No law, however draconian, can end an all-pervasive evil like corruption. One has to attack all spawning grounds of this menace, of which the most important is politics and, in India, its cutting edge — the electoral process
The Aam Aadmi Party’s obsession with the implementation of its Jan lokpal Bill as the panacea for India’s corruption, is obscuring a critical fact. No law, however draconian, can end an all-pervasive societal evil, which requires addressing a wide variety of social, political, economic and cultural factors. Otherwise, its harsh provisions will only lead to misuse. The argument that built-in checks and balances would prevent this, does not wash. The world has yet to see an abuse-proof law.
One has to attack all spawning grounds of corruption, of which the most important is politics and, in India, its cutting edge — the electoral process. Particularly, three of the latter’s sub-processes — selection of candidates, campaigning and the collection of funds for the latter — have been manipulated to yield ill-gotten gains. The Model Code of Conduct intends providing a level playing field for all political parties, keep campaigns fair and civilised, prevent clashes and conflicts between parties, and maintain peace and order. It aims to ensure that the ruling party, either at the Centre or in the States, does not misuse its official position to gain an unfair advantage in an election.
The MCC, which focuses mainly on the conduct of elections and not the elimination of corruption, cannot prevent candidates buying nominations by paying black money to leaders of political parties. Nor can it prevent nominations being granted to candidates with criminal records. Out of 543 members of the current lok Sabha, as many as 162 elected in 2009 had declared criminal cases against them — against 129 elected in 2004. And, 76 had declared serious criminal cases like those relating to murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping and robbery. One need not elaborate the consequences of criminals contesting elections — electoral malpractices like booth-capturing and intimidation of voters, seeking to incline them in their favour through distribution of cash and liquor and so on. According to a report on April 16, cash totalling Rs269 crore, 1.32 crore litres of liquor and 18.47 lakh kilogrammes of drugs had been seized nationally since the campaigning began.
Needless to say, criminals once elected to Parliament will use power to make money through corrupt and unlawful activities like lobbying for a consideration in favour of a decision that should not be taken, or intimidating the administration into inaction against their illegal and extortionate activities. Equally, they will seek to abort action against illegal activities of industrialists and businessmen who pay them regular retainer fees and give separate rewards for specific services rendered. All this is to say nothing of their opposing relentlessly any effective move to eliminate corruption from public life and curb criminalisation of politics.
Nothing underlines this more than the resolute opposition to the Supreme Court’s judgement of July 10 last year striking down as unconstitutional Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act allowing convicted lawmakers three months for appealing to a higher court and get a stay of the conviction and sentence. Even though the court made it clear that the ruling will be prospective and those who had already filed appeals in various High Courts or the Supreme Court against their convictions would be exempt from it, several political parties reacted sharply, and the Congress-led UPA Government enacted in September 2013 an ordinance to negate the verdict, only to withdraw it a few days later after Mr Rahul Gandhi had denounced it and torn it up publicly as a mark of angry disapproval.
The fact is that eliminating the problem of MPs with criminal records would require more drastic laws than now, the political consensus for which will be difficult to achieve given the wider process of criminalisation engulfing India’s politics. Besides, even if the effort succeeds, there would remain the problem of raising party and poll campaign funds which is a major source of corruption both on account of the use of black money in the process and the element of quid pro quo it introduces in relations among political parties, their leaders and donors. And, of course, a sizeable amount of funds raised ostensibly for a party’s coffers often sticks the collector’s fingers.
It is in this context that the recommendation made by a committee of MPs appointed by the Vajpayee Government in 1998 deserves attention. Headed by Mr Indrajit Gupta of the Communist Party of India, it recommended state funding of elections because political parties performed a vital public function in a democracy. Such funding, however, was to be confined to parties recognised by the Election Commission as national or State parties and candidates fielded by them. Since cash could be misappropriated, it recommended assistance in the form of the allotment of rent-free accommodation for national parties in New Delhi and State parties in the State capitals and provision of rent-free facilities with trunk dialling facilities at the premises. Assistance during election campaign would include specified quantities of petrol or diesel for vehicles, paper for preparation of election literature and voter identity slips, postal stamps up to a certain financial limit, five copies of electoral roll for each constituency and an amplifier system for each Assembly constituency or every Assembly segment of a lok Sabha constituency, subject to a maximum of six for each of the latter. Among other things, it also envisaged the provision of basic facilities for a candidate’s camp outside each polling station on election day, and food for the candidate’s counting agents inside the counting hall on counting day.
The committee further recommended the creation of a separate Election Fund with an annual contribution of Rs600 crore by the Centre and a matching amount contributed by all State Governments together. To be eligible for state funding, political parties and their candidates should have submitted their income tax returns up to the previous assessment year and political parties to have accepted all donations above Rs10,000 in cheques or drafts and disclosed the names of the donors.
There have been differences over the committee’s recommendations. The issue of poll funding, however, continues to raise serious questions, and the new Government assuming office after the current elections, would do well to consider it, along with the other reports on the subject, at least as the starting point of a wide-ranging debate over poll reforms, which, in turn, will have to be a critical part of any serious effort to end corruption in India.