Lokpal Bill: United in opposition, civil society a divided lot
Manoj Mitta, TNN | Apr 7, 2011, 02.41am IST
NEW DELHI: Though civil society has rejected the official Lokpal Bill
with almost one voice, the confabulations in the run-up to Anna
Hazare's hunger strike have brought out differences within activists
on the alternative Jan Lokpal Bill.
The differences had come to light at the two meetings held on April 3
and 4 to examine the provisions of the Jan Lokpal Bill espoused by
Hazare, who began his fast unto death on April 5. Both meetings were
attended by members of the " India Against Corruption" group, which is
spearheading the campaign to replace Lokpal with Jan Lokpal.
The April 4 consultation was held by a sub-committee of the National
Advisory Council (NAC), while the April 3 meeting, which took place in
Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, was organized by the National
Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI), which had
participated in the drafting of the RTI Act 2005.
The confabulations evidently showed that some of the key provisions of
the draft Jan Lokpal Bill had not been thought through, despite all
the improvements made on the basis of inputs from across the country.
It was felt that the powers envisaged for the corruption watchdog were
overbroad without adequate safeguards.
Similarly, there are differences within civil society on whether
Hazare should have gone ahead with his hunger strike programme without
waiting for the NAC to complete its review of the two drafts and give
its recommendations to the government. This is apparent from a
statement issued on Wednesday by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan
(MKSS), which pioneered the RTI movement in the country.
Even as it appreciated Hazare's efforts in creating a groundswell of
support for a strong Jan Lokpal Bill, the MKSS statement, co-signed by
NAC member Aruna Roy, made no secret of its disagreement over Hazare's
demand for a joint committee consisting of government and civil
society representatives to finalize the provisions.
Cautioning that "bypassing democratic processes for political
expediency, however desirable the outcome, may be detrimental to
democracy itself", MKSS said that its focus was not on ensuring that
there was 50% representation for civil society in the drafting
committee but "to demand that the government immediately announce its
intention to pass a strong lokpal legislation based on wide public
consultations".
This note of discord came close on the heels of a press note issued by
Roy and another NAC member Harsh Mander stating that "two of the major
issues of contention" over the Jan Lokpal Bill at the April 4 meeting
were "the inclusion of grievances within the ambit of the bill" and
"the issue of provisions for transparency under this bill".
On the first issue, the NAC note said cryptically that "there is a
concern whether the lokpal can adequately meet the requirements of a
grievance redressal system". On the issue of transparency, it
expressed doubts over the efficacy of the proposal that the lokpal be
empowered to put all its evidence in the public domain irrespective of
the limitations prescribed by Section 8 of the RTI Act.
Hazare's supporters also suffered a setback on account of the
reservations expressed to the media by Karnataka lokayukta, Justice
Santosh Hegde, who is touted by them as one of the authors of the Jan
Lokpal Bill. After attending the meetings of April 3 and 4, Hegde said
that Hazare should have withheld his fast till the NAC gave its report
and the government took a call on it. He also confirmed that he had
misgivings about some of the provisions of the Jan Lokpal Bill,
although it was otherwise far better than the government draft.
The NCPRI too came out in the open saying that "there is need for
further consultation before the principles as well as the mechanisms
for an effective lokpal can be finalized".
--
उर्वशी शर्मा Urvashi Sharma
"सूचना का अधिकार " हेल्पलाइन: 8081898081
yaishwaryaj@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment