While introducing India’s draft constitution in the Constituent Assembly in November 1949, the economist-turned-lawyer BR Ambedkar drew attention to the inequities of the new Republic. “On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions,” said Ambedkar. “In politics, we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics, we will be recognising the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, because of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value.”
Nowhere is the contradiction starker than in the electoral arena. In the world’s largest democracy, only a minuscule minority can aspire to contest elections. Wealth has become a key determinant of winnability today. In each successive election, the wealth gap between the winning candidate and the runner-up keeps on growing. The wealth gap between an average Member of Parliament (MP) and an average citizen also keeps on growing. Moneybags, dynasts, and dons dominate the candidate lists of all major parties. Such candidates are self-financing, helping a party save on funds, which are then directed towards its small set of “merit quota” candidates.
The widening gap between people and their representatives weakens India’s democracy. Reliance on fat cats and shady corporations to run political parties disempowers party cadres, hollowing out intra-party democracy. It also harms the economy by encouraging politicians to vest government agencies with extraordinary discretionary powers. Such powers are deployed to reward donors and harass others. But this culture of discretion also adds to the unease of doing business in the country, limiting new investments and jobs.
To be sure, the wealthy exercise disproportionate power in elections across the world. Some do it to gain direct favours (I give you money and you give me that highway project if you win), others to influence policy (I give you money and you enact a new telecom policy that bleeds my rival), and still others to promote their pet ideological agendas (I give you money and you ensure that schools don’t teach Darwin’s theories). In each case, the principle of “one man one value” is violated.
Yet, some democracies have worked harder than others in limiting the influence of plutocrats. Globally, reforms to regulate the flow of money in politics stand on three legs — transparency norms around political funding, regulation of political parties, and State funding. India needs substantive reforms that address all three aspects.
How might this be achieved? The political scientists Devesh Kapur, Eswaran Sridharan, and Milan Vaishnav have proposed a “grand bargain” in which political parties receive State funding to cover a part of their expenses and, in turn, subject themselves to stringent transparency norms. A new law empowering the Election Commission of India (ECI) would be needed to put such a plan into action, they argue in the 2018 book, Costs of Democracy: Political Finance in India.
Right now, political parties face stringent (and unrealistic) spending curbs, which they habitually violate. Political parties hoodwink ECI by getting friendly auditors to certify their financial accounts. Even though they are public entities, political parties face far less scrutiny than private companies.
Kapur, Sridharan, and Vaishnav rightly call for an end to this dysfunctional system. If digital trails can be used to clean up the welfare system, they can be used to clean the electoral system as well. There is no reason why a political party should not be asked to share the voter identification (or Aadhaar details) of each donor with ECI for each paisa it collects. Party accounts should face scrutiny either from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) or by a panel of independent auditors certified by the Commission.
Once political parties fall in line, they should be allowed to access a State Election Fund (SEF), in proportion to the votes they receive or the donations they earn, or a combination of both. SEF grant rules can be designed intelligently to reduce the role of big money, and to encourage crowd-funding. For instance, SEF could offer a 100% matching grant for each small donation a party receives (say anything less than ₹5,000), and offer only a partial matching grant (say 30% or less) for large donations ( ₹5,000 or above).
Most politicians know that the current political finance system is deeply problematic, and some of them might welcome such reforms. Legitimate businesses that face unreasonable demands from politicians also stand to gain. The industry lobby group Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) had proposed several meaningful electoral reforms in a 2018 report which echo some of the suggestions of Kapur, Eswaran, and Vaishnav.
ECI needs to take the lead on this and help shape a consensus on such reforms. Creating a level-playing field for elections should not just mean reining in central investigative agencies that are selectively targeting Opposition leaders. India’s electoral arena can be called a level playing field when those without deep pockets are able to stand for elections and win in large numbers. The aam aadmi should not be a rarity in Parliament.
Pramit Bhattacharya is a Chennai-based journalist. The views expressed are personal
Poll finance is waiting for a clean-up by ECI
11
0
08.04.2024
While introducing India’s draft constitution in the Constituent Assembly in November 1949, the economist-turned-lawyer BR Ambedkar drew attention to the inequities of the new Republic. “On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions,” said Ambedkar. “In politics, we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics, we will be recognising the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, because of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value.”
Nowhere is the contradiction starker than in the electoral arena. In the world’s largest democracy, only a minuscule minority can aspire to contest elections. Wealth has become a key determinant of winnability today. In each successive election, the wealth gap between the winning candidate and the runner-up keeps on growing. The wealth gap between an average Member of Parliament (MP) and an average citizen also keeps on growing. Moneybags, dynasts, and dons dominate the candidate lists of all major parties. Such candidates are self-financing, helping a party save on funds, which are then directed towards its small set of “merit quota” candidates.
The widening gap between people and their representatives weakens India’s........
© hindustantimes
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
