august 20, 2011

The Anti-Corruption Crusade

There is reason to be despondent and not optimistic about the current anti-corruption campaign.

orruption is neither a new phenomenon of the past few years nor has it been the preserve of the Congress Party. Allegations of corruption had emerged even prior to Independence on the formation of the Congress and Muslim League ministries in 1937 and it has been a constant companion of all parties ruling at the centre since 1947. Corruption has only grown bigger and its tentacles have burrowed deeper over the years. There have been two previous occasions when corruption came to dominate the national discourse, as defined by the media and the politically active sections of the population. The first time was in the mid-1970s, which climaxed in the JP movement, Emergency and the eventual unseating of the Congress from power. The second occasion was in the late 1980s, when the V P Singh-led campaign, though much weaker than the JP movement, did manage to overthrow the Congress government. Two decades later we find a similar upsurge on corruption. On each of the previous two occasions, the culmination of the anti-corruption movement did not lead to a decrease in either its spread or intensity. What did happen on each of these junctures was that the electoral fronts of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) the Bharatiya Jan Sangh in the 1970s and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) later gained access to state power. That in itself should lead to some caution and introspection about the present anti-corruption upsurge. This, however, is not to deflect blame from the Congress which has been the haven of choice for the corrupt and criminal as it has had the longest stint in power. It is also not to tar all the three movements with the same brush; the JP movement remains a significant step in the democratisation of the Indian polity and united many popular struggles, while the V P Singh-led movement too was radical in its agenda. What this caution and call for introspection does is to alert us to the possibility that anti-corruption struggles, under their apparent progressive exterior may be a Trojan Horse for another, more dangerous form of politics, one which has contempt for the vote, mass politics, and democratic institutions. Corruption has never been clearly defined: Is it merely about financial misdemeanours and theft of public money? Or does corruption also involve the abuse of power? If so, then what sort of power that which flows from control of state institutions or that which accretes around social hierarchies and economic inequalities? Does corruption also involve nepotism and the exercise of personal
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

influence? If the answer to the last two questions is in the affirmative, then how does corruption link up with caste and class, with patriarchy and majoritarianism? Further, does it clarify or confuse the issue to lump petty cases of bribery with large-scale loot of national resources? Finally, one also needs to ask whether corruption is to be defined in legal or ethical terms? There is no ready definition of what corruption connotes, especially as it has been used in the anti-corruption crusades. Asking these questions is not an exercise in empty phrase-mongering, but central to the very politics of fighting corruption. What are we fighting against, whom are we fighting against and how shall we proceed in our fight against corruption depend entirely on what questions are asked and how they are answered. Rather than asking these questions, solutions to corruption have been confined to two broad strategies: one, moral/ethical strictures and exhortations to reform oneself and ones society, sometimes extending to school pedagogy and public propaganda and, two, the enactment of laws and rules. The first has been a spectacular failure while the second too has been largely unsuccessful. Corruption has found its way around excessive bureaucratic procedure and made due process (or red tape) its unwitting collaborator. Today the greatest ally of corruption is the plethora of laws and rules and procedures, which make the simplest of administrative matters opaque and distant from the citizen. This allows the economically strong and politically connected to get away with almost anything they want, while denying even the basic services to the citizen without power and influence. Another question which needs to be asked but is rarely pursued to its conclusion is: Who are the people benefiting most from the perpetuation of corruption? The politically powerful surely, but also the economically powerful many from industry, trade and business. Apart from these, there are the members of the service groups again many among the bureaucrats, consultants, educationists, lawyers and doctors and small businesspersons who either wish to evade tax or extract an illegal fee for a service rendered. Surprisingly, it is from within the service groups often members of the middle class that the cry for ending corruption emerges. If one sees the political consequence of anti-corruption movements (the strengthening of the RSS and its affiliates), it is easy to gauge why the middle class supports anti-corruption movements they lead to a rightward shift in the polity. Anti-corruption movements, by raising an issue which hurts the poor and powerless

august 20, 2011

vol xlvI no 34

EDITORIALS

most, enable those who primarily benefit from corruption to gain crucial political allies from among the masses. By keeping the definition of corruption unclear it enables the anti-corruption movement to conclude without actually weakening corruption and thus without hurting the social and economic bases of the rich and those who aspire to be rich. Unlike the large masses of peasants and workers whose primary access to political power is democratic institutions and the vote, the middle class has a natural disdain for democratic politics and thus the felicity with which they attack democratic institutions and practices.

