----------------------
res. all
open discussions are must to strengthen democratic values ,enhance
knowledgebase of individuals , help understand point-of-views of
others and show future course of action.
one point should be clear to all , we all r working for same cause -
real swaraj/lokraj
regards
urvashi sharma
--- On Wed, 11/11/09, Parivartan India <parivartan_india@rediffmail.com> wrote:
From: Parivartan India <parivartan_india@rediffmail.com>
Subject: Re: [AntiBriberyCampaign] Why Aamir Khan Should Not Lobby for
Kiran Bedi
To: rtimahilamanchup@yahoo.co.in
Date: Wednesday, 11 November, 2009, 7:48 AM
It's About Democracy As it Should be
It is difficult to understand why the proposal made by some RTI
activists and other eminent persons for appointment of Kiran Bedi as
the next Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) should come in for sharp
criticism from some friends.
Don't the citizens have a right in a democratic system to tell their
Prime Minister publicly and openly that 'we know this person to be
good; please consider her for the post'?
If some people had privately written to the Prime Minister or secretly
met him and recommended some name, would our friends object? On the
contrary, someone in media would have prominently published it as a
privileged leak.
So, are the objections directed at the open and transparent manner in
which we made our proposal in keeping with the spirit of RTI Act?
Intense behind-the-curtain manipulations are going on for the CIC's
post. We have challenged those manipulations by our proposal. It is
strange that some friends, even if they don't agree with the name
proposed by us, should find this kind of open proposal dangerous for
democracy.
Nowhere are we saying that we are recommending Bedi's name on behalf
of 'civil society' or on behalf of the people of India. But we thought
that as individual citizens, we had a right to ask our Prime Minister
to appoint a good person.
When copies of our letters were sent to the media, they not only gave
the proposal an enthusiastic coverage but also ran several straw
polls. More than 90% of the respondents to these polls voted for Bedi
as the next CIC.
So this proposal may have been made by a few eminent people but is now
endorsed by dozens, perhaps hundreds or thousands, of other citizens.
TIE, the association of Indian software engineers globally, has
written to the Prime Minister, proposing Bedi's name for the post. PAN
IIT, the global association of IIT alumni, is writing such a letter.
The IIM alumni associations have also started a similar campaign, I
have learnt. What started as a proposal made by a few people is
turning into a much larger campaign.
Why Kiran Bedi? We think she is a no-nonsense person, who implements
laws strictly, which is needed today to save RTI.
There would surely be more people across the country, who would make a
great CIC. Sure. Let others also write to the Prime Minister to
propose those capable persons. I am told this time the Government has
received many such applications and nominations from across the
country. As part of a campaign to pressurize the government to improve
its selection process, several activists have sent several nominations
to the Government this time. Unfortunately, the media did not pick
them up because those recommendations were made by lesser mortals who
were recommending other lesser mortals.
All that we are asking for is that the Government put in place a
transparent and credible process of vetting all these nominations,
invite public opinion on these nominations, and finally let the
committee decide who should be appointed.
The public also owes an explanation as to why the Government preferred
a person over other candidates. Our critics have found fault with our
demand that if the Government appoints some person other than the
candidate proposed by us, it ought to explain what made its choice
more suitable than ours (and other nominees). In fact, such a duty is
cast upon the Government by RTI Act. Section 4 of RTI Act says that
the Government would, suo moto, explain reasons for its administrative
and quasi judicial decisions. We only want the Government to fulfill
its obligations under RTI Act.
South Africa and Indonesia appoint their Information Commissioners in
this manner. The final nominees are even publicly interviewed in these
countries. In US, the people have a direct say in appointments of even
judges to their Supreme Court through public confirmation hearings.
Look at some statistics from a recent survey to understand the state
of RTI. Only 27% of people who approach information commissions
finally get the information requested. Sixty one per cent of
information commissions' orders are not implemented. Though RTI Act
requires every violation to invite penalty, only 2% of the violations
detected by the information commissions actually invite penalties. So,
if a public information officer (PIO) does not give information, there
are 2% chances that he would be penalized. Is this a sufficient
deterrent? Twenty five information commissioners (out of 72) and four
state information commissions did not impose a single penalty last
year, despite thousands of recorded violations. When RTI Act came into
force, officials were scared of its strong penal provisions. No more.
Penal provisions have been rendered practically ineffective by these
information commissioners.
Presently, there is a committee of Prime Minister, Leader of
Opposition and Law Minister to decide who should be an Information
Commissioner. However, their choices do not inspire confidence. Ask
anyone who has used RTI and appeared before any of these information
commissioners. They are primarily responsible for the sad state of RTI
today.
We want this committee to open up, to make some procedures for itself,
to make its functioning transparent, participatory and inclusive.
Repeated requests in the past to the government to improve its
process, so that it appointed better people, fell on deaf ears.
However noble a law or an institution may be, the Government of the
day can kill it by simply appointing a weak, ineffective and pliable
person as its Head. Almost all central and state governments have been
killing institutions systematically. It is important that the
appointments to CAG, CVC, CEC, judiciary, NHRC and all other such
institutions be made through transparent, inclusive and participatory
processes.
