The place for it.

Indian Express:Friday , August 26 , 2011.

The prime minister, speaking in the Lok Sabha after the House had debated corruption and the Lokpal, stressed Parliament’s right and responsibility to make law. Yet he stressed the need to find a “via media” between that constitutional principle and the maximalist demands of those around Anna Hazare. In his appeal to let Parliament consider the government’s draft, as well as suggestions from elsewhere from Hazare, from the RTI campaign, even from Dr Jayaprakash Narayan of Hyderabad the PM struck the note his government should have sounded firmly at the start. It is clearer than ever now how ill-advised was the farcical “joint drafting committee” with Hazare’s nominees, which shut out other voices, reducing the process of policy compromise to a spectacle: a shouting match between an apparently compromised government and stern, unyielding pillars of “civil society”.

Yet, as the NAC’s Aruna Roy pointed out, the legislative process is not a rubber stamp. The RTI Act was amended 150 times during the committee stage, and the prime minister’s assurance that the committee should take the best bits of each bill should have been loudly trumpeted at the start. Parliamentary committees exist to strengthen legislation; it is no coincidence that this paralysed government, which seems to think of legislation as an afterthought, has been so far unable to make the case to doubters that the appropriate standing committee will turn out the best bill possible. The examination of the Lokpal bill by the appropriate committee will be much scrutinised, and it should be thought of as an opportunity to demonstrate openness and efficiency an opportunity, indeed, to renew and strengthen constitutional institutions, the way parliamentarians across parties seemed to wish to, yesterday. Anna Hazare and team have played no inconsiderable part in causing other voices to speak up with suggestions; they should play an important role in the committee-led process of deliberation.

The prime minister’s suggestion, too, that Parliament should debate aspects of the various drafts that diverge from each other, as crucial input for the committee, is well taken. Sharad Yadav had pointed out that no institution is as representative as Parliament; if it is not trusted by those shouting for the Jan Lokpal Bill in the streets, that is partly because it is not, often enough, the location for the sort of deliberative discussion of policy which the PM is now urging. This, too, if carried forward with sobriety and seriousness, will add to India’s institutional strength the only possible response, at this moment of questioning.