Corruption, Capitalism and Civil Society:
(DRAFT)
Alex Tuscano
Anna Hazare has made a history. He will be remembered by many for many years to come for his grand success in his fast against corruption.
To use his own words he initially thought that he would sit under a moderate pendal (shamiyana) with a few supports sitting with him for the hunger strike. But against all his expectation there was a huge following across the country in all cities and town. All young and old joined in his fast and campaign against corruption demanding legislation of jan lok pal.
Anna had his mind clear on what he wanted. For over forty years the lokpal bill has been lying in cold storage and governments after government have been shirking the responsibility for passing this law. What was lying in the archives of pending bills was a watered down version and teethless piece of legislation that had not seen the light of the day. Anna knew that the politicians and political parties who are guilty of corruption would never pass a law that will mussels them. He and the top leaders of the movement wanted members of civil society to have say in drafting the bill. They demanded that there should be 50% persons from the civil society to draft the bill.
The movement was so massive that it not only surprised Anna himself but also the government. Initially the ruling UPA was trying to scuttle the efforts of the people by hiding behind formalities and constitutional intricacies.
What is significant of the movement launched by Anna Hazare is that it did not involve any of the opportunist politicians. The opposition parties were not able to take advantage of the movement to get mileage from the movement. Two politicians, Uma Bharati and one more, were booed out from the gathering. The opposition could not take advantage of the movement to politicize it and use it against the ruling UPA as they were themselves responsible for not bringing out the law and they too have their share in the corruption scenario.
One important truth comes out of this movement is the role of the civil society in bringing about change in the society. Gramsci has been advocating the role of civil society in bringing out change in the society. In Anna Hazare’s movement the people from all ranks had participated and the movement had spread across the country. The role of the youth and the urban middle class was at the peak. The rural masses were not involved in the same extent. But non participation or low level participation of the rural masses does not rob away the importance of the movement. Jayaprakash Narayan’s movement too was predominantly of the urban middle class. The farmers, daliths and adivasies were not emphatic by their presence. The issue of corruption has greater appeal with the urban middle class rather than other section of the people. Corruption issue does not often affect election trend. This could be the reason for the absence of the rural masses, adivasies and the daliths from the movement. But the fact that the civil society arose in this manner totally non violently is a sign of maturity of the civil society and the democracy.
There have been some who have different views of the movement. They claim that not all who were part of the movement were very clear about the objective of it. This claim does not discredit the movement. Maxim Gorky’s mother did not understand fully all the elements of the Russian Revolution as Lenin had understood. But the mother of Gorkhy understood good enough to accept that the revolution would bring about change that will go a long way in meeting the aspiration of people like her. Any movement will have a situation where the level of clarity among the participants and members will be uneven depending on the role these different people play in the movement. If there were different levels of clarity among the participant of Anna Hazare it is not something that will discredit the movement. It is clear that all who were enthusiastically part of the movement and even those millions who would not come to the streets would not like to tolerate corruption that will adversely affect their lives.
The official position of the government was that Anna Hazare was asking something that was unconstitutional. It is only the Members of the Parliament and the Parliament which can draft and pass a law. The political class argued that involving the members of the civil society is not only unconstitutional but it will set a precedent that will erode the power and the sanctity of the Parliament. There were also another apprehensions expressed. Some fascist forces from the civil society would emerge and by sheer power of their number would demand something that would harm democracy and the interest of the people.
This is a tricky question. There have been some in the movement who accuse that the Parliamentarians are claiming that the democracy is of the politicians, by the politicians and for the politicians. Once the parliamentarians have been elected the people have no role in politics and in democracy. While we uphold the constitution there is something missing in the constitution which needs to be brought in to ensure that in democracy the citizens are supreme. While it is claimed that the civil society members can become fascist and therefore the Parliament can protect the nation and the democracy form this. On the other hand it is also possible that the Parliamentarians can become authoritarian and corrupt and they could destroy democracy. There is a need to arrive at some clarity on the issue of civil society, democracy, Parliament and the Constitution.
The way to end corruption:
There is a serious reservation among many about ending corruption through legislation. In the year 1975 Jayaprakash Narayan launched a nation wide movement for total revolution to end corruption and authoritarianism. From his time till today corruption has not gone away. Even if Anna Hazare had expanded the concept of corruption to include election process the notion of corruption expressed in the movement of Anna Hazare is very shallow. It is understood only in terms of financial irregularities or money misappropriated by the politicians or political class and state bureaucracy directly or indirectly. There is no analysis of corruption nor is the corruption seen as linked to the overall economic and political system of our society. Therefore it is easily believed that a piece of legislation can put an end to the corruption.
The western advanced capitalist countries believed and propagated this belief that corruption was characteristic of the non west countries where the states are weak and underdeveloped. They used this argument to justify the Washington consensus. But this myth was exploded by 2007-2009 global financial and economic crises.
“There is an imaginary world where corruption does not exist, which is nowhere realized in a pure form, and there are ‘real world’ economies where extant corruption is inevitable. It is the very impossibility of realizing corruption free economy which produces its disciplinary power, for its realization would dissolve traction.”
De Sardan in his article “A Moral Economy of Corruption in Africa” (Journal of Modern African Studies) states “corruption should be understood as a ‘moral economy’ underpinned by value systems and cultural codes”.
In this context I am reminded of the statement the BJP chief, Nithin Gatkari made while defending Yeduarappa’s corruption and nepotism in allotting public land to his son and son in law. He said Yedurappa is legally right but morally wrong. By this he adds a dimension to the concept of corruption. If he is legally wrong then he is corrupt. If he is morally wrong that does not make him corrupt. Yedurappa’s action of allotting public land to his son is legally right hence he is not corrupt. But this action is morally wrong and this does not make him corrupt. Hence corruption means actions which are legally wrong. Similarly the Reddy brothers too are not corrupt because they have licence to exploit the mineral resource than belongs to public; sell it and pocket the money and give fraction of his income as lease money to the government. Bothe Reddy brothers and Yeduriappa are not corrupt as they are not involved in illegal action. When we speak about corruption we are speaking about what is legal and what is illegal. Does corruption stop at this legality of action? In that case we will have to ask a question, on what does legality rest?
The land that Yedurappa gave to his son was acquired from the farmers with the money paid was of the tax collectors. The land from which the iron ore is extracted by the Reddi brothers belongs to the people, the common land or forest land. Just because Yedurappa has a discretionary power or the Reddi brothers pay a puny amount of money as lease amount does not make them the owners of the land or the iron ore. According to pre reformed India the mineral resource was supposed to be national resource and the revenue from that was supposed to belong to the nation and its people.
When we speak of corruption we do not speak about what is legally right only. It should also be morally right. What is morally wrong cannot and should not become legally right. We need to go one step further and consider that what is legally right should also be socially just. Justice and equity are high moral values and legal system cannot over rule these values and declare some acts as legally right though socially unjust and morally wrong.
Legal system is creation of human institution to uphold justice, equity and morally in the functioning of the society and governance. Legal system should converge with social justice and morality.
