‘Yes, we can’, this caption coined by Obama during his election campaign in 2008 for the U.S.presidential election caught the imagination of the country. And the end result was that not only did Obama win the election but won it comprehensively.
Three years later, a similar anthem is buzzing across all the major URBAN centres in the world’s biggest democracy. ‘Karengey, ya Marengay’ is the caption that is been played across the streets.
But are the two campaigns similar? On the face of it yes, they are the same, but the substance and texture are completely different.
First let’s talk about the similarities.
Obama & Anna both are underdogs fighting against the system.
In Obama’s case, a black man with no political or affluent moorings took on the system and garnered mass support to overhaul the system.
Anna on the other hand again is a simple Gandhian, who stays in a temple, has no wealth or property, with no corporate or political backing and is fighting the battle against the all powerful & mighty establishment.
Both are charismatic personalities that can woo the masses .Both took up issues that worry the common man. Both are effective communicators who seemed to have mastered the art of handling the media which in effect reaches out to a larger audience.
The media loves underdogs and it’s no surprise that in these cases they have the full support of the media.
But inspite of so many similarities there is one glaring difference between the two men.
Obama took on the system by being part of the system (political system), while Anna is taking on the system by staying out of it.
Obama’s appeal inspired his supporters to go out and cast their vote for him which translated in to him becoming the President of United States of America.This support empowered him to become the legitimate people’s representative who could take up their causes within the ambit of the constitution and bring in laws that would fundamentally bring about change in a common American’s life.
Anna on the other hand represents a section of the civil society. He is primarily an urban, middle class icon who has taken on a popular cause which has been haunting the country for the last 65 years.
Yes, corruption is an issue in the villages as well, but how many are aware of Anna’s movement? Not to forget that majority of Anna’s supporters are people who do not vote.
I totally support Anna’s movement – when he says it is a ‘Fight against corruption’. But I do not support his demand that he will fast till his ‘version of the Jan Lokpal Bill’ is passed
Anna has all the rights to protest against the establishment for not doing enough to eradicate corruption, but to blackmail that it’s ‘his way or the highway’ is not correct.
Majority of his supporters on the streets do not know the details of the Jan Lokpal bill. And these people are a' part' of the total population. By no means can we assume that they represent the majorty’s view.
As I mentioned earlier, the cause Anna is standing for is absolutely correct and the majority support him, but to say that his version of the lokpal bill is the best cannot be accepted.
Anna is not an elected people’s representative. No matter how much we argue or protest, the fact remains that the parliament is the supreme institution of democracy. The parliament is elected by the people who may or may not agree with his draft of the Lokpal bill. MPs are legitimate, elected representatives of the people. They maybe corrupt, dishonest, selfish, whatever it is, but they have been elected by the people.
This demand of Anna completely undermines the constitution which is the strongest pillar of our democracy.
Anna is an icon which this country has desperately been seeking for a long time. For a country where movie stars & sportsmen are the biggest icons for the youth, Anna is a fresh change, a real hero who inspires people.He represents the popular sentiment of the people but that does not give him the right to question the validity of the 552 individuals in the parliament who have been elected by the people across the length and breadth of this country.
Anna’s bill should be tabled through the parliament. It should be debated & fine tuned. Instead of asking the people to fast till his ‘version’of the bill is not accepted, he should ask the same people to protest till their MPs do not engage them in the process of drafting the bill and go to the parliament with their view points for a strong Jan Lokpal bill which will help address the root cause of corruption.
The Anna movement is like a flashback of the movie Rang De Basanti. In the movie the protagonists kill the corrupt minister to avenge the death of their pilot friend. But that didn’t kill corruption.
Similarly we don’t need to kill the political system, but cure it. And the best way to fight corruption and in this case of the Jan Lokpal bill is to get educated & educate others about the bill and push our elected members to pass a strong anti-corruption bill.
The Jan Lokpal bill is a strong instrument that will help us fight and eliminate corruption. But to believe that this alone will eradicate corruption is too simplistic. The battle is against corruption which is a much broader issue. We cannot make this a single point issue. And if we do then we may end up winning this battle but surely not this war.
