India is among the leaders in the global fight against corruption.
Amazing!
Did you know that INDIA is one of the 13 signatories to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (hereinafter “the Convention” or “Convention”?
Or, that India has even completed the process of ratification of this remarkable global document according to a report in The Times of India datelined May 13, 2011, quoting a statment issued by the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh?
The last Conference of the States Parties to this Convention was held in Doha, 9-13 November 2009, where India participated as one of the 13 signatory “State Parties”among more than a hundred other countries, and, nearly as many invitees, including the Bretton Woods twins, or, for that matter, the world’s leading global civil society NGO exclusively focused on fighting corruption Transparency International (TI), the WEF etc. Check out this List of Participants.
Incidentally, the next one will be held in Marrakech, October 24-28 this year, when India will be not only a signatory but also one of the very few countries in the world that has even ratified it.
The Convention is quite remarkable in many respects.
It is comprehensive, and, if read with a poor person’s spectacles, potentially provides a truly protective umbrella under which even the poorest of the poor can effectively fight corruption provided ”State Parties” actually implement , in letter and spirit, the various Articles of this global document.
Or, if civil society activists can actually build up a true People’s Movement against corruption.
The first alternative is entirely unlikely as we have seen before (both in my earlier posts on this subject as well as in the history of anti-corruption legislation), while the second one is very much possible if people who genuinely work for the poor, instead of those deluding them, actually take up the mantle.
What is most remarkable about this Convention is that it provides for protection from corruption not only perpetrated by or in PUBLIC SECTOR entities but also covers PRIVATE entities as well. The coverage is comprehensive and leaves out nobody.
The Convention can actually be implemented in an absolutely remorseless way and, even the most insiduously corrupt system can be largely cured and made free from this social cancer. And that too through entirely democratic means and minimum intervention by the State.
Another remarkable aspect is that given India’s existing “domestic laws”, this can be done almost entirely through amendments to extant statutes.
But, there are, obviously, riders.
The first and foremost problem is that both this global Convention (Article 13) as well as TI’s Strategy 2015 document stress on PEOPLE’S ACTION and PARTICIPATION in the fight against corruption as the key medicine for curing the ill. In fact, TI’s six-point strategy call begins with the PEOPLE factor.
Of course, “How you can ensure effective PEOPLE’S ACTION and PARTICIPATION in this fight simply by changing existing laws?” and “What do we really mean by this phrase PEOPLE’S ACTION and PARTICIPATION”, are issues that I shall definitely come to in a moment.
However, for the moment, let me inform readers that later in this post, I am going to call for strengthening people’s participation and action through reforms in existing democratic mechanisms. Also, that by this phrase, I am not referring to the ’60s-style “Dum Dum Dawai” as defined by this report nor, for example, by this approach by the father of Indian Maoism Charu Mazumdar, where he hails the “dawai” as a “spontaneous expression of “people’s revolutionary outburst”. But just a moment, please!
First, let us check out why Anna Hazare’s approach is fundamentally flawed.
After all, you may well ask , he is doing just that - using PEOPLE’S ACTION and PARTICIPATION through “democratic” and “peaceful” ways to force the government to enact a “Very Strong” anti-corruption law – so, what’s your problem, you moron?
Well, there are many well known reasons why the State is intrinsically anti-people, irrespective of whether it is “democratic” or not.
The chief being that it is THE INSTRUMENT by which the ruling elite in any human community, society or nation-state seeks to maintain its anti-people programme of cheating the poor of their hard earned wealth and thus continually become wealthier while the poor continually become poorer, not in absolute terms but in relative terms. and, therefore, being the chief representative and actual face of the cheats who steal the products of other people’s labour power, the State is intrinsically corrupt. It simply cannot be otherwise. And whether you agree or not, this is a hard reality of life not only in India, but now, ei muhurte, all over the world.
According to the Transparency International Perception Index 2010, not a single country in the world (178 covered here) has got a score of 10, signifying completely free from corruption. The highest is a score of 9.3.
More importantly, three fourths of these countries got a score of less than 5 where 0 signifies highly corrupt. Well ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately there seems to be not a single good-boy corruption-free State anywhere in sight anywhere in the world.
Also, if you look at the top ranking corruption-free countries, it becomes obvious that countries with less pervasive States rank higher while those with more pervasive States rank lower such as India or the last ranking Somalia, where several aspiring “States” are competing among themselves at the cost of the people. And, what ultimately matters, as the TI report points out, is transparency and accountability, even if there is already a far too pervasive State, as in India.
You cannot obviously get rid of corruption by expanding the very mechanism of corruption and moreover, by the process of adding yet another layer of corruptible officials who will create even more hurdles to increasing transparency and accountability.
The key problem with both the Government Bill and the Anna Bill is that both seek to get rid of corruption through more of the already highly corrupt State. How people cannot see this fundamental flaw in both these approaches, simply beats me.
