The daily paper always carries a report on this subject. The radio, television and the web routinely announce, and denounce, a new episode pertaining to it. Anyone who has ever availed of a service courtesy the administration will have his own story of his encounter with it to tell. It is as rife and manifest as a religion, yet cult-like and clandestine. At times, it is simply called corruption. I'm sure the mind belched out all the synonyms at the sight of the 'C' word and the thesaurus can rest on the shelf.
Recently when the Lokayukta offered to quit, it was expected that the politicians may have to cave in and let him investigate the charges of their malfeasance. He did, however, withdraw his resignation without gaining much from his threat. The politicos were right in rejecting his demands and here's why.
In a democracy, the people elect their ruler. Voted into office, the representative transforms into a stellar symbol of the cherished value of citizen's power. The legislator, mandated to actualise the aspirations of his constituency, has to be given a certain leeway in wielding his powers. Also, his foibles and minor vices have to be ignored - be it his fencing of large tracts of land, which would have otherwise remained unused, whilst assuming sobriquets, or, the pock-marking of the nation's map with dots denoting his palatial abodes, which serve as shrines where the tormented, the deprived and the blighted can rid themselves of their scourge and book the delivery of their deliverance. Yes, guarded by the X, Y or Z category of security, the leader is no longer an X, Y or Z - read you, him or me.
A discomfort contingent to living by ideals is the struggle to safeguard them. Just as the desecration of an idol is assumed to denigrate the divine, i guess the fear is that a disgraced politician might detract from democracy. Such being the case, abiding by the Utilitarian maxim - “the greatest good of the greatest number” - it is a no-brainer that politicians need to be protected from investigation and prosecution, whether they are charged with treason, corruption or something less flagrant.
The preservation of democracy, however, is not the only reason. To grasp the intricacy of an inquiry into political corruption, we need to look at the election from the voters' perspective. Once India gained freedom, Lok Manya Tilak's declaration - "Swaraj is my birth right and I shall have it." - was to be consigned to the history books, but only after - "Raj is my birth right and I shall have it." - had been co-opted as the new political truism. The voters, ever since, have examined the pedigree of the contestants and revisited their own genealogy before proceeding to the polling booths. The identical manifestos of rival parties - each promising food, clothing, shelter, infrastructure ... - should hardly be shocking as only the familial ties seem to inspire trust in the electorate. Family, of course, could actually come to represent caste, class and religion, among other modes of classification preferred by the people. A candidate born into a family that has contributed statesmen is a leader by lineage and is destined to decree. The others, though, have to wait for destiny to reveal her ways.
On the eve of the election, when the various 'family' trees of each candidate are compared against those of a voter, the candidate blessed to be branching from the same tree as the voter in a majority of the charts is bound to get the nod. It is this pride in one's roots that makes a voter jubilant at the success of one of his kin; "We are in power . . ." does sound intoxicating. The scrutiny of a leader's character - even if he is corrupt - thus, is tantamount to questioning the integrity of all the innocent individuals who share their ancestry with him. The distress would wilt entire clans. The reputation of the revered leaders of the past can never be compromised on account of their sacrifices and role as luminaries, lest the populace should abandon the path they showed, and thus the descendant enjoys immunity. Recalling the Utilitarian maxim, again, it is but obvious that prosecution of the politician is not an option.
Recently when the Lokayukta offered to quit, it was expected that the politicians may have to cave in and let him investigate the charges of their malfeasance. He did, however, withdraw his resignation without gaining much from his threat. The politicos were right in rejecting his demands and here's why.
In a democracy, the people elect their ruler. Voted into office, the representative transforms into a stellar symbol of the cherished value of citizen's power. The legislator, mandated to actualise the aspirations of his constituency, has to be given a certain leeway in wielding his powers. Also, his foibles and minor vices have to be ignored - be it his fencing of large tracts of land, which would have otherwise remained unused, whilst assuming sobriquets, or, the pock-marking of the nation's map with dots denoting his palatial abodes, which serve as shrines where the tormented, the deprived and the blighted can rid themselves of their scourge and book the delivery of their deliverance. Yes, guarded by the X, Y or Z category of security, the leader is no longer an X, Y or Z - read you, him or me.
A discomfort contingent to living by ideals is the struggle to safeguard them. Just as the desecration of an idol is assumed to denigrate the divine, i guess the fear is that a disgraced politician might detract from democracy. Such being the case, abiding by the Utilitarian maxim - “the greatest good of the greatest number” - it is a no-brainer that politicians need to be protected from investigation and prosecution, whether they are charged with treason, corruption or something less flagrant.
The preservation of democracy, however, is not the only reason. To grasp the intricacy of an inquiry into political corruption, we need to look at the election from the voters' perspective. Once India gained freedom, Lok Manya Tilak's declaration - "Swaraj is my birth right and I shall have it." - was to be consigned to the history books, but only after - "Raj is my birth right and I shall have it." - had been co-opted as the new political truism. The voters, ever since, have examined the pedigree of the contestants and revisited their own genealogy before proceeding to the polling booths. The identical manifestos of rival parties - each promising food, clothing, shelter, infrastructure ... - should hardly be shocking as only the familial ties seem to inspire trust in the electorate. Family, of course, could actually come to represent caste, class and religion, among other modes of classification preferred by the people. A candidate born into a family that has contributed statesmen is a leader by lineage and is destined to decree. The others, though, have to wait for destiny to reveal her ways.
On the eve of the election, when the various 'family' trees of each candidate are compared against those of a voter, the candidate blessed to be branching from the same tree as the voter in a majority of the charts is bound to get the nod. It is this pride in one's roots that makes a voter jubilant at the success of one of his kin; "We are in power . . ." does sound intoxicating. The scrutiny of a leader's character - even if he is corrupt - thus, is tantamount to questioning the integrity of all the innocent individuals who share their ancestry with him. The distress would wilt entire clans. The reputation of the revered leaders of the past can never be compromised on account of their sacrifices and role as luminaries, lest the populace should abandon the path they showed, and thus the descendant enjoys immunity. Recalling the Utilitarian maxim, again, it is but obvious that prosecution of the politician is not an option.
Comments