It is entirely other thing to demand that the legislation drafted by an self-appointed, unaccountable and unrepresentative set of people be passed at the threat of blackmail.
Why do you have to resort to lying in order to make your point? Why do you willfully mis-characterize the nature of the protest?
The promoters and supporters of Jan Lok Pal and the public agitation to achieve it are profoundly misguided. Their popularity stems from having struck a vein of middle class outrage against the UPA government’s misdeeds. That doesn’t mean that the solutions they offer are right.
You have to decide if you want the “right” solution or if you want the people’s voice, no matter how misguided, to be heard. You also have to decide what exactly you want to oppose: the bill’s effectiveness or the method being used to draft the bill? I see the criticism for both being mixed up here.
Because the person is handpicked by unelected, unaccountable ‘civil society’ members?
Although this allegation is lying, I have to ask this: How are Supreme Court Judges appointed? How is Chief Election Commissioner appointed? How are personnel in CBI appointed? Are they ‘handpicked’ by elected representatives?
This flies in the face of empirical evidence—when hundreds of millions of people turn up to vote. If it were not working for them, why would they be voting? They might not be demanding Reform 2.0, but something else, and are getting what they want.
Pray tell me, what “constitutional” course do people have to force their “representatives” to act? What if ‘the people’ think “vote them out” isn’t really the solution they are looking for? If they thought it was a solution, wouldn’t they be doing just that? Should the middle class keep silent because the “non-middle class” have no problem with their elected representatives and are getting what they want (free liquor and TV sets.)?
Instead of ephemeral displays of outrage—what happened to those post 26/11 candle-light vigils?—it is engagement in the electoral process that is necessary.
Now, I’m not sure if you are opposed to just the “hunger strike” kind of protests or all forms of protests. Why are you making “engagement in electoral process” mutually exclusive with other solutions?
Also, how exactly is this method unconstitutional? If it were so, shouldn’t Hazare be in jail or facing prosecution now?
But this is us. Given this reality, the solution for corruption and malgovernance should be one that does not rely the notoriously apathetic middle classes to come out on the streets. The solution is to take away the powers of discretion, the powers of rent-seeking from the government and restore it back to the people.
It’s interesting how you slam “the apathetic middle class” in one sentence and in the very next talk about more power to “the people”.
Isn’t the idea that we do not have to keep coming to the streets every now and then?
As proposed, this body is just like the Election Commission and the Supreme Court. An independent body important in the “checks and balances” equation. Isn’t it?
As another commenter Sandeep said: “ But they don’t have the obvious conflict of interest that is there about the Lokpal bill being drafted by representatives. Other bils can follow your logic, but this bill deserves the exception.”