Being accountable to the public does not mean that political parties must lay themselves bare. The CPI, for instance, supports greater financial transparency but is opposed to coming under the RTI’s ambit as it will impinge upon its democratic functioning, writes S Sudhakar Reddy
The decision of the Central Information Commission that political parties should come under the Right to Information Act, as they receive a substantial amount of financial help from the Government, has been rejected by all parties. The Communist Party of India is also in the same boat.
However, one would like to make clear that the CPI supports transparency when it comes to matters relating to sources of the party’s income and expenditure, names of party donors etc. There is simply no hesitation in being accountable to the people. A political party is a voluntary association of people who believe in a certain political ideology. The CPI collects funds from the people and works for them. Hence, the people have a right to know about the party’s financial dealings.
Where, then, is the problem with the party being brought under the RTIIJ The RTI Act gives the people the opportunity to learn about the party’s decisions including its internal workings and other such details. This is problematic as political parties, though working for the public, enjoy confidentiality regarding internal decisions, meetings and discussions.
Therefore, the party is not prepared to share, for instance, the minutes of its meetings and similar details of internal discussions with the general public. While the party’s important decisions, such as those regarding candidates who will contest on the party ticket etc, are announced to the public, sharing information about the decision-making process itself — who supported which candidate and the arguments within — is not necessary.
RTI access to this kind of information will create problems for the internal, democratic functioning of the party, thus compromising its privacy before rivals, political or otherwise. And no party will agree to such a predicament.
The CIC agreed with the arguments of some RTI activists that political parties get “substantial help” from the Government — for example, they receive voters’ lists from the Election Commission; are allotted time-slots on Doordarshan and Akashvani to explain their election manifestos; are allotted land for party offices; and residential quarters for party leaders.
It is true that the above facilities are provided. But it is not substantial financing. It is necessary to provide voters’ lists to recognised parties as they have to check and distribute voting slips. The same is supplied to independent candidates and unrecognised parties at a nominal cost of a few thousand rupees.
Similarly, allotting time-slots on Government-run electronic media is a necessary exercise to make the public aware of the party’s plans and promises. It is not a favour done to the parties, and cannot be termed as commercial campaigning. Some committees on electoral reforms have recommended that even vehicles be allotted to parties in order to curb corrupt electoral practices.
On the question of allotment of sites or buildings for party offices, one would like to cite the example of the CPI. In the 1970s, the CPI wanted to purchase a site for the construction of its party office in New Delhi. The Government refused to sell it any land but allotted a site on lease. At that time, the market price of the land was only a few lakh rupees. The party constructed its headquarters, ‘Ajoy Bhavan’, and paid rent every six months. Costs of housing sites have since appreciated many times. The CIC has now calculated the market value of the CPI site at Rs 88 crore. But the market value should have been calculated as ‘at the time of allotment’, and according to present rates. Also, as the land in question has only been leased to the CPI, the party can neither own it nor sell, either wholly or partly.
The market value figure, the basis of which is unscientific and unrealistic, misleads the public into thinking that an enpensive piece of land has been allotted to the CPI. But if an office site’s value is calculated on the basis of the market price at the time of allotment, the total assistance to political parties will be less than one or 0.5 per cent of their incomes. This cannot be “substantial help”.
Similarly, living quarters are also allotted to leaders of some parties but for this, rent is collected at a rate that is between the concession rate and the market rate. So it is not based on nominal prices. This facility also cannot be treated as substantial financial aid.
So how does one make the financial resources of political parties transparentIJ Since the CPI does not receive funds from corporate houses, it has nothing to hide. The CPI is preparing to put all of its financial dealings on its website and make them available to the public. This should be made compulsory for all parties. As it is the most important part of a party’s activity, people should know this as a matter of right.The CPI wants the CIC to withdraw its decision and hopes the people will appreciate its reservations about bringing political parties under the RTI Act.