Jan Lokpal-Changing the power structure

The Tribune, May 28, 2011

OP-ED GOVERNANCE

Jan Lokpal: Changing the power structure

The Lokpal Bill is a small step in the shift of a bit of power from the political class, supported by bureaucracy and business, in favour of the people. Such shifts are necessary from time to time in a dynamic society to correct imbalances that creep in over time

Jagdeep S. Chhokar

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110528/edit.htm#6

THE last time a corruption tsunami hit the country, it ended up with two significant changes. The time was the late 1980s, the trigger was Bofors. The changes were a move towards a federal polity from the unitary one prevalent since Independence, and the start of a change in the overall power structure in society, with the subaltern classes realising the strength of their numbers.

While the current “Bofors” are the Commonwealth Games, 2-G, mining, and the like, what changes will this current tsunami bring forth is not clear. Not being blessed with clairvoyance, one can only look at the game as it is being played and try to look for straws in the wind.

While the real changes will take time manifesting themselves, the current visible face of the saagar-manthan appears to be the Lokpal Bill. It is of course not clear whether, finally, the jinx of 42 years will be broken and there will be a Lokpal, and in what form, but the societal dynamics of power are fascinating.

Continuing the practice started with the fourth Lok Sabha in 1969 and another six attempts, the government innocently prepared yet another draft of the Lokpal Bill in October 2010. This is what seems to have now acquired a life of its own, inviting sobriquets such as “monster”, “Leviathan”, “beacon of hope”. Why is it causing such extreme reactions?

Assume that a potentially effective Lokpal Bill gets passed and is also implemented in the right spirit, who will get affected, and how? Those who benefit from corruption are likely to face a cut to their monetary inflows, and those who have to pay to get their legitimate dues are likely to gain. Admittedly, this is a simplistic formulation but will do, given the space constraints.

Again, who benefits from corruption the most? The proverbial common citizens who pay bribes benefit by getting their job done, but the one who gets the bribe to do the job benefits more. Who are these beneficiaries?

The nexus of the political class, bureaucracy and business is too well known to need explanation. Liberalisation has not broken this nexus but has only changed some of the dramatis personae. The avalanche of opposition to the Jan Lokpal Bill leaves no room for doubt that the opposition is intense and organised. All forms of the traditional saam, daam, dand, bhed are being used to discredit the whole attempt and the very idea that any one other than these three sectors of society can even think of having a say in the law-making process.

The politicians, being the kingpin of this nexus, possibly have the most to lose. Actually all the Jan Lokpal movement has done so far is to create a mere whiff in the minds of politicians that it just might be possible for someone to challenge their completely unfettered hegemony over matters of the state for the period between two elections. This mere whiff seems to have unsettled the political class so much that all manner of stratagems are being used to nip this audacity of common folk in the bud.

And what of these common folk? Their tragedy is that they need someone to “represent” them, as 1.2 billion people seemingly cannot express themselves except through their representatives. The actual representativeness of the elected representative is in some doubt despite the euphoria at the outcome of the recent state assembly elections. The other claimant to representing the common folk is what used to be called the “civil society”, which now, in some people’s lexicon, has become a bad word.

Who, or what, is this “civil society”? Without going into an academic discourse, these are supposed to be people who do things for general, public good without the expectation of a tangible payoff, in contrast to those who get some return from doing public good, such as salary for bureaucrats, exercise of state power for politicians. It is a large, diverse, and complex mass of people, usually self-proclaimed do-gooders.

While doing selfless service, they are not free from usual human weaknesses, and therefore amenable to manipulation by those who have high stakes. How, and by what means is manipulation done depends on who is to be manipulated. In true Chanakyasque style, our politicians have mastered this art. Two well known techniques being “divide and rule”, and a law often attributed to Parkinson, “Delay is the deadliest form of denial.”

The political class seems to have succeeded in convincing some significant parts of civil society that the Lokpal Bill being an extremely important piece of legislation, needs to be discussed in every district, taluka, block headquarters before it can be considered seriously, the real agenda of course being to delay the process so that the commitments made to get the Jantar Mantar fast broken can be progressively diluted ad infinitum.

What needs to be remembered is that this bill is a small step in the shift of a bit of power from the political class supported by the bureaucracy and the business, in favour of the people. Such shifts are necessary from time to time in a dynamic society to correct imbalances that creep in over time. The side that stands to lose even a bit of its power is bound to resist. It is for the countervailing forces to keep themselves together if any shift, however small, is to take place.

