Better late

Over the last year,there have been several contestations on the proposed Lokpal — its structure,powers and responsibilities. Earlier,disagreements between parties centred on the inclusion of the prime minister and the lower bureaucracy,the CBI,and on the representation of minorities,backward classes and SC/STs. In the winter session,the bill foundered on a federal question,with the opposition and the TMC rejecting the state Lokayukta clause. Burnt by the experience,this time the UPA is exerting itself to find overlaps with other parties but political parties and civil society groups remain divided on the exact contours of the bill. Some feel that the composition of the selection committee is tilted in the ruling party’s favour,others worry about the Lokpal not being in full control of the CBI. At a more fundamental level,it is still unclear how a Lokpal will advance integrity in public life,apart from creating its own swollen bureaucracy. Anna Hazare and his team may have staked Parliament’s reputation on its ability to pass a bill,but legislators should know better than to operate on someone else’s watch.

The Lokpal must not be hurried through. It will potentially oversee most public officials. It could upset delicate institutional balances. It is hardly surprising,then,that deciding on its final architecture should take so long. Indeed,now that legislators can address the issue without the pressure mounted by the Anna mobilisation,they must use the space to deliberate on solutions that do not add to the problem of corruption,or bypass it.