What anti-corruption movements can teach us about accountability

By Bharat Dogra 

Corruption remains one of the greatest obstacles to the progress of any country. In everyday life, it is among the most frustrating experiences for ordinary people, generating widespread resentment and discontent. When social movements give voice to this frustration and offer hope of reducing corruption, people often respond enthusiastically. Indeed, some of the most significant political changes in many countries have been driven by public mobilization against corruption.

Unfortunately, anti-corruption movements often fail to fulfill their promise of reducing corruption in durable and meaningful ways. A striking example in India is the movement for the Jan Lokpal, or People's Ombudsman, which was envisioned as a powerful institution capable of tackling high-level corruption. At one point, it appeared destined to become the cornerstone of India's anti-corruption framework.

However, even after legislation was enacted, there was almost complete inaction at the national level for nearly six years. Later, when appointments were finally made, significant deficiencies remained, including the absence of independent investigative agencies, procedural complications, and low prosecution rates. Consequently, the institution has had little discernible impact on curbing corruption at the central level. More recently, controversy arose over efforts by the Lokpal's office to procure expensive luxury vehicles.

There were nevertheless higher expectations from the institution in Punjab. The ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) emerged from the anti-corruption movement, and many of its leading figures had been prominent activists in the Lokpal campaign. Punjab, as the first full-fledged state governed by AAP—unlike Delhi, which operates under special administrative constraints—was expected to demonstrate how an effective Lokpal could function and become a model for the rest of the country.

The reality, however, appears very different. As reported by Hillary Victor in The Hindustan Times (Chandigarh edition, May 24, 2026), in a report titled "Punjab without Lokpal for 7 months, plaints pile up," the post of Lokpal in Punjab has remained vacant for over seven months. More than 150 complaints have either remained pending or have not been taken up, raising serious concerns about the collapse of the state's statutory accountability mechanism.

A senior official told the newspaper that the prolonged delay had virtually paralysed the functioning of the institution. Advocate Nikhil Saraf of the Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that he had repeatedly written to the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary regarding the constitution of a Lokayukta similar to Haryana's, but no action had been taken. In April 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued notice to the state government on a public interest litigation alleging a "complete vacuum" in Punjab's anti-corruption framework.

Thus, while the Lokpal agitation succeeded politically in damaging the reputation of the UPA government led by Manmohan Singh, it did not achieve its stated objective of significantly reducing corruption or creating a robust anti-corruption mechanism. In retrospect, the very concept of a stand-alone, extraordinarily powerful anti-corruption institution may have been flawed and vulnerable to misuse.

At the peak of the movement, many of us associated with the National Campaign for People's Right to Information advocated an alternative vision—one based on multiple anti-corruption institutions and mechanisms working together. Such a framework would be effective not only against high-level corruption but also at the grassroots level, helping villagers, slum dwellers, workers, and farmers address the corruption that directly affects their lives.

It is also worth recalling that the alleged corruption in the 2G spectrum allocation case, highlighted by the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports and amplified during the Lokpal movement, ultimately did not result in convictions. A special court acquitted all the accused. By then, however, the political damage had already been done. The UPA suffered a severe electoral defeat, influenced in part by a public perception that corruption under the government was far greater than what was eventually established in court.

Following the movement, Anna Hazare returned to his village, and little has been heard from him regarding the Lokpal issue since then. Most of the other prominent activists became occupied with the formation and expansion of their own political party.

The lesson from these developments is that citizens must remain cautious. Efforts to combat corruption should focus on creating durable institutions, effective laws, transparent mechanisms, and sustained social movements. A positive example is the grassroots Right to Information movement, with which this writer was associated. Organizations such as the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan demonstrated how transparency initiatives could empower ordinary people and produce lasting change.

At the same time, we must be careful not to be misled by movements that use public anger against corruption to advance narrow political objectives. Brazil offers a particularly striking example of how anti-corruption rhetoric can be deployed for political ends.

Progressive, democratic, and working-class forces around the world suffered a major setback following the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff in 2016, the imprisonment of former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2018, and the defeat of the Workers' Party (PT) in the 2018 elections.

A recent study titled "Anti-Corruption and Imperialist Blind Spots: The Role of the US in Brazil's Long Coup," authored by Brian Mier, Bryan Pitts, and Sean T. Mitchell and published in Latin American Perspectives, examines widespread allegations that the United States played an important role in these developments through its involvement with Brazil's anti-corruption campaign known as Lava Jato, or Operation Car Wash.

According to the study, an examination of evidence contained in US government statements, English-language media reports, and leaked communications among Brazilian prosecutors suggests extensive US involvement in the political process that removed the left from power in Brazil and contributed to the rise of the far right in 2018.

The authors argue that Lava Jato was preceded by extensive training and mobilization efforts that prepared participants for anti-corruption campaigns targeting public-sector companies and political leaders while encouraging international cooperation, particularly with US agencies.

Brazil's discovery of major offshore oil reserves may have increased foreign interest in weakening its state-controlled energy sector. Other factors cited include Rousseff's efforts to curb private banking profits, the independent foreign policy pursued by the governments of Lula and Rousseff, their advocacy of developing-country interests in international trade negotiations, and their positions on issues such as Palestine.

The study notes that by June 2019, evidence regarding US involvement had become substantial enough for PT leader Paulo Pimenta to present a detailed dossier to Congress. This included names of US prosecutors, records of meetings, public statements, schedules, and allegations of violations of Brazilian sovereignty and legal procedures.

In 2020, journalists from The Intercept published leaked Telegram communications indicating that the Lava Jato task force had held repeated secret meetings with FBI agents while bypassing national regulations. One communication cited in the study allegedly recorded a Lava Jato leader describing Lula's arrest as "a gift from the CIA."

While major US media outlets paid limited attention to allegations of American involvement, leading Lava Jato figures received extensive positive coverage, enhancing their public image as anti-corruption heroes.

Based on the cumulative evidence, the study concludes that the US government, particularly the Department of Justice under both the Obama and first Trump administrations, played a significant role in supporting what the authors describe as a politically motivated campaign against the Workers' Party.

Whether one accepts all the study's conclusions or not, it raises important questions about how anti-corruption campaigns can sometimes be manipulated for political purposes. It is disturbing when anti-corruption rhetoric is used in ways that transform political opponents into targets while portraying questionable actors as public heroes.

None of this diminishes the importance of fighting corruption. On the contrary, combating corruption remains essential to any healthy democracy. The key lesson is that anti-corruption efforts must be sustained, principled, and institution-based rather than episodic campaigns driven by political expediency. Equally important, movements against corruption must themselves remain free from corruption and conflicts of interest.

In the Indian context, several priorities deserve urgent attention. The Right to Information framework must be strengthened. Thanks to years of grassroots mobilization and national advocacy, India enacted a strong RTI law. However, its implementation has weakened significantly in recent years. Greater protection is also needed for whistleblowers and RTI activists who often face intimidation and violence.

Social audits should be strengthened at all levels, and public hearings on the utilization of development funds should be conducted in their true spirit. Greater transparency is also required in the functioning of political parties and in the disclosure of all donations made to them.

The struggle against corruption is indispensable. But it must be pursued with consistency, integrity, and vigilance, ensuring that the cause itself does not become a tool for political manipulation.

---

The writer is Honorary Convener of the Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Man over Machine, and A Day in 2071