The game is on, let’s keep watching.

The writer is a former professor, Dean, and Director In-charge of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.

Vote for positive change

Vote for positive change

Jagdeep S Chhokar

GovernanceNow, May 16-31, 2011, p.31

The interim success of the movement for Jan Lokpal Bill, led by Anna Hazare, and the almost raging debate on corruption, have once again brought focus on the issue of wide-ranging reforms. Before going on to discuss some of what has been called a slew or a basket of reforms, it is important to underline that the current events seem to have brought the Indian society and

polity at a critical juncture where far-reaching changes in the way we govern ourselves seem to be a possibility within reach. It is possibly the first time in independent India that the political establishment seems to feel a threat to its hegemony.

While the necessity, criticality and contribution of the political establishment in a representative democracy is a given and must be recognized and respected, its blatant functioning for its own benefit, seemingly at the cost of the nation and its people, is not healthy and points to the need for course correction. The Jan Lokpal Bill is one such correction whose time seems to have come after a 42-year wait and this opportunity of moving the balance of power in favour of the so-called non-ruling class must not be lost.

Among the other reforms that have been mentioned, not only by the media in general but also by some of those intimately involved with the Jan Lokpal Bill, are electoral reforms. It has been

said that while the Lokpal Bill is an attempt to catch and punish those who engage in corruption, electoral reforms may be able to prevent those susceptible or prone to corruption from getting into positions where they can indulge in it. But what do electoral reforms entail? Is it only getting a button on the EVM that says “None of the above”, and/or getting the “Right to recall”?

Elections are usually thought of as a periodic affairs, originally on a five-year cycle, when “We, the people” choose who will govern us for the next five years. As a TV spot featuring Aamir Khan says, we often spend more time choosing which vegetables to buy than in deciding whom to vote for. Whether that is realistic or not, it seems to be true that most of us don’t spend much time thinking about what goes on behind our casting of our vote. While the election commission of

India is the best source of this information, here is what possibly is an incomplete listing of what the electoral process includes.

It starts with the basic issue of “Who can vote?” While the parliament decides what the voting age should be, the responsibility of registering voters rests with the Election Commission (EC). The next basic issue is: “Who can contest?” Once again, the law is made by the parliament

but its implementation rests with the EC whose officials (whether permanent or on deputation) accept or reject nomination papers. In between these two, there is a plethora of actions that have to be taken. How will the winner be decided? We follow the “first-past-the-post” system that we

borrowed from the British, who themselves recently held a referendum about its continuation. Is the current system appropriate for us or should we change? If we do want to change, which of the 272 systems that the Law Commission of India tells us exist in the world, should we choose?

Which political parties are to be recognised and are eligible to put up candidates on their behalf? How much money can a candidate spend on the election campaign? How can, and should, the expenditure be monitored? How many polling booths should there be and where should they be located? How many and who should be the polling agents, and election observers?

While the constitution lays down the life of the legislatures, it also provides for a window of time during which the elections must be held. Decisions about exactly when to hold elections also have

to be made. Of course, Article 324 (1) of the constitution vests “the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to parliament and to the legislature of every state and of elections to the offices of president and vice-president held under this constitution” with the election commission.

While this is what is called “plenary” power, which the dictionary describes, as “full; complete; entire; absolute; unqualified”, it still has to be exercised within the limits laid down in the constitution and as interpreted by the supreme court.

It is in this background that we are embarking on a series on electoral reforms. Each of the next few issues will carry a fairly in-depth piece on an important aspect of electoral reforms. This week, we look at the rising expenditure on holding elections and the ways to curb this escalating

cost.

Chhokar, a former dean of IIM, Ahmedabad, is a founder of Association for Democratic

Reforms and National Election Watch.

For the best possible democracy: Electoral reform consultations

For the best possible democracy

Jagdeep S Chhokar

GovernanceNow | March 1-15, 2011, pp. 32-33

The law minister and the chief election commissioner announced a major initiative on electoral reforms on December 9. They announced that seven regional and one national consultation would be held over the next couple of months with political parties, NGOs and other stakeholders for a comprehensive overhaul of the electoral laws. It was indicated that the proposals would be ready for initiating action within six months of the national consultation

in New Delhi on April 2-3, 2011.

