Representation in democracy should be inclusive of class, caste and gender and it is more challenging in a multi-cultural and multi-religious country like India. The aspirations of people from different socio-economic status should be represented through their leaders in the governance. The 17th Lok Sabha has only 14 per cent women and 4.5 per cent Muslim and other minorities. Majority of members across ruling and Opposition mostly belong to the rich class. There should be a basic change in our present electoral system to strengthen democracy and make it inclusive.
The composition and character of the governing bodies taking decisions on behalf of the people should be changed as per the demand of the present scenario. In the context of electoral reforms, State funding of elections features as one of the most important aspects to ensure participation of all sections in election. Equally important is proportional representation system in place of present FPTP system of election. The election system in practice has been pro-rich, where candidates play a bigger role than parties, and candidates from poor economic background and small parties and financially weak parties have very less chance to win because they cannot compete in campaign with financially powerful parties supported by upper class of India. The corporate sector decides winners, while corruption, violence andm bribing influence the election results. The upper class influence policy making process of governance in their favour and prevent genuine representation of the candidates by encouraging unfair competition.
The elections in our country for LokSabha and State Assembly and local self Government witness huge spending of money in campaign, road shows, public meetings by parties and candidates. Mostly voters are bribed to vote, though a law is there to prevent the practice. Many parties use helicopters and helipads for high profile campaigning all over the country taking special help of film stars and celebrities.
The print and electronic media is used day and night to propagate in support of the parties. All these cost some thousand crores. Campaigns by ruling parties create problem for local administration and public by disturbing their normal life. Many party leaders spend huge amount in building their public image through advertising. Though there is provision for ceiling in candidates’ expenses in election but there is no ceiling imposed on the political parties spending during elections.
The ADR sources say that majority of the candidates from ruling parties and elected members are crorepaties. It seems the socially and economically backward classes are reasserting their power in democracy. It is discussed in media that ruling party’s bosses sell out tickets to those who have paid huge bribe to them. The mining and industrial lobby plays a substantial role in selection of candidates.
The criminal background of the candidates almost is ignored, while candidates with money and backing from industrial, mining and corporate houses are chosen as nominees by the political parties. Their educational background and experience in public life do not matter much. Many of the parties lack internal party democracy and mostly ruled by a family, an individual and a dominant group.
In order to change the situation, there has been growing demand for State funding of elections ensuring equal opportunity for all candidates irrespective of their financial background. Though the matter was discussed in Constituent Assembly by Prof KT Shah who moved an amendment that election expenses should be borne by the State but the issue has been avoided by ruling parties.
The Dinesh Goswami Committee (Former law Minister) on electoral reforms in 1990, Indrajeet Gupta Committee on State funding of elections 1998, Second Administrative Reform Commission, 2008, and Law
Commission report on reforms of the electoral laws 1999 etc have extensively referred to the issue. Former Chief Election Commissioner of India SY Quraishi had argued in favour of State funding and said it can help end political corruption. The committee’s recommendation suggested for State funding to registered State and national parties with restrictions and further said that the Election Commission had to work out modalities on this. It is argued that this can start with partial funding and the funding should be preferable in kind like rent free accommodation, rent free telephone, free time in Doordarshan and AIR, fuel for vehicles engaged in election, paper for printing, loud speaker, free telephone and support for counting agents etc.
There are parties and individuals who oppose State funding taking the plea that taxpayers are indirectly forced to pay for election expenses of all political parties. Rather they want to limit their contribution to the parties whom they support. With State funding, the political parties become part of the State rather than the representative of their supporters in particular and people in general. It will affect the ultimate accountability to people. The party candidates may depend more on State than their leaders and the role of elites in party will be reduced that may affect the performance of parties dominated by individuals and families. Many Left parties supporting State funding are of the opinion that the parties should not be controlled by the State in the name of funding because it will downsize the political role of a party in holding State accountable.
However, many argued that the State funding of elections is a necessary cost of democracy and governance and not a huge burden on State. This process will contribute to reduce dependency of political parties on the corporate sector. The State funding of elections with strict legal measures will contribute to limiting the role of dominant class, private corporates, communal, casteist and extremist bodies in election. It further argued that in poor societies, ordinary members of the party cannot support party’s election fund. There are countries like Germany, France, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Brazil, Japan, Spain, Italy and many others who have already adopted State funding for political parties. The IDEA of Sweden, working with the Election Commission of India on electoral reforms and strengthening democracy says out of total 180 countries, 71 countries have facilities of giving State funds based on votes obtained and 86 per cent of the countries in Europe and 58 per cent in Asia have adopted this.
In a democracy, there should be fair access to representation which includes fair election and participation. The State funding will pave the way for building genuine party representation and the feudal and hegemonic rule in parties will come to an end which is very much required for a healthier democracy. The process may encourage parties by marginalised groups such as working class, labourers, peasants, Dalits, Adivasis, STs, OBCs, religious and ethnic minority, women and regional parties to improve their participation in elections.
(manasbbsr15@gmail.com)