The present anti-corruption movement, led by Anna Hazare and his team appears to be no different from the previous two avatars. As is increasingly becoming evident, this movement is opening the space for reactionary elements like religious conservative figures, to enter the centre stage of public debates. Despite the valiant attempts of some left-wing forces to steer the movement in progressive directions of questioning power, the movement is clearly in the opposite direction. In this, Hazares own conservative and authoritarian politics is as responsible as are the very terms in which the anti-corruption movement has been framed.

Strengthen What Exists

Another national environment authority will duplicate, not strengthen, existing regulatory bodies.

rime Minister Manmohan Singhs promise last month to establish a National Environment Appraisal and Monitoring Authority (NEAMA) soon has been buried under the myriad scams and controversies that have come to the fore in the public discourse. Yet, the question of effective environmental governance is central to the future trajectory of development in Indias growing economy. It will also determine how fast Indias environment deteriorates and how this will have an impact on the lives and health of all its citizens, rich and poor. Yet, the issue has received barely any coverage, leave alone discussion in the media or elsewhere. There are several important issues that have to be addressed about the need for a central authority specifically for appraisal and monitoring. The NEAMA has gone through several iterations over the last three years with discussion papers circulated among experts and some environmental groups for feedback. We need to however ask whether such an authority can improve environmental governance in the country. The challenge of ensuring that the existing environmental laws are faithfully implemented does not arise from the absence of institutions but the presence of a multiplicity of institutions. For instance, there is a Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and there are state pollution control boards. They are supposed to monitor the implementation of water and air pollutions laws. But they are largely ineffective, partly due to a lack of adequate trained personnel and a paucity of funding as well as the lack of a mandate to take strong action against polluters. Especially at the state level, where the government appoints the chairperson, these boards are easily manipulated. A similar story can be told about the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that is mandatory for major projects. Devised to ensure that projects adhered to environmental norms, this instrument has been rendered ineffective because of the lack of rigour and transparency in the way EIAs are done. The mandatory public hearing, for instance, is usually cosmetic, and the so-called experts called to assess the environmental impact are easily swayed by one point of view. As a result, only after citizens groups challenge an EIA in court does the real story emerge. Apart from implementing laws, thousands of environmental disputes go to court each year. Following a number of legal enactments to reduce the clutter in courts, in 2009, the current government

proposed the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act that was passed by Parliament the following year. With its passing the earlier Acts have been repealed. However, until May this year, only one of five NGT benches was functioning. The ability of the NGT to deal with environmental disputes has yet to be tested. Given these realities, do we need another authority or do the existing ones need to be strengthened so that they can be more effective? If, for instance, the state pollution control boards under the CPCB had the technical capacity to monitor and regulate and were given some semblance of autonomy, they would be better placed to stem the blatant violation of pollution laws that is currently the norm. Similarly, the EIA process needs to be more vigorous and transparent. In particular, the functioning of the state environment assessment authorities, which tend to give clearances without hesitation, needs special attention. If an EIA became what it was designed to be, there would be a better record of compliance with environmental laws. Even if one argues that something like NEAMA is needed because the process of granting clearance to projects has to be professionalised, it is not evident that the proposed structure of NEAMA fits the bill. How the decision is finally made to clear a project, what are the criteria used, why decisions are overturned these are only some of the questions that are never answered. The prime minister promises transparency, accountability and predictability in the clearance process through NEAMA. But is this really possible if the final approval still has to be given by the Ministry of Environment and Forests? Also, what role will environmental groups, who are forced to turn to the courts, have in NEAMA? The process of giving environmental clearances to projects is notoriously opaque. A body that is autonomous of governmental control, has statutory powers, and has a credible system in place to select its members could go some way in ensuring fair and transparent environmental appraisal of projects. Anything short of that will merely be a duplication of existing institutions. The prime minister said that environmental regulations should not mean a return to the hated licence permit raj of the pre-1991 period. He needs to be reminded that it is the absence of transparency in granting or refusing environmental clearances that has introduced another form of licence permit raj.
august 20, 2011 vol xlvI no 34
EPW Economic & Political Weekly