The much-debated MP local Area Development Scheme does serve a purpose when our elected representatives make judicious use of it. But in many instances, funds have either been misused or not used at all. Greater accountability is, therefore, called for
With barely a few months left for the general election and Assembly polls in some crucial States, all political parties are in the process of finalising their candidates. While some like the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh and the Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi have already named their candidates for several constituencies, others are in the process of identifying the candidates. Notwithstanding the rhetoric of party leaders that image and ability would be the parameters for deciding candidature, more often than not, it is the caste/religious/ethnic calculations and winnability which determine the fate of ticket aspirants.
Former BJP president Nitin Gadkari used to heavily rely on internal surveys in different constituencies to gauge the performance and popularity of candidates before sealing their fate. His faith in surveys was so much that one of the cartoons depicted him as saying ‘Sarve bhavantu sukhinaam’ (a spoof on the original Sanskrit phrase). loyalty to powerful leaders within the party, nuisance value, electoral balancing act etc often serve as the critical factors in decision-making.
The media often judges an MP based on his attendance in Parliament and his participation in debates, number of questions asked et al. The media also questions voters on the performance of their elected representatives and often highlights the condition of the roads, water supply, sanitation, medical services, educational facilities, all of which necessarily do not fall under the MPs’ jurisdiction.
Other criteria for judging the MPs often used by civil society organisations are the educational qualification including whether some of them can sing the national anthem or national song properly. The criminal background of the elected representatives, if any, and more importantly the rise in their incomes during the parliamentary or legislative tenure are also taken as yardsticks to gauge the probity and integrity of the incumbent.
While the MPs undoubtedly play a key role in the development of their constituencies, both the media and the voters often forget that the MP has limited powers and often the duties of a panchayat, zilla parishad or the State Government are confused with that of an MP. Often MPs are held accountable for the poor maintenance of a village school building, construction of a culvert or even a bore well, which exactly does not fall under their purview. It is here that the much-criticised Member of Parliament local Area Development Scheme comes to the rescue of the elected representative.
In his widely-acclaimed recent critique of the scheme, well-known journalist A Surya Prakash has not only traced the history and evolution of the scheme but also pointed out to the glaring deviations from the original guidelines that has led to what he says use of public money for private agenda.
What was originally conceived as a mechanism to place some money at the disposal of a public representative to enable him to prioritise the needs of his voters, has over the last two decades turned into a shortcut for several unscrupulous politicians to benefit even private trusts and educational institutions owned by their family members and promote their personal agenda.
It was not long back that the nation witnessed with horror the television exposé which showed how MPs were trying to make money on the side while allowing MPlADS funds for the project. During the sting operations wherein the investigators posed as fake NGO representatives, it was found that MPs wanted commission to clear the projects under the scheme.
A study last year found that as many as 73 MPs in the lok Sabha have not used up even 33 per cent of the money released to them under MPlADS since the 15th lok Sabha came into existence. Shockingly enough, it was also discovered that there were four MPs who had not even opened their account at all in the last three years.
Coming down heavily, the Public Accounts Committee, which submitted its report on MPlADS spending during the 14th lok Sabha’s tenure stated that the non-completion of projects and the non-utilisation of the earmarked funds “defeat the very purpose for which the scheme was conceived”. It calculated that out of the total allotment of Rs 17,891.15 crore to district administrations between 2004 and 2009, merely Rs 8,084.53 crore was spent.
The PAC also found that two decades since its inception, the MPlADS still does not have a credible system of internal audits. Nevertheless, there have been instances where MPs have gone out of their way to help their constituencies as also innovative projects with the funds allocated under the scheme.
While the village panchayats, zilla parishads and State Governments have their own respective developmental mandates, the scheme enables the MPs to address the immediate concerns and small-time requirements of some of his/her voters. The discretionary power enables the parliamentarians to help their constituents without waiting for longer periods for bureaucratic approvals and sanctions.
Moreover, notwithstanding denials by political parties, the fact remains that there is discrimination in the treatment meted out to the constituencies of Opposition MPs vis a vis the lok Sabha seats of ruling party members. The MPlADS serves as an equaliser with an equal amount of money allocated to all the parliamentarians irrespective of the party in power. Thus, the Opposition MP is able in whatever little manner to offset the disadvantages of not being in power with the discretionary funds at his disposal.
There are certain gaping loopholes in the administration of the scheme as well. The supervision of the projects cleared by the MP comes under the purview of the district administration and for an overloaded bureaucracy overseeing the implementation of over a hundred Centrally-sponsored schemes apart from State-run projects, the effective monitoring of the works undertaken under the MPlADS turns out to be a big burden and often results in improper implementation.
With the raising of the fund to a whopping five crore rupees per MP per year, the outgo from the fiscal year 2011-2012 is close to Rs 4,000 crore per annum. If one adds the amounts allocated to the MlAs and corporators in various States, it would be a staggering figure. Therefore, in his seminal work, Mr Prakash has very rightly maintained that Parliament would have to ensure greater vigilance to prevent MPlADS from becoming a money-making machine for unscrupulous public representatives.
Only an enlightened media and civil society can ensure that the public funds are not misused in the pursuit of private agenda of the elected representatives. With tools such as the Right to Information, a vigilant citizenry should make the parliamentarians more accountable with regard to expenditure from the funds.
While winnability and popularity are important criteria in deciding the candidature, it is equally important that the political parties should as a rule set certain parameters with regard to the re-nomination of candidates. These should include performance in Parliament including attendance and participation in debates, income pattern, involvement in criminal activities, attitude towards women, conduct in public life, interaction with the voters, image and perception and most importantly how they have utilised the MPlADS for the benefit of their electorate.
No stricter enforcement of the guidelines by the Union Government or parliamentary committees can replace accountability sought by the electorate or their respective political parties, on whose support depend their very political survival. This is not just to ensure the lofty ideals of probity and transparency in public life. Quality and effective implementation of MPlADS also strengthens the credibility of political parties, which in turn helps them in winning the hearts of the voters.
(The author is a Senior Fellow and Editor with the Vivekananda International Foundation)