Jagdeep S Chhokar GovernanceNow | June 1-15, 2011
We are living in interesting times. “Increasing cost of elections” is a problem for everyone except those who incur that expenditure (the candidates and their sponsoring political parties), as GovernanceNow reported in the last issue; and “state funding of elections” is a solution that no one seems to want except the candidates and their sponsoring political parties! The urge for state funding seems to be so strong that no less than the law minister wrote an article in one of the leading English dailies a couple of months ago making a case for it.
As is usual in such attempts, the justification for state funding of elections began with references to the Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) and the Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998), with both reported to have recommended providing state funding to candidates of recognised political parties. A paragraph of the Indrajit Gupta Committee report that politicians love to quote says, “The committee see full justification constitutional, legal as well as on ground of public interest, for grant of state subvention to political parties, so as to establish such conditions where even the parties with modest financial resources may be able to compete with those who have superior financial resources.” This rightly gives the impression of the well-endowed political parties being in sympathy with their less endowed brethren.
What our friends seem to overlook with unfailing regularity is the opening paragraph of the “conclusion” of the same report that says, “Before concluding, the committee cannot help expressing its considered view that its recommendations being limited in nature and confined to only one of the aspects of the electoral reforms may bring about only some cosmetic changes in the electoral sphere. What is needed, however, is an immediate overhauling of the electoral process whereby elections are freed from evil influence of all vitiating factors, particularly, criminalisation of politics. It goes without saying that money power and muscle power go together to vitiate the electoral process and it is their combined effect which is sullying the purity of electoral contests and effecting free and fair elections. Meaningful electoral reforms in other spheres of electoral activity are also urgently needed” (emphasis added).
A more succinct description of what needs to be done is difficult to find which should not be surprising since in addition to being chaired by the redoubtable Indrajit Gupta, the committee had members such as Somnath Chatterjee and Manmohan Singh.
But the report has not found favour with the larger political establishment except for being quoted selectively.
Around the same time that the Indrajit Gupta Committee was deliberating, the Law Commission of India had suo motu undertaken a thorough review of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The stated “underlying objective was to make the electoral process more fair, transparent and equitable. The effort was also to reduce the several distortions and evils that had crept into the Indian electoral system, to identify the areas where the legal provisions required strengthening and improvement and to suggest the requisite measures in that behalf”. The result of this review was the 170th report of the Law Commission of India titled “Reform of the Electoral Laws” which is the most comprehensive document on the subject in the country. It was submitted to the then law minister in June 1999.
One full part (Part IV) of the 208-page people politics policy performance report is devoted to “Control of Election Expenses” which contains an 11-page chapter on “State Funding”. The entire chapter should be read to get a proper understanding of the complexity of state funding. The concluding paragraph (4.3.4) is reproduced below.
“Conclusions – After considering views expressed by the participants in the seminars and by various persons and organisations in their responses and after perusing relevant literature on the subject, the Law Commission is of the opinion that in the present circumstances only partial state funding could be contemplated more as a first step towards total state funding but it is absolutely essential that before the idea of state funding (whether partial or total) is resorted to, the provisions suggested in this report relating to political parties (including the provisions ensuring internal democracy, internal structures) and maintenance of accounts, their auditing and submission to Election Commission are implemented. In other words, the implementation of the provisions recommended in Chapter one Part three should be pre-condition to the implementation of the provisions relating to partial state funding set out in the working paper in the Law Commission (partial funding, as already stated, has also been recommended by the Indrajit Gupta Committee). If without such pre-conditions, state funding, even if partial is resorted to, it would not serve the purpose underlying the idea of state funding. The idea of state funding is to eliminate the influence of money power and also to eliminate corporate funding, black money support and raising of funds in the name of elections by the parties and their leaders. The state funding, without the aforesaid pre-conditions, would merely become another source of funds for the political parties and candidates at the cost of public exchequer. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the proposals relating to state funding contained in the Indrajit Gupta Committee Report should be implemented only after or simultaneously with the implementation of the provisions contained in this Report relating to political parties, viz., deletion of Explanation 1 to section 77, maintenance of accounts and their submission etc. and the provisions governing the functioning of political parties contained in chapters I and II of Part IV and Chapter I of Part III. The state funding, even if partial, should never be resorted to unless the other provisions mentioned aforesaid are implemented lest the very idea may prove counter-productive and may defeat the every object underlying the idea of state funding of elections.” (emphasis added).
Sadly, these recommendations of the Law Commission have not been heeded and demand for state funding continues to be raised from time to time with absolutely no mention of or regard to the “pre-conditions” specified as necessary.
The Law Commission is not the only one to lay down “pre-conditions”. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, 2001, said effectively the same thing albeit using different terminology. It said, “Any system of state funding of elections bears a close nexus to the regulation of working of political parties by law and to the creation of a foolproof mechanism under law with a view to implementing the financial limits strictly. Therefore, proposal for state funding should be deferred till these regulator mechanisms are firmly in position” (emphasis added) (Para 4.14.5).
It is sometimes claimed that the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) has recommended state funding. The “recommendation” of the ARC, in para 2.1.3.1.6 of its fourth report, “Ethics in Governance” (2007), says, “a system for partial state funding should be introduced to reduce the scope of illegitimate and unnecessary funding of expenditure for elections.” Once again, this paragraph is quoted in isolation. Reading the preceding paragraph (2.1.3.1.5) is instructive. It says, “In order to eradicate the major source of political corruption, there is a compelling case for state funding of elections. As recommended by the Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Elections, the funding should be partial state funding mainly in kind for certain essential items.” It is clear that the “recommendation” of the ARC is within the ambit of the Indrajit Gupta committee report, and has to be read in the context of the opening paragraph of the “conclusion” of the Indrajit Gupta Committee report mentioned above.
The view of the Election Commission of India is clear from the interview of the chief election commissioner in the last issue of GovernanceNow.
Despite all that is mentioned above that includes views and recommendations of government and political committees, it is nothing short of amazing that the demand for state funding of elections keeps coming up with startling regularity. That state funding is no solution to any problem has been clear for a long time, and as the chief election commissioner has said in the last issue, it “will not stop illegal expenses. In fact, more money will be available to the candidates” and is, therefore, “dangerous”.
Let us, therefore, hope that we will not rush into the biggest scam by throwing thousands of crores of good public money after bad money under the garb of state funding.
Chhokar, a former dean of IIM, Ahmedabad, is a founder of Association for Democratic Reforms and National Election Watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment