Why Lokpal Should be a Computer?

The Lokpal issue had become a sort of Emperor's New Clothes. No political party had the guts to question the concept itself. If the legislature, the judiciary, the executive, and the press together have not been able to check corruption, it's difficult to believe that a few more people, sitting in an office in Delhi, will manage to do that.

Let us face it: In a democratic country-and few can question India's democratic credentials-the politicians or the judges or those from our tribe-the journalists-come from the people themselves. And if they are corrupt, that says something about our people. If the so-called 'common man' seems to be less corrupt, that is because he does not have the power to be corrupt. Power corrupts. And here we are talking about giving an absolute power to a set of people.

Am I suggesting that we have no hope? Not exactly. While you cannot check corruption by making someone (or a few of them) more powerful than the others and expect that they will be honest; there is certainly a way to minimize corruption. And let me emphasize: The whole approach is different. It is to minimize corruption-not stop it-by making it more and more difficult to indulge in corruption. The current hypothesis is that somebody will be more honest and will try to check corruption. Once in a while we do see an honest person and whether he is a politician or a bureaucrat or a police officer, he does make an impact. In real life, we have a few such examples; in reel life, plenty.

On the other hand, if one tries not to fight the corrupt but tries to build a system that brings in transparency so that everything becomes transparent and available to a wide set of people-sometimes the public itself-it will automatically minimize corruption. It will make working a little difficult initially. But ultimately, the system will ensure that few dare to indulge in violating the rules, doing something out of the way. A person may not fear another person; but everyone fears the public.

Such a system is not a figment of imagination. Neither is it Utopia. It's there in some limited form. That has to be expanded; and expanded fast. E-governance has been touted as a godsend for bringing in efficiency. But once fully implemented, it would bring in transparency as well. Every bit of information will sit somewhere. We have already seen the power of WikiLeaks. Even today, corruption has come down significantly in the services that have been automated.

In a technology-enabled system, the information itself will have the power to make everyone exercise restraint. A huge computing platform-let us say a supercomputer-can, on a continuous basis, monitor for exceptions. There can also be ways and means to lodge anonymous complaints by the whistleblowers. Initially, people may misuse it to trouble opponents. But soon, the system will take care of itself. If the processes and technology are good, a false complaint will result in calling out the bluff. So, there can be both proactive 'prevention' and reactive 'cure'.

We have seen that happening in cricket. The third umpire-though there is a person whose name is associated with it-is actually a computer. The replay is on a huge screen for the world to see. And, technology ensures that there is no intended wrong decision. The same principle will work here.

By moving from an investigation mode to a prevention mode, the system itself will become more and more 'less corrupt'. As far as the big computer is concerned, there would still be people to maintain it and run it. They may be bureaucrats or journalists; computer engineers or economists. They can be from all walks of life, even politicians. But the power will lie not with them, but with the computer in particular and the whole system in general.