Anna Hazare and his friends are understandably angry with our corrupt legislators; they want them to be punished. Had they been in politics, would they have conducted themselves differently? That is doubtful. Therefore, I suggest that the problem is not with legislators, but with the system that selects and nurtures them.

HIGHER ELECTION SPENDS

Mr C Subramaniam, foremost among three South Indians who engineered the Green Revolution (and, therefore, deservedly was awarded the Bharat Ratna) would say that all candidates for election to legislatures were liars — they lie when they submit their expense accounts to the Election Commission.

That is because of two reasons. One, perverse faith in socialism; it induces rule-makers to curb expenditure in the fond hope that competent, but not rich candidates, will be enabled to contest and win. Two, a blind indifference to inflation that prevents them from upgrading expenditure in tune with the real value of money.

All payments and expenditure of this type should be designated not in rupees but in ‘perchis' — per capita hourly incomes. Then, there shall be no need to revise it from time to time. Unfortunately, economists argue that inflation is opposed by those affected by it; they believe that if expenditure and payments are in terms of the real value of money, there will be no opposition to inflation and the economy will be devastated as a result. It is another matter that in spite of designating expenses in rupees, inflation has flourished in its own inexorable way.

Hence, even honest legislators like Mr C. Subramaniam are forced to skirt the rules, sign affidavits that are lies. The hypocritical socialism that engenders such rules is doing great harm — it gives an excuse for corrupt legislators to justify their nefarious acts.

Hence, I suggest that the limit on election expenditures be made so generous in real terms that no politician would need to lie about it. Then, at least one major excuse for legislators to be corrupt will go. In fact, every candidate may be permitted to spend without check but only on lawful activities. If anyone contravenes that liberal law, the candidate and the families of candidates should be debarred from contesting elections for a long period.

Singapore has been declared to be the most honest state in the world. One reason is Mr Lee Kuan Yew is not a hypocrite — he raised legislators' salaries to the extent that there was no reason for them to be corrupt. More than years ago, I had argued in The Hindu that legislators should be paid well — say about Rs 1 crore a year (now at least Rs 5 crore a year). Ever hypocritical, our MPs would not accept the idea and converted it into the MPLADS scheme.

Instead, pay them well so that ordinary people can demand service; they can ask, “you take a huge salary and what are you providing in return?”

MORE CARROT THAN STICK

Activists are idealists. They assert that their ideal is perfect and can be implemented without a flaw. Unfortunately, assertion is not an argument. For instance, a Lokpal may be no better than any judge that we already have. It is also a fact that there are legislators who are great blackmailers or bribe-givers. We can never be sure that the selected Lokpal has a lily-white past, or is not in need of some kind of favour. If we make judges' remuneration as also their age of retirement truly high, the chances are that many of them will be good, and independent of the legislators or the favours dispensed by them. They should then discharge their duties efficiently.

What should our objective be? Punishing corrupt legislators or making successful politics possible without legislators indulging in corruption? Do we keep the existing system and attempt to discipline legislators, or change the political system in such a way that it becomes unnecessary to discipline legislators? Should we instil fear of punishment, or should we make it possible for honest legislators to prosper better than dishonest ones? Will the Lokpal achieve the latter?

I do not say that high wages (plus high age of retirement in the case of judges) will eliminate judicial corruption, but that it will minimise it. So will high salaries for legislators and no limit on legitimate election expenses — preferably paid for by the state. Let us not aim for the impossible, eliminating corruption — which activists say they can — but look for something realisable, namely, minimising it, so that it will not matter.

PRAGMATIC REFORMS

For that reason, I suggest the following programme:

Pay judges so well and also make their retirement age so high that they have little or no need to depend on legislators, or for that matter on anybody else.

Meet in full all legitimate expenses of all serious candidates.

Pay legislators well, so well that they too need not bother to take bribes.

Designate all payments in perchis and not in rupees — so there is no need to revise them frequently.

Let legislators have competition — something no democratic country has at present. Pay the runner-up in the elections a handsome wage and entrust both the winner and the runner-up with the responsibility of looking after individual voter's needs.

Make criminal investigating and prosecuting agencies independent of legislators.

Will these reforms eliminate corruption? I do not guarantee that, but given the experience of Singapore, it will minimise corruption. Will the Lokpal guarantee that? I am doubtful.

(The author is a former Director, IIT, Madras. Response to > indiresan@gmail.com and >blfeedback@thehindu.co.in )

This is 303rd in the Vision 2020 series. The previous article appeared on May 2.

(Concluded)

Related Topics