Anna’s Bill is even more dangerous, if a report in today’s Economic Times is to be believed. If all lower level central government officials have to be investigated, as no doubt they should be, then the government will have to provide 20,000 more bureaucrats to investigate an already fast burgeoning bureaucratic bubble.
Hence, if now, lower level bureaucrats at the state level also have to be investigated, as they should be, then Anna’s bill will require that any thing close to 2,20,000 more bureaucrats more will have to be added to this burgeonig bureaucratic bubble.
Anyway, for a poor moron like me, since the government’s bill also calls for a significant blowing up of this b-word trinity, I am totally and completely flumoxxed as to how more State is going to solve the very problem of State.
It is like having one more drink to get over the sick feeling that comes from too much drinking and alcoholic poisoning. But that’s something that morons like me do. Why should an entire nation of 1.2 billion people get addicted to this poison called State?
Well, that is not a factually correct question, not 1.2 billion but a few middle class morons are addicted to this poison because they are already under the ruling elite’s carefully crafted, like Scotch, delusional distillation prepared and stored in equally carefully chosen Oaken casks and drunk from exotic mouthpieces.
Hence, my moronic question is: Instead of further blowing up this burgeoning bureaucratic bubble, why not generate a hell of a lot of jobs, essentially in civil society, but partially paid for by the State, and at the same time get rid of corruption, comply with Article 13 inter alia of the global United Nations Convention Against Corruption which came into force in December 2005, and actually give the long-suffering people of India some real relief?
Let us take a look at the clauses in Article 13:
Article 13. Participation of society
1. Each State Party shall take appropriate measures, within its means and in accordance with fundamental principles of its domestic law, to promote the active participation of individuals and groups outside the public sector, such as civil society, non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations, in the prevention of and the fight against corruption and to raise public awareness regarding the existence, causes and gravity of and the threat posed by corruption. This participation should be strengthened by such measures as:
(a) Enhancing the transparency of and promoting the contribution of the public to decision-making processes;
(b) Ensuring that the public has effective access to information;
(c) Undertaking public information activities that contribute to nontolerance of corruption, as well as public education programmes, including school and university curricula;
(d) Respecting, promoting and protecting the freedom to seek, receive, publish and disseminate information concerning corruption. That freedom may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided for by law and are necessary:
(i) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;(ii) For the protection of national security or ordre public or of
public health or morals.
2. Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to ensure that the relevant anti-corruption bodies referred to in this Convention are known to the public and shall provide access to such bodies, where appropriate, for the reporting, including anonymously, of any incidents that may be considered to constitute an offence established in accordance with this Convention.
In this post, I will restrict myself to the first clause only, that is 1(a) above – increasing transparency. If a national digital data base is created where complaints can be lodged at the local level – anywhere – and civil society organisations man these local complaint centres – one for each police thana or chowki’s administrative jurisdiction - then, at least, shame lists of the corrupt will begin to get prepared that can be accessed by all freely over the Internet. Transparency up manifold. No State is required for this. Civil society activists can do this and why not Anna’s organisation India Against Corruption?
The real problem at the lowest levels is that complaints cannot be lodged because the local police thana is always in the grip of the local rich (that includes mainly the politicians and bureaucrats who also happen to own the most property in vast swathes of the country) to start with, and, often they are the main perpetrators of viscous State corruption.
So, if Anna wants to end corruption all he has to do is to make sure there is one cell of civil society activists at each police thana or chowki level whose only job is to register complaints over the Internet so that a national complaint database begin to get prepared. If Adhar is also used in this process, among many other fine tunings that can be done, transparency can be increased massively and much of the problem will get mitigated almost immediately.
This minimum activity of increasing transparency can be easily done by civil society activists, let’s say India Against Corruption. Volunteers can be paid a stipend through partial funding by government, say 25 percent and the balance should come from public donations and not from the State. Easily, checks and balances can be introduced through some simple rules.
However, the most active requirement is a vibrant people’s movement against corruption where people are asked not do silly stuff like satyagraha – a disgusting culture of inaction and of public scenes of leaders doing nothing but lying around and that too for some silly cause aimed at making the people wear the Gandhi topi (tupi porachche re guru!) – but instead actively help fellow citizens to register complaints, participate in volunteering for complaint registration duty and so on.
Then few administrative rules are required to maintain democracy, fairness, non-discrimination, non-violation of minority rights, etc. in the formation of complaint registration cells. In a true People’s Movement, there would be volunteers from every section of the local community because of the active participation of all local communities as all are equal victims of this national scourge.
Such a movement can also bring about national integration, greater caste and communal harmony and an innumerable number of other benefits culminating in a complete transfer of all political power from the “State Parties” to the “People Organised”. A “people Organised” entirely by civil society activists through entirely democratic means. And, just to remind Trotskyites and Maoists, the People Organised is equivalent to Trotsky’s the People Armed or Mao’s “People’s Army”.
Chew over this starter. There is more to come – so many clauses in that remarkable global Convention Against Corruption – each a dynamite in favour of the People. So much anna, no thanks to Anna!