AAP ka lokpal
- Top BJP ministers attend RSS meet, Opposition questions govt's accountability
- Bharat bandh: Violence, arrest, chaos; one-day strike a 'grand success'
- Indrani, Peter brought face to face, questioned extensively; Sanjeev Khanna's laptop seized
- OROP: Veterans soften stand, may accept pension revision once in two years
- Govt to auction 69 oil & gas fields of ONGC, Oil India to private firms
Prem M. Trivedi
The new party needs to integrate its powerful moral message with sound public policies.
Anna Hazare's fast to compel the UPA to pass the Jan Lokpal Bill has highlighted the tensions between Hazare's team and the AAP, and re-exposed the deep flaws in the bill. Hazare's role in inspiring the anti-corruption movement that gave birth to Arvind Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party will probably go down as a landmark contribution to political reform in India. In the run-up to the Delhi assembly polls, however, Hazare voiced his displeasure with Kejriwal's allegedly unauthorised appropriation of Team Anna's core symbols. Tensions between the AAP and Hazare's team continue to simmer in Ralegan Siddhi, where the fast is being held. The AAP needs to use this opportunity to seriously reconsider — at least privately — its views on the Jan Lokpal Bill.
Team Anna's drafting committee, which included Kejriwal, wanted the lokpal to be a super-empowered ombudsman who would bestride the government like a colossus. The 2011 Jan Lokpal Bill would create an institution with the power to investigate complaints for evidence of corruption and then convene specialty lokpal courts to speedily prosecute offending public officials. The Union government has now tabled an amended version of the bill, which Anna has declared acceptable but Kejriwal has criticised and called a "jokepal". In fact, both versions of the bill are deeply flawed. Team Anna in 2011 — and the AAP now — have never really explained how such an agency would operate effectively within the Indian political system. The original bill is hamstrung by numerous problems of institutional design that are unaddressed by the proposed amendments.
First, the composition of the lokpal and the appointment process create a recipe for political infighting and paralysis. Chapter II of the original bill requires that the lokpal be comprised of a chairperson (a judge or former Supreme Court justice) and no more than eight members. But the committee tasked to appoint this decidedly non-political body seems strikingly political in its composition. The prime minister chairs a committee comprised of the Lok Sabha speaker and leader of the opposition, the Rajya Sabha leader of the opposition, a Union cabinet minister chosen by the PM, a sitting Supreme Court judge, a sitting chief justice of a high court, a jurist nominated by the Central government, and an expert in anti-corruption policy.