Gujarat’s lokayukta model negates the very principles on which the battle for a non-partisan ombudsman to watch over governance has been fought for so long across the country. By becoming chief selector in the appointment process, the state’s chief minister arms himself with the power to muzzle the watchdog whose existence then becomes just tokenism. A regional chieftain’s ways of aggrandising power to himself goes against the grain of his party, at the national level, clamouring for absolute powers for a lokpal at the Centre. By subjugating even the supervisory official who is meant to monitor how the authorities are functioning and how public money is spent, regional governments are sending clear signals that they won’t be hemmed in by the national crusade against corruption to which they pay ample, and vocal, lip service.
Given this predisposition to give themselves immunity, state governments are inclined only to perpetuate their free hand in governance rather than submit to any kind of supervision, besides the power of the judiciary, to bring some relief to the common man. It is quite apparent that political parties of all hues truly believe that the spoils go to the victors of polls held onceevery five years.
How far India is from the principle that governance must not be “liable to all the vices, follies, and frailties of an individual,” as enunciated by John Adams, America’s second President, becomes apparent in the way in which we are governed by election-winning politicians who then try to place themselves beyond scrutiny.