Governmental bodies. His interests are specific to his view of or touch points with the Government. His concerns are specifically on how he is affected by the practices prevalent in Governmental institutions. Of course, the case may be that a corruption-free government may be the only way some of people’s high priority wants would be met. For example, we all want good and adequate roads, and corruption in the whole public infrastructure space is one big reason why we don’t have them. Therefore, it is indeed good for us that our systems are clean, efficient and transparent. However, how that translates into the clauses of the Lokpal Bill, is beyond anyone of us common people. Therefore, it seems everyone is confused about what’s going on and what should replace what in the bill, and if the bill is really of any use in the first place.
But then, common man in a democracy is not the one who makes laws. He elects representatives who are supposed to be smart and wise enough to come up with the right set of rules, regulations and laws. However, a unique law like the Lokpal, whose sole purpose is to keep those elected representatives in control, cannot be framed by those representatives alone, coz there is a definite conflict of interest there. Then who would do it? That’s where a Civil Society or some such body finds its place. But the way the system is designed, making laws is the sole prerogative of the elected representatives, i.e., parliamentarians. So the civil society has to act as a pressure group. Anna Hazare’s team has been doing exactly that, and in great style until now. Their claim to represent common man is solely based on the crowds they have been able to gather. These crowds, however, bother least about the specific clauses of the bill. They generally want an end to corruption, and want to trust that Anna’s bill would do it, coz trusting the government’s version is difficult because of the conflict of interest, and Anna was able to stand out among the many who have been fighting for Lokpal. This worked till now, because the common man was happy to have someone shouting slogans standing in front, coz in a mob opposing a governmental system, everyone wants a bakra who would willingly stand in front, who is revered as long as he’s getting it right or it’s all just working somehow and is called a fool as soon as he goofs up somewhere. And Anna’s team goofed up in quite a few things through their tactics since the last fast - taking party-specific stand in elections and indulging in anti-campaigning, for example, which was really stupid and unethical. Not that people don’t trust team Anna any more or their tactics have lost appeal. It’s just that it’s not working any more. Also, and most importantly at this stage for the common man, there’s too much confusion on what’s right and what’s wrong for the future of the country. And amidst all this confusion, there arose a question mark on whether team Anna really represents the common man. After all, our parliamentarians, who are elected by masses by actually casting votes, don’t seem to really know or care what the masses want. In that situation, how can someone stand up and claim to be speaking the voice of the common man?
I believe, the tendency for corruption springs from some element of human behavior, and the economic and social context. A holistic solution to corruption should involve strong inputs from psychologists, sociologists and economists. Not just political scientists and legal experts. And not necessarily the common man. I am not sure whether the current drafts can claim to be so thoroughly analyzed. May be we should pilot 2-3 versions of the Lokpal Bill in different States and understand the pros and cons before we do a National rollout. Why don’t we do that? We have so many States, and so much scope for trial and experimentation. Why do we have to draft/pass a bill just by debate, without doing a trial run and without collecting real data to prove its effectiveness?
Note: Use of masculine gender for common man is just for the sake of simplicity, and it refers to both males and females.