It is being said that democracy would collapse if people started
"interfering" in important appointments. It is being alleged that
'civil society' is trying to become an alternate source of power. I
would like to think that democracy gets strengthened by active
citizenry. And I also believe that the people are the "real" source of
power in a democracy.
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:40:43 +0530 wrote
>
@i$#w@ry@!
http://desicritics.org/2009/11/10/125409.php
Why Aamir Khan Should Not Lobby for Kiran Bedi
November 10, 2009
>Ruchi
The campaign by Aamir Khan, Subhash Chandra, Arvind Kejriwal et al for
Kiran Bedi's appointment to the top CIC position is both flawed and
inappropriate.
The RTI Act 2005 is a landmark legislation that gives Indian citizens
a platform to demand state accountability. Information commissioners
are without doubt key to implementing the spirit of the RTI Act and
not just its bare minimum legalese. If information is denied to the
appellant, the Act allows two appeals: the First Appellate Authority
(usually a direct supervisor of the PIO); then an Information
Commissioner. If information is denied by the commissioner, there is
no further source of redress. Hence, information commissioners are the
final adjudicating authority for the implementation of the Act. There
is wide consensus that differential and often regressive application
of the Act by the Commissioners has stymied the Act's implementation
and intention. The Chief Information Commissioner is thus central to
free access to information, necessary for a functional democracy.
Given that Kiran Bedi is a "person of eminence in public life" and
freedom of ex-pression is every citizen's democratic right, it seems
counterintuitive to argue against this lobbying effort. However, there
are three reasons why this lobbying/campaigning for Kiran Bedi gives
the real civil society cause for concern.
First, suitability not public opinion should be the basis for
administrative appointments. Public opinion will by definition
privilege the celebrity over less known persons. Kiran Bedi gets the
overwhelming favourable response in public polls because she's
essentially uncontested - the public is not gauging her relative
suitability vis-à-vis another individual. Moreover, public opinion is
based largely on disseminated information and has little basis or even
interest in validation. Clearly, we cannot select the next CIC based
on an Indian Idol type SMS poll. As to Kiran Bedi, she may or may not
do a good job as the CIC. However, she has compromised her credibility
and seriousness by promoting a beauty creme. How can an individual
celebrated in part for advancing gender equality (first women IPS
officer) use her very reputation ("bedaag reputation ek din main nahi
banti") as analogy ("nahi bedaag sundarta") to promote regressive
consumer products
like beauty cremes for women?
Second, if public opinion is to be used to pressurize the appointment
committee, then the candidate (without whose implicit consent this
campaign could not have been launched) must present a manifesto for
the implementation of the Act post-appointment. The public should not
be asked to form an opinion merely on the basis of celebrity
endorsements. The campaign and candidate should make explicit their
interpretation of the RTI Act (e.g., define information, use for
resolution of grievance) and their stand regarding current provisions
(e.g., implementing mandatory penalties) and proposed amendments
(e.g., excluding file notings, "vexatious and frivolous"
applications).
Third, the endorsers represent not the civil society but celebrities
in their fields. If the campaign was to bypass the real civil society
in favour of renowned persons, then there are other more relevant
people, notably the NCPRI (National Campaign for People's Right to
Information) who are not even part of this lobbying effort.
Additionally, the impression of diversity of the letter writers (and
hence the manufactured image of her universal appeal) is false. Half
of letter's signatories are on the RTI Awards jury and there is a
clear common thread connecting these apparently unconnected people.
This brings us to the most disturbing fact of this campaign - using
unqualified celebrities to promote a celebrity. The CIC post is not
the film censor board so using Aamir Khan simply for the high decibel
publicity perverts the appointment process. What gives Aamir Khan etc
any special right to send this letter? Giving indiscriminate credence
to
celebrity opinion centralizes power and creates the same type of
opaque nexus that's against the spirit of RTI. People rise and become
public figures for specific reasons and their power/influence should
be confined to those areas, as opposed to the revolving door status
quo we have now where unqualified actors, sportspersons, businessmen
and politicians occupy multiple positions like oscillating electrons
in quantum mechanics
The underlying tenet of democracy is transparency, not popularity
contests in the name of inclusiveness and participation. India is a
representative democracy and such appointments are the responsibility
of the executive body. The decision making process should of course be
transparent; however, public opinion driven by celebrity endorsements
(instead of democratic people's movements) is susceptible to opacity
and manipulation, and cannot and should not be the basis for serious
administrative decisions.
Ruchi has recently returned to India after seven years in the US.
Wanting to fit, yet (unconsciously) judging at the same time, she sees
not "India Shining", but an India going terribly awry: an inefficient
and corrupt state, mind-numbing poverty, deficient public services,
unprofessional and frivolous news media, and general political apathy
amongst the Indian populace (in the world's largest democracy!). Ruchi
is currently obsessed with mainstreaming civic engagement in the
city/country to demand accountability from the administration.
Blogging is but a fringe effort. She is working on an idea to organize
the discrete dissenting voices into some kind of a critical mass to
ensure that citizen voice/concerns are heard and addressed by our
polity. Please email her or visit her blog
(http://bourgeoisinspirations.wordpress.com)
-----------------------
@i$#w@ry@!
No comments:
Post a Comment