Our electoral laws were made almost 60 years ago, during idealistic times in the afterglow of independence. While there has been no shortage of ideas and recommendations (see list below for the list of reports) and there have been piecemeal amendments from time to time, the laws, as a body, are almost completely out of tune with current ground realities. The initiative to collect views from across the country in order to make comprehensive reforms is thus very

welcome.

Elec toral reforms: the

reports so far

----------------------------------------------------

1. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008)

2. Election Commission of India – Proposed Electoral Reforms (2004)

3. National Commission to review the Working of the Constitution (2001)

4. Law Commission Report on Reform of the Electoral Laws (1999)

5. Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Election (1998)

6. Vohra Committee Report (1993)

7. Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms (1990)

-----------------------------------------------------

The whole effort can be looked at from two perspectives: content and process. One way of getting at the content is obviously to study all the existing recommendations and the amendments and their rationale, see how they match up with existing realities and how things are likely to evolve in the years to come, and then develop the proposals for change. This can be improved by consultations with a wide cross-section of people. This is precisely what the law ministry and the election commission set out to do with the seven regional and one national consultation, and that is what raised high hopes.

There have been five consultations so far, at Bhopal, Kolkata, Mumbai, Lucknow, and Chandigarh, but the process followed during the consultations, sadly, does not inspire much confidence. The first consultation in Bhopal seemed limited to politicians and bureaucrats making

speeches. Based on feedback given after Bhopal, the format at Kolkata was revised to include parallel panel discussions. The same format has been followed at Mumbai, Lucknow, and Chandigarh.

The Chandigarh consultation

The consultation at Chandigarh was scheduled for February 5, at the Judicial Academy, consisting of three sessions: inaugural session (10 am to 12 noon), three parallel panel sessions (12 noon to 1.30 pm), and the valedictory session (1.35 pm to 2.15 pm). What actually happened is revealing. The inaugural session started with a ‘welcome address’ by the registrar of the

National Law University, Patiala, followed by an ‘introduction on (sic) electoral reforms’ by Vivek Tankha, additional solicitor general of India, and the chairman of the core committee on electoral reforms constituted by the law ministry. ‘Thoughts on electoral reforms’ by Bhupinder

Singh Hooda, chief minister of Haryana, followed. Next was a talk on ‘the need for electoral reforms in India’ by S Y Quraishi, chief election commissioner. Then there were ‘thoughts on electoral reforms’ by Manish Tewari, Salman Khurshid and Pawan Bansal, followed by ‘agenda for electoral reforms’ by M Veerappa Moily, law minister. Following this, the governor of Punjab, Shivraj Patil, delivered the ‘inaugural address’, followed by the ‘vote of thanks’ by Mohan Jain, additional solicitor general.

What is important to note is that the session started at 10 am and lasted till 1.30 pm. The parallel ‘panel sessions’ were officially and technically reduced from 90 minutes (12 noon to 1.30 pm) to one hour (1.30-2.30) but actually lasted only 45 minutes (starting at 1.45 pm and finishing at 2.30 pm). Two panel sessions had six listed panelists each, and the third had seven. In the panel session that I attended, the panelists spoke for barely five minutes each, that too with the chairperson almost constantly exhorting them to be brief, and two other participants

got to speak for about a couple of minutes each.

The panel sessions were to be followed by the valedictory session, which was supposed to comprise of six items, each of five minutes. These, as listed, were (i) opening remarks, (ii) I panel chairperson’s presentation, (iii) II panel chairperson’s presentation, (iv) III panel chairperson’s

presentation (v) address by chief election commissioner, and (vi) reflections by M Veerappa Moily, union minister for law and justice. This was to be followed by a 10-minute “prize distribution for the best research papers,” ending the programme at 2.15 pm.

When the panel session participants reached the venue of the valedictory session, around 2.30 pm, Pawan Bansal was giving prizes to the students and there was hardly anyone else around. Most people had moved on to lunch. The first three rows in the Judicial Academy auditorium were reserved for ‘VVIPs’, next two for ‘advocates’, the next two for ‘judicial officers’, and one after that for ‘press’. The remaining seemed occupied by a lot of young people in formal

attire who seemed to be students. Of the 19 panelists listed for the three panel sessions, there were five politicians, five academics (three of whom were professors of law), four from the media, three advocates, and two bureaucrats (one retired IPS officer and one serving IAS officer). The three professors of law and three advocates, taken together, make six legal

professionals out of the total 19 panelists.

