In last few days, there is an intensive debate about Anna’s methods and whether negotiating with him will create a wrong precedent.
Let me first clarify my position on this. My interest in this case is mainly from the perspective of discussing “change management” and as an observer having some goodwill about the country of my origin. I always argued that corruption of money is a problem, but even worst is the corruption of minds! Despite this opinion, I felt there is nothing wrong (or new) with the methods that Anna has chosen. This is because of the specific political context in India and not because I support or oppose Anna. There are already many political and intellectual spins around this issue. It is now necessary to discuss not only how this situation has arisen but to introspect and identify what is really missing in the current system.
Firstly, India is not just a democratic country as many people suggest when they use slogan like “of the people, by the people and for the people”. India is a republic country governed by law. I think it is necessary that people start understanding the difference. I will suggest, please watch this video.
India is not ruled by a mob, but by law. People have to understand why many intellectuals are against Anna’s methods. So, “of the people, by the people, for the people” slogan should not be misinterpreted in a way to suggest that people can do anything and take law in their hand. Having said that, one has to also dig deeper to actually check the history whether Indian politicians truly adhered to these principles.
The reality is that India’s political system has always been an oligarchy – where one face was seen as a messiah and a group of coteries then build the government around that. Even during opposition rules, people followed certain face and during elections they mere have to decide which group of people to chose from. Somebody suggested Anna is only riding on emotion, but equally politicians have been doing the same for decades.
Once any movement moves towards civil disobedience, the mob psychology can create situations where the law may not be respected… essentially towards anarchy. When this happens, there are many unexpected devastating outcomes that ordinary people supporting the original cause do not really want. The good thing is that this movement so far has been peaceful and people have spontaneously come out without any political involvement. If this was a political rally, imagine how much planning would have been required and the arrangement of money and vehicles to carry party men. Everyone knows that this is not the kind of political movement that happens every now and then. So far, this appears to be a genuine social movement in the form of a peaceful protest. So, comparing that with other rallies or ignoring it altogether will be a big mistake (whether the cause is justified or not is a different debate).
At the moment, the discussion is on whether government’s version or Anna’s version (or some other versions) should be passed in the parliament? On this, I have read both bills and the only thing that I can say is that the current form of government bill is not much effective considering the level of corruption that people face in India and I personally feel that there is a need for a bench that is as powerful as election commissioners. As an election commissioner, Seshan changed the way elections happen and put checks on politicians from abusing power and other misconducts. Without effective powers it wouldn’t have been possible. The legal details of the bill and which points should be negotiated can be better discussed by other legal experts on the matter.
Everyone knows that the issue was mishandled and that’s what angered public and they are now on streets. I just hope the same mistakes don’t happen again and sanity prevails over rebelliousness. If you see the history of other countries, there was an element of violence in bringing revolutions… Any political system cannot be perfect. For instance UK does not even have a codified constitution. Yet there is a political stability and UK is a developed economy. There are several other examples where countries have prospered even under monarchy rules. This is because a stable political system observes the law as per social norms (however imperfect that may be) and allows entrepreneurs to generate wealth for the economy. If people are happy, they won’t revolt against the system however imperfect that may be. So, are we missing something?
Yes. In India, politicians themselves have abused parliament many times (irregularities during elections, horse trading, vote for cash and several other misbehaviours inside parliament). According to a television report, there are more than 150+ sitting MPs who are charged with very serious criminal charges such as corruption, rape, extortion and murder. (This does not mean that everyone is corrupt. Although few, there are clean and educated parliamentarians in the same system). But, the truth is that well educated youths (specifically the creamy intellectual class) want to stay away from politics thinking… that’s not my job! There is a dangerous cult that thinks politics is a bad word and it should not be discussed even within friends. If that is how everyone thinks then let politicians do what best they can do. This is the root cause, why most elections are still won on either emotional issues or some cast or religious vote banks rather than having a fare debate on various issues. In India, television debate is more of a chaos and shouting rather than rationally discussing issues of concern. In the end, someone has to win and the representational politics takes over the entire system for next five years. So, there is no point in blaming Anna for using emotional card in the campaign. That debate only diverts the main discussion.
