Which is where my personal bone of contention lies: Are we focusing on the right issues?
There has been an inevitable--and deliberate--attempt to polarize thought on these issues: by both ends of the spectrum. As a result, a lot of illusions have been created with time-honored "smoke and mirrors" tactics.
This post is my attempt to find some semblance of common sense among all the strong opinions, fears, hysteria, hopes, dreams, and aspirations.
Fair Warning: This post is limited. It is probably flawed. If you talk *with* me, I can expand it.
===============================================
The IAC is forcing their Bill into Law. And that is wrong!
My understanding is that the IAC is demanding/forcing that "the strong JLP version be tabled for public parliamentary debate".
Which is a far cry from subverting the parliamentary process.
It is asking that JLP be openly debated by our representatives. Whether they will *ever* pass a Law that affects them all is a different matter....
This entire IAC movement is borderline dissent! It's a threat to our democracy.
Healthy, peaceful dissent is essential to any democracy.
Look at one of the birthplaces of modern democracy: France. There, it is routine for citizens to protest in overwhelming numbers as a direct means of communication with their representatives. And it seems to work just fine.
Peaceful dissent can never harm any democracy, but only a dictatorship. Or a monopolistic political class.
Why doesn't Anna care about XYZ issue?
Well, let's start with me.
I'm a freelance writer. I pitch for writing projects because I have a few years experience doing just that.
During interviews, I expect questions on and about my writing experience & skills.
Can you imagine a situation in which I am asked questions about HR policies? Or CRM? Or housecleaning?!
Ridiculous, of course. Yet that's exactly what I should expect from Anna Hazare?
JLP won't make corruption disappear! Only social change can do that. And Reforms 2.0.
I completely agree: there is no way an ombudsman such as JLP can make corruption magically vanish. To suggest that is an exaggeration.
But here's some of what it *can* do, in my own opinion:
- Make it much, much more difficult to conduct brazen multi-crore scams
- Put a dent in the "saab khaate hain, main kyo nahin" mentality
- Put a dent in the social acceptance of bribery as a "way of life"
- Force political parties to focus on good candidates, rather than "easy win" candidates
- Marginally improve public spending initiatives (reduce fund "leaks")
- Provide some safeguard on sale of our public resources: land, minerals, fuels
No magical transformation, but there *will* be cracks in the dam.
Reforms 2.0: First of all, JLP is not some replacement for Reforms 2.0. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with *any* policy-making by Parliament. In any sense.
However, I do think Reforms 2.0 can be really effective only in an atmosphere where corruption is no longer the norm, but a potentially humiliating risk.
But these Anna followers are just naive, barely literate people. They don't even *understand* the issues in the way that *I* do!
Yes they are. And no they don't.
But they are your fellow citizens, equal in celebration and calamity. And they are out there because of sincerity, not any personal gain. Respect that.
And realize that you also don't understand the issues like *they* do.
========================
Note: I have left a *lot* out. If you feel it's important, let me know and I'll try to include it.