Reflections

The process followed for the five consultations conducted so far certainly seems to have involved local political figures, including chief ministers. For example, in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan’s remarks that the Rajya Sabha should be closed down, as its

memberships were being freely bought and sold at the time of elections, were a major news story. Similarly, at Lucknow, the media reported that it was the first non-BSP event attended by Mayawati after becoming chief minister. However, the event at Chandigarh seemed to be

meant almost exclusively for the Congress. In addition to the speakers mentioned above, Rajinder Kaur Bhattal and Vidya Stokes were also on the main dais though they did not speak. There were some representatives of the BJP, INLD, and NCP among the panelists but the Akalis

were conspicuous by their absence.

All the five consultations held so far seem to have been dominated by the legal fraternity. This is also indicated by the composition of nine-member ‘core committee’ constituted by the law ministry “to work as a nodal committee for electoral reforms”. The committee consisted of three additional solicitor generals, one legal scholar, one advocate, one additional secretary to the government of India (law ministry), one joint secretary and legislative council, one person from a civil society organisation, and four research fellows. As a natural corollary to this composition, the consultation in Mumbai was held in and organised by the law department of Bombay University, and the one in Chandigarh was held at the Judicial Academy.

It is of course true that any significant change in the electoral process would necessarily require fresh legislation but the assumption that only politician, legal experts and bureaucrats will be able to put together the most appropriate legislation is not correct. There are a lot of other people in the population, and not limited to organised civil society groups, who have experience and knowledge of the electoral process and may be able to contribute meaningfully to the ongoing exercise. A couple of examples of potentially significant contributors come to mind. One

is the former supreme court judge and the former chairman of the law commission of India, Justice B P Jeevan Reddy, under whose stewardship the 170th report of the law commission of India on electoral reforms was prepared. Though it was written in 1999 and therefore may

require some updating in view of the changes in the situation on the ground, it remains, by far, the most comprehensive document on the subject in the country. The others are the former chief election commissioners, J M Lyngdoh and N Gopalaswami.

The other concern is the lack of general awareness about this exercise. At Lucknow, two days before the proposed consultation, a large section of the media did not seem aware of what was planned. The situation in Chandigarh was different, as the media seemed fully aware. It is difficult to say if that was the result of the high “power” speakers or otherwise. Following

the media reports, one is struck about the lack of “buzz” about this extremely significant

exercise in the country.

Reforming the electoral process in the country is actually the most important activity in the governance of the nation since the making of the constitution, as the chief election commissioner, S Y Quraishi has often said. This indeed is true and the electoral process is the backbone of the

functioning of our democracy. For democracy to bear its just fruits, it is necessary for the electoral process to be effective and efficient, and to cover the entire political spectrum, including the functioning of political parties. It is hoped the process will be recalibrated to ensure that the

outcome is the best possible for the future of democracy in the country.

Chhokar is a former professor, dean and director-in-charge of Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, and a founding member of Association for Democratic Reforms (www.adrindia.org) and National Election Watch.

How to keep our votes safe: State funding of elections

The Hindustan Times

March 28, 2011

How to keep our votes safe

Jagdeep S Chhokar

http://www.hindustantimes.com/How-to-keep-our-votes-safe/H1-Article1-678289.aspx

The editorial, Not a wealth of information (Our Take, March 19), was a correct description of what WikiLeaks has revealed about how India's foreign affairs and political establishments work.

However, one sentence needs to be commented on, and that is its recommendation for setting up "a commission to look into the idea of public funding of political campaigns". This reveals how short our public memory is.

Three learned groups have laboured over this issue.

In 1998, "all parties, without exception, felt seriously concerned [about] the mounting role of money power, particularly black money, in the electoral field."

The outcome was the Committee of State Funding of Elections (the Indrajit Gupta Committee), 1998. Soon after, in 1999, the Law Commission of India submitted its report on electoral reforms that had a separate section on 'Control of election expenses' including a chapter on 'State funding'.

Subsequently, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) set up in 2000, also, in its report in 2002, made significant observations on State funding. With the wealth of knowledge, analysis and recommendations available in these reports, it is now time for action and not for setting up yet another commission.

What do these reports recommend?

The Indrajit Gupta committee report is often quoted in support of State funding. What is overlooked is the opening paragraph of the 'Conclusion' 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… 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."

The Law Commission specifies what these reforms are, particularly in the context of State funding: "… 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 very object underlying the idea of State funding of elections."

