The ruling Congress party has reacted predictably to Anna Hazare's fast unto death. Spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi, among others, has pointed out that the agitation against the draft Lokpal Bill infringes on the role of the legislators. He has argued that it is the job of the legislators and not that of the social activists to frame laws. Anna Hazare's fast, therefore, he has said, amounts to demanding changes in a piece of legislation at gunpoint.

The question therefore arises whether civil society should indeed have a role in framing laws. It can be argued that our system allows the people to choose their representatives who in turn make laws on behalf of the people. That being the case, there is no need to consult a section of the people who are neither elected nor accountable to society. To push this argument further, imagine social activists demanding changes in laws designed to combat terrorism. Should the government give in to demands from civil society groups who are known sympathisers of the Maoists, for example?

On the other hand, however, it is manifestly clear that the elected representatives have routinely failed the people on several counts. Nothing illustrates this better than the series of scams that have rocked the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government at the centre. This is not an issue of the present government or the party in power alone. That is why there is a groundswell of support for Anna Hazare. At stake is an intended mechanism for combating corruption and politicians across party lines have been prevaricating for more than four decades. Hence the popular support for changes in the draft Lokpal Bill to give it more teeth. Precisely because the teeth are partly meant as defence against the elected representatives this legislation is way too important to be left to the legislators alone.