A frail old man fasting for days to mobilize attention for his cause. An arrogant government brought to its knees. If you still remember some world history, you’re probably thinking of Gandhi. The man I am talking about, however, is Anna Hazare, a lifelong political activist who went on a twelve-day fast in August to force the Indian government to form an organization that could combat the large-scale corruption in government offices.

Large sections of the Indian media and Hazare’s many followers look at him as Gandhi’s spiritual successor. Indeed, at the recently concluded MIT India Conference, a panel on good governance described him as the “best thing to happen to India in the last ten years.” The last year’s horrific instances of government corruption, in the allocation of telecom money and in the Commonwealth Games, bears out the importance of this cause.

In essence, Hazare’s movement aims to pass a bill forming an organization called the “Jan Lokpal” (a public ombudsman) that will have the power to independently investigate charges of corruption by all government officials, including the prime minister. According to his website, the Lokpal bill proposes that the members of this all-powerful organization be elected by “judges, (eminent) citizens and constitutional authorities” in a “transparent and participatory process”.

Sounds great, right? Nevertheless, despite how attractive this organization seems, it is actually unconstitutional, impractical and undemocratic.

The formation of the Lokpal is problematic. When the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself admits that the judicial system has its share of corruption, it is improbable that it can choose a group that is completely honest. Additionally, getting so-called “eminent” citizens to vote for this body is a form of elitism. The idea that a group of people who call themselves the civil society can make decisions for the rest of the country dangerously subverts democracy, especially when this group bear no responsibility or accountability to the country’s citizens.

Even the Gandhi analogy falls apart when you realize that Gandhi was leading a movement against an illegitimate foreign power, while Hazare is basically proposing to place an unelected body above a democratically elected government. The fact that the corrupt government has been voted into power is a crucial detail Hazare’s followers conveniently forget. The educated middle-class, Hazare’s main support base, have somehow convinced themselves that the government has been elected by the unwashed multitudes that cannot make correct decisions. However, the power of a democracy is that each citizen has equal rights. India cannot just hand over good governance to the body of people deemed most worthy by those who deem themselves most worthy.

And who is to say that this body won’t be as bad as the government? Assuming that the stringent measures the proposed organization promises to take against corruption are enforced, it seems entirely probable that unscrupulous political rivals or government competitors will charge honest officers with false claims. This could paralyze government workings, as government officers become afraid to take any risks. Hazare’s website claims that the workings of the Lokpal will be “completely transparent” and that claims of corruption against any officials of the Lokpal will be addressed speedily. Who will investigate those charges, though? If the Lokpal itself investigates charges of corruption against its members, there is an obvious conflict of interest. In Juvenal’s oft-used slogan, “Who will guard the guards?” How many organizations do we have to create before we can claim to have one that is above suspicion?

The Lokpal Bill also attacks the other great pillar of the Indian political system: the Constitution. If a bill can be passed in the parliament by the sole support of perhaps 500,000 people in a country with a billion, it questions the integrity of the elaborate framework laid out in the Constitution and sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. Disadvantaged groups in India that are the beneficiaries of affirmative action laws are already distancing themselves from the Lokpal, fearing that the same activist blocs that support this bill might next through a bill that is hostile to their interests. This brings up the question: Does a proposed law become legitimate because of a small number of vocal supporters? What about laws benefitting the voiceless members of society—the poor and disempowered?

Of course, the Lokpal movement has had some very valuable consequences. In bringing widespread discontent to the attention of those in power, it has effectively backed the government into a corner from where it will have to take some concrete action against those responsible for the terrible scams. Hopefully, it will institute long-term measures to curb corruption, such as setting up fast-track courts to make sure corruption cases do not run for thirty years or initiating government-funded elections to legitimize electoral spending. These measures do not have to be the quick-fix aura of the Lokpal but can have more lasting effects.

A problem as deeply rooted in the Indian system as corruption cannot possibly be ended in one step. If it is to be truly defeated, the Indian people must demand it from those elected from their constituencies and from those they pay their taxes to, in a constant and sustained manner. Even when it is no longer fashionable to support Anna Hazare. Even without the glamour of a Gandhi.

Namya Mahajan ’15, a Crimson editorial comper, lives in Wigglesworth Hall.