Among "the other provisions" are those "ensuring internal democracy, internal structures, and maintenance of accounts, their auditing and submission to Election Commission."

The NCRWC reiterates the above: "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."

It is, therefore, clear that while State funding may be helpful in improving our democracy, resorting to it before ensuring deeper electoral and political reforms such as internal democracy and financial transparency in political parties, will be counterproductive.

The recent joint initiative of the law ministry and the Election Commission is a historic opportunity for 'overhauling of the electoral process' and for putting democracy on a sound path.

Jagdeep S Chhokar is former director in-charge, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. The views expressed by the author are personal.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/678289.aspx

© Copyright 2010 Hindustan Times

Campaign for finances: State funding of elections

Campaign for finances

Why we should not rush into state funding of elections?

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/campaign-for-finances/763467/

Jagdeep S. Chhokar

Indian Express, Thursday, March 17 2011

In this season of scams, there is one more in the making. There has been a lot of talk about the increasing cost of elections, and state funding is again in the news as a panacea (‘Elections awash in cash’ by M. Veerappa Moily, IE, March 7).

The starting point of all discussions on state funding is the 1998 Indrajit Gupta Committee report. While touting its recommendations, the first paragraph of the “Conclusion” is never mentioned. It says: “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.” Coincidentally, the Law Commission of India had undertaken an exercise for “overhauling” the electoral process and submitted its report in May 1999. On state funding, it said: “It is absolutely essential before the idea of state funding (whether partial or total) is resorted to, that 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.... 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.”

Then came the report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) in 2002. Its observation on state funding is: “Any system of state funding of elections bears a close nexus to the regulation of working of political parties by law.... Therefore, proposal for state funding should be deferred till these regulator mechanisms are firmly in position.”

A “comprehensive paper on the campaign finance in foreign countries” published in 1999 by the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), and quoted by the Union law minister in his article, also points out that even when public funds are provided to political parties, they continue to use other funds.

Recall the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, when 6,719 of 6,753 candidates declared that they had spent only 45-55 per cent of the Rs 25 lakh limit. This, alongside the clamour that the limit was too low, shows that state funding is not going to solve any of our electoral problems, a fact also noted by the Indrajit Gupta Committee.

The IFES brought out another paper on campaign finance in 2009 in which it said that “disclosure is meaningless unless regulators make information publicly available. (It was) stressed... that civil society must have ready access to usable reports.” In this context, it is worth pointing out that disclosure of assets and liabilities of candidates was bitterly opposed by all parties in the Supreme Court from 2001 to 2003, and the government of the day even issued an ordinance to try to prevent it. Then, in 2007-08, 15 parties fought tooth and nail, in hearings in the Central Information Commission, to prevent disclosure of their income-tax returns.

The IFES paper concludes that at the end of the day, laws must be enforced. What it overlooks is that for laws to be enforced, a precondition is the existence of laws. That is what possibly prompted the Law Commission to point out: “It is necessary to provide by law for the formation, functioning, income and expenditure and the internal working of the recognised political parties.” Further: “It is therefore necessary to introduce internal democracy, financial transparency and accountability in the working of political parties.” The NCRWC too echoed the views of the Law Commission.

The ministry of law put out a background paper on electoral reforms. It mentions seven issues: criminalisation of politics, financing of elections, conduct and better management of election, regulation of political parties, auditing of finances of parties, adjudication of election disputes and review of the anti-defection law. Going by the general sense of the reports of the Law Commission, the NCRWC and the Indrajit Gupta Committee, regulation of political parties seems to be the most pressing issue. It is perplexing that the background paper confines its section “Regulating Political Parties” to select observations of the NCRWC, and even in those the para quoted above is overlooked. The Law Commission’s report is conspicuously missing from that section.

It is hoped 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, and the historic initiative for electoral reforms started by the law ministry and the Election Commission will not lose sight of critical issues such as internal democracy and financial transparency of political parties.

The writer is a former professor, dean and director in-charge of IIM, Ahmedabad express@expressindia.com

"Satyam saga" and politics

Mint, January 14, 2009, p.4

Are Satyam’s shareholders paying the price of land?

It is interesting to note the almost deafening silence of the political establishment on this issue

Corporate Governance Jagdeep S.Chhokar
http://www.livemint.com/articles/2009/01/13220926/Are-Satyam8217s-shareholder.html

The Satyam Computer Services Ltd saga has attracted comment that has chiefly focused on three angles: the ethical conduct of founder B. Ramalinga Raju; the negligence of the auditors, Price Waterhouse; and the role of independent directors. The whole discourse seems to be missing a critical link in the chain—politics.