The point that I want to make here is that whichever political system you chose or whatever laws you create, there will always be some genuine concerns of misusing that. The issue is not merely about version X or version Y. This is a classic case of conflict of interests. Why would someone willingly pass a bill that may make him/her accountable and subject to punishment if found guilty? This is also an interesting case about managing change in any kind of organisation. The established system will always resist changes because there is a fear, anxiety and uncertainty of the effects of that change. A system can’t change on its own, specifically when there are conflicts of interests. It can only come from external pressure (in this case social pressure). Particularly, when a political system needs changing, it usually goes through a temporary transition from anarchy to something that people want. What I can see is that the spontaneous support of people is actually against the entire political class who have failed to stop corruption for decades because of their own vested interests and they can’t trust anyone. In this context and considering India’s history, there is nothing wrong in Anna’s methods either.
How best should this issue be addressed from now on? Do you need better managers to handle this? No! Good managers know how to smoothly run an established system (of policies and procedures) that they know works. They can at the most refine that system. But, the moment there is a crisis and it becomes necessary to bring about changes, you require leadership. Leadership is another misunderstood word. It is not about giving speeches or aggravating crowds with populous slogans. The correct definition of leadership is that it is a relationship between leaders and collaborators to bring about changes for mutual benefits (paraphrased from J. C. Rost’s work on the subject). This means a leader has to work sensibly and build collaborations with others (not just followers) in order to achieve a common goal. Manager attitude damages the situation and results in mishandling (as it happened in this case) rather than resolving issue sensibly.
If government thinks, there is a common ground for eradicating corruption which almost everyone agrees on record, then why is there a delay in negotiating all the points involved. The issue is stuck on “my version” or “your version”… I’m afraid to say, there is clearly a leadership vacuum here… on both sides! Team Anna has so far failed to convince the intellectual debate despite getting opportunity to do so and government finds it difficult to negotiate the problem with selfless Anna and his team. One should not forget the fact that even Gandhi’s 1942 movement did not bring any immediate results. In fact, that movement had faded away by 1943 and there was no major political movement since then even when Gandhiji was released from jail in 1944. Does Team Anna want to stretch the issue beyond practicality and people eventually start walking away because they have to run their own families?
There is another problem that intellectuals have been pointing out. You cannot have a perfect system in any case and it has been argued that power corrupts people and there are more chances of misuse of the power. That’s absolutely true! But, the misuse of power happens when there are no checks and balances and when people are corrupt in the system. The emergency was imposed because there was a misuse of power! During emergency, some major changes to the constitution were done (particularly, amendment 42) that included restricting the role of Supreme Court. So, Power is misused even now because there are no checks on MPs and judicial system. Jan Lokpal bill, as I understand, is not an ordinary bill. It insists on creating an independent institution that will keep checks on all others (termed “Super-cop”). Now this can either be a right move that creates a balance or a complete misadventure that results in another grave crisis. So, clearly, 31 August deadline is a ridiculous way to find a quick fix to such an important issue. I think what Team Anna worries is that there will be political spins once there are delays. This is why leadership needs to first build a trust relationship and then only some positive outcome can be expected.
The absence of leadership on both sides means managers (in this case second order politicians, government backed intellectuals and officers) have now taken the control and have started using pressure tactics through available media. These managers clearly do not want the government to be seen as defeated. So, the discussions are still going on about technicalities rather than going forward on any points. An ideal logical conclusion would be that government promises (and keeps that promise) a stronger bill within a reasonable time-frame and Anna takes the movement to people and ask them to introspect and find how they can stop corruption. Can everyone in the movement make a strong determination that they won’t ever give or take bribe in any form? Even if movement fails to achieve any of these goals, this will have some medium term effect on governance and long term effects on social and political grounds. It all depends on how things unfold in the coming days.
Corruption in the form of money is only the tip of iceberg, but corruption of mind is even more severe problem that India faces! I will like to share my thoughts on this and more on bringing social changes in my next blog if time permits.
Recent Comments