------------------------
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 expression 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