It is interesting to note the almost deafening silence of the political establishment on this issue. Though the controversy began with Satyam’s 16 December announcement that it would buy two companies owned by Raju’s sons—a decision it killed in 12 hours—and snowballed into a scandal on 7 January, when Raju’s letter to the board of directors became public, the first reported statement by a politician came only on 10 January. PTI reported Bharatiya Janata Party leader L.K. Advani as saying in Ahmedabad that “the government needs to be alert on such frauds and should act fast to punish the guilty”.

The next statement came on 11 January, when CNN-IBN television channel reported that the Telugu Desam Party had demanded a white paper on the infrastructure projects the Andhra Pradesh state government awarded to Maytas Infra Ltd, one of the two companies Satyam had sought to buy.

Given the alacrity with which our political establishment raises a ruckus on every issue, it is surprising that there seemed to be no reaction from any political grouping for so long. One reason suggested is that all Andhra Pradesh political parties remained quiet to protect “Andhra pride”. This appeared to have some validity, given Raju’s strong Andhra cultural preferences. One former employee of an ex-Satyam group firm was quoted in this newspaper on 8 January as saying, “For Raju, family, caste and those who could speak Telugu came first. I am not saying he was not a professional, but other things being equal, he would look at things in that order.”

Land plays a key role in the Satyam saga. Both Maytas Infra and Maytas Properties Ltd dealt with land, one way or another. It has also been reported that the promoters of Satyam and of the Maytas firms had built up a massive land bank in and around Hyderabad. It has also been hinted that because Raju belonged to a farming family, he could never get over his fascination with land.

It defies imagination how one could acquire so much of such prime land without the involvement, or at least acquiescence, of political elements, given that land is a prime asset—politicians all over the world know this, and our politicians are certainly not an exception.

Maytas Infra won projects worth Rs14,000 crore in the last two years or so, including the Rs12,220 crore elevated metro rail project in Hyderabad and the Rs1,590 crore deep water port at Machilipatnam, as well as several irrigation, water supply and electrification projects. Consider the opinion of an established and recognized professional on the Hyderabad Metro Rail project—none other than E. Sreedharan, head of the Delhi Metro Rail Corp. Ltd (DMRC), which served as a project consultant to the Hyderabad Metro project. In September, Sreedharan wrote a letter to the Planning Commission expressing apprehensions about the project. He is reported to have written: “It is apparent that the build-operate-transfer operator has a hidden agenda, which appears to be to extend the metro network to large tracts of his private land holdings, so as to reap a windfall profit four-five times the land price.” Sreedharan further noted that the alignment of the metro lines was changed to ensure more profit to the bidders and that the contract “smelled like a political scam”. The only measures taken by the state government in response were to demand an unconditional apology from Sreedharan and remove DMRC as a project consultant. The Planning Commission said that Sreedharan’s concerns were misconceived.

Former chief minister N. Chandrababu Naidu presented Raju to the likes of former US president Bill Clinton as Andhra Pradesh’s “poster boy”. Current chief minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy is no different. Political groupings of all shades have been beneficiaries of such frauds; without their support, frauds of this magnitude are impossible. Since these connections haven’t come to light as yet, politicians are playing it cool, making vague statements about government vigilance and prosecution.

The nexus between politics and business is vicious. Disciplining auditors and independent directors, important as they may be, is only scratching the surface. The real corrective measures lie elsewhere.

Jagdeep S. Chhokar is a former professor of organizational behaviour at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, and one of the founding members of Association for Democratic Reforms (www.adrindia.org).

India 2009: Time for citizens to get involved in politics

Jagdeep S. Chhokar

Published in Freedom First, January 2009, No. 499, pp.5-7, 39.

India and its democracy are at a critical juncture, particularly as the very “Idea of India” has been under severe challenge, only one of the manifestations of which were the events of November 26-28, 2008, in Mumbai. The forthcoming Lok Sabha elections in the early part of 2009 are likely to be one of the sterner tests faced by the sixty-year-old republic. The clamour against politicians, graphically captured by an SMS saying “Terrorists are not the ones who come by boat, but those that come by vote” is one of the most important outcomes of what has come to be called 26/11. Where are India and Indian Democracy at the beginning of 2009, where to and in what direction are they likely to go, and what can we, the citizens, do to take them in the correct, desired directions are the three broad issues that concern us here.

Indian democracy had a very auspicious and positive beginning, and flourished under the watchful eye and the nurturing hand of the Fabian socialist and idealistic democrat Jawaharlal Nehru. His respect for Parliament, nurturing of the fledgling opposition, concern for the minorities, and global vision contributed in a very significant way to laying a strong foundation for our democratic institutions, from Independence to the mid-1960s. Ironically, it was during the tenure of Nehru's own daughter, Indira Gandhi, as Prime Minister that the dilution, debasement, and even destruction of the same institutions that Nehru had tried to build, started. And one of the institutions was what may be called morality in politics, a shining example of which was the H.G.Mudgal case.

Mudgal was a Member of Parliament from the Congress party. He was reported to have had some dealings with the Bombay Bullion Association, and was alleged to have been canvassing support for it in Parliament, in return for some alleged financial and other business advantages. When the matter came to light, it was referred to an ad hoc parliamentary committee for enquiry on June 06, 1951. The committee found Mudgal to have indulged in “conduct unbecoming of a Member of Parliament” and recommended that he be expelled from the House. Mudgal reportedly attempted to resign from the Parliament but was not allowed to do so. On September 24, 1951, Nehru, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Congress Party, moved the following resolution:

“That this House accepts the finding of the committee that the conduct of Shri Mudgal is derogatory to the dignity of the House and inconsistent with the standards which Parliament is entitled to expect from its members, and resolves that Shri Mudgal be expelled from the House.”

Given the overwhelming majority of the Congress, the resolution was carried and Mudgal was expelled from the Parliament.

During the 57 years that intervened between 1951 and 2008, political morality has come (actually gone down) a long, long way. A surrogate of the distance traveled may be the fact that 18.18 per cent of the Members in the 14th Lok Sabha (2004-08) had criminal cases pending against them at the time of elections in 2004.This was stated by none other than the Chief Election Commissioner of India N. Gopalaswami while delivering the 23rd Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel memorial lecture on the theme, “Election Management: New Paradigm” at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy in Hyderabad on October 20, 2008. In terms of actual numbers, 18.18 per cent works out to about 100. Other estimates put the figure at somewhere around 120 which works out to about 22 per cent. Taking the middle figure, if about 110 MPs have criminal cases pending against them, including those for murder, rape, dacoity, there can be hardly any doubt about the state of political morality in the country.

The rot of the institutions that started during Indira Gandhi's first tenure as Prime Minister (1966-77) has continued with the coming of age of a large number of regional, and caste-driven political parties and the emergence and cultivation of “vote banks” by these smaller, regional parties. With the intensification of competition in the political arena, concepts such as ideology and morality took a back seat and “winnability” became the only and overriding criterion at election time. The nadir of political morality perhaps was when four or five members of Lok Sabha were brought from jails where they were serving sentences for heinous crimes, to the House to vote on a motion of confidence in the government.

In a representative democracy such as ours, the Parliament and governance are outcomes of a larger political process, of which elections are just a very visible event in which citizens/voters have a central role. Some of the important issues in the political system are: who can or should be allowed to vote, when should electoral rolls be prepared, revised, and how? The formation, functioning including funding, etc. of political parties are perhaps the very essence of the political system. The reason the functioning of political parties is critical to the political process is very simple and straightforward--political parties are the key and the major actors in the political arena. It is the political parties who decide whom can the voters vote for. They do this when they choose which aspirant will get the nomination of a particular party. Even after a candidate gets elected, s/he is not free to vote in the legislature according to her/his wishes because it is the party which decides, actually controls the voting behaviour of their elected representatives, if necessary by way of the issue of the whip, and the operation of the anti-defection law. The irony of the situation in India is that while all political parties loudly claim that they are the defenders of democracy in the country, actually none of the political parties in the country is democratic in its internal functioning. This situation has not gone unnoticed. The 170th report of the Law Commission of India focused exclusively on Electoral Reforms, and devoted one full chapter of the report to the “Necessity for providing law relating to internal democracy within political parties.” After reviewing views of all concerned stakeholders and current legal provisions in India and several other mature democracies, the Law Commission came to the conclusion that “...it is necessary to regulate by law their (political parties') formation and functioning.” Summarising the rationale for this recommendation, it said “A political party which does not respect democratic principles in its internal working cannot be expected to respect those principles in the governