Guest Post by RAGHAVAN SRINIVASAN
The Election Commission proved itself to be totally unequal to the task of curbing money power in the recent state assembly elections in Tamil Nadu. State funding of the electoral process holds a lot of promise in ensuring a level playing field for all participants.
If one were to add up the cash-for-votes given to voters during the recent TN assembly elections, as reported in the press, then the cost per vote would easily be the highest among all Indian States. Money paid to cadres during election campaigns, fees paid to advertising agencies, and direct cash transfers to voters – all provide a temporary euphoria in the economy. Everyone is happy since apparently there is no one who is left out. But the money for these huge expenditures have to come from somewhere and that is invariably, the people’s pockets.
The massive monitoring force deployed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) consisting of a battalion of general observers, police observers, expenditure observers, assistant expenditure observers, video surveillance teams, and others seized more than Rs. 105 crores of cash. Though a considerable sum, this was just the tip of the iceberg. Surely the observers would have recorded considerable evidence on other surreptitious methods of transferring cash-for-votes. In response to petitions against this blatant violation of electoral rules, the Commission first postponed elections in Aravakurichi and Thanjavur constituencies and issued notices to two political parties on freebies in their election manifestos. The ECI did not exercise the plenary powers conferred to it under the Constitution to countermand/cancel these elections at that point.
However, in a first in India’s electoral history, the Election Commission decided on May 28 to rescind the notification and conduct polls afresh “in due course of time” to these two Tamil Nadu Assembly seats following evidence of use of money to influence voters. The Election Commission said it took the decision after considering reports of observers, special teams of central observers, report of the special team of observers of Aravakurichi and Thanjavur constituencies and representations of contesting candidates.
This is unfortunately, only the tip of the iceberg.
The practice of votes-for-cash has not gone unnoticed in earlier elections. The former Election Commissioner T.S Krishnamurthy had pointed out that:
“It is common perception that the vicious role of money power is the single largest source of corruption in the electoral process especially because of the scope for political patronage due to increasing economic activities of governments. The increasing cost of elections and the loopholes in the law are sufficient inducements for the flow of money into the polls, surreptitiously and illegally, and in many cases from undesirable sources. The result is that the politicians look at the electoral contests not as a ballot field but as a battlefield where bullets and wallets dominate more than any other consideration”.
Present electoral rules do not have any way of limiting private contributions to party candidates. According to Explanation (1) to Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, any expenditure incurred in connection with the election of a candidate by a political party or by any other association or body of persons or by any individual (other than the candidate or his election agent) shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred or authorised by the candidate for the purpose of determining the ceiling on expenses to be incurred by the candidate. In layman’s language, there is a limit only on the individual expenditure of the candidate.
The Dinesh Goswami Committee on electoral reforms (1990) had suggested that the explanation be deleted as it would provide an escape route to a candidate to accept donations from big enterprises. The committee also referred to the apparent contradiction between this explanation and Section 171H of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which prohibits any campaign expenditure by political parties or any other body of associations or individuals without an authorisation from the candidate and makes any violation of this a penal offence.
Under the present rules, there is a ceiling fixed for the expenses that can be incurred by an individual candidate in connection with his election from the date of nomination. Under the Representation of the People Act, incurring of expenditure in excess of the prescribed ceiling is a corrupt practice, which may lead to setting aside the election of the elected candidate if he is proved to have spent money in excess of the limit. However, this has to be established in the competent court (High Courts or the Supreme Court) through an election petition. This is not an easy exercise considering that transparency in spending is not one of the requirements of the law. The problem is compounded by the fact that there is a time limit of 45 days to file an election petition after the declaration of the result. To unearth enough material to prove overspending within the prescribed time limit would often prove too much even for the most resourceful person. This deficiency is accentuated by the absence of ceiling in respect of election expenditure by political parties.
In essence, present debate on funding of elections revolves around two options: i) that elections should be completely state funded through the state meeting all the expenditures of political parties during elections and providing them with administrative support in between elections and ii) that all election expenditures of political parties should be met through private collections, from members, associations, corporations, etc.
Such suggestions to clean up the Augean stables of Indian elections do not carry conviction among the Indian public. It is clear as crystal that every recognized political party requires crores of money to win an election, which it can never hope to collect from its members. They have to depend on “contributions” from business houses in India and the foreign multinationals. Jiski lathi, uski bhains! (The one who has the baton controls the bull). Those business houses which fund the candidates of recognised parties expect those who are elected to serve their interests. No amount of tightening of laws have really curbed this menace.
There is, however, a way out. If instead of the state funding political parties, it funds the electoral process, in which candidates are not selected by political parties but by the people, then money power can be put to an end and elections can be made free and fair. Political parties should be funded solely by its members and not by the state treasury. The raison d’etre of a political party should be to educate the people about the political process, to organise and assist them in governance and decision-making. Their role should be to empower the people and not to marginalize them in the name of representing them. If the role of political parties is restricted to this then there would be no need for them to build reserves to meet election expenses. An ordinary citizen would be able to participate in elections.
The Representation of the People Act has been amended scores of times, with the avowed purpose of addressing criminalisation, corruption and use of unbridled money power in elections. But each amendment to the Act and the electoral rules has only strengthened party domination over the electoral process and distanced people further from governance. So long as they meet certain eligibility requirements, political parties of the ruling elite can not only select candidates but dictate the entire electoral process including reservation, delimitation, allocation of symbols, allocation of media time and so on.
Selection of candidates and the right to recall are important rights of the electors that should be guaranteed in any electoral law. Without these rights, people do not have any control over their representatives and cannot recall them if they do not fulfill their mandate. People can be deemed to be truly enfranchised only when the electoral law clearly specifies mechanisms for selection of candidates by the people and control over those they have elected, including the right to recall.
Once the right to select and elect candidates of their choice is with the people, it is only the next logical step to demand that the state should fund not individual political parties, but the electoral process that enables people to select, elect and recall their candidates. The Representation of the People Act should then empower non-partisan constituency committees, established by an electoral commission, to ensure that this is possible.
The election process can be a simple one. The electoral commission, through the constituency committee, will ensure equal opportunity for all candidates to present their views, irrespective of whether they are party nominated candidates or candidates nominated by different people’s organisations or directly by people at a mass meeting of the constituency committee. No candidate or their party will be allowed to spend any money on propaganda. The state will bear all election expenditures. The distribution of liquor and biryani to the men and saris and grinders to the women on poll day by political parties canvassing their support will be totally eliminated.
The present Representation of the People Act concentrates power in the hands of political parties financed by big moneyed interests. It “recognizes” a handful of national and regional parties and gives them special privileges. The Election Commission allots symbols to recognized political parties which they use as a monopoly right to dominate the electoral process.
The method of constituency committees being in charge of the process of selection, election and recall, can eliminate the use of monopoly symbols by “recognized” parties.
All people have a right to participate in the decision-making process and in governing the country. As long as people hand over their right to representatives of political parties, over whom they do not have any control, they will remain marginalized. Their participation will be limited to casting their vote once in 5 years.
The present electoral law favours the party-dominated electoral process, and the privileged position of a handful of so-called recognized parties who act as special interest groups for big business houses or other wealthy sections of the population. This law should be amended to make way for a people-dominated electoral process. State funding of the electoral process and the prevention of funding of political parties by vested interests are some essential steps in this direction.
Raghavan Srinivasan is President, Lok Raj Sangathan