When Anna Hazare sat on an indefinite fast the first time around, his fight was against corruption. He advocated an anti-corruption bill to check the rising corruption in the country. The government engaged with him and a bill was introduced in parliament. However, the bill is not what Hazare and his followers had envisaged because it left out the judiciary and the prime minister out of its ambit. So, he is now fighting not for corruption but for his version of the anti-corruption bill!
And when you take out all the symbolism from his movement, Hazare’s current fast is not against corruption but for his version of the anti-corruption bill. And in effect, he is actually stalling the process and undermining parliamentary democracy. If the civil society were given the right to draft legislation then why should people bother sending elected representatives to the government?
As the prime minister told the Parliament on Thursday, in a functional democracy differences of opinion must be resolved thorough dialogue and consensus.
He said, “Those who believe that their voice and their voice alone represents the will of 1.2 billion people should reflect deeply on that position. They must allow the elected representatives of the people in Parliament to do the job that they were elected for.”
While it is true Hazare’s campaign has triggered a feeling of intolerance towards corruption on a mass level, it is also a fact that to keep the momentum of the movement alive there is need for practical sense as opposed to unbridled emotion. For at the end of the day no matter which version is adopted the success of the bill will depend on its rightful implementation.
And in India, as previous experience has showed, that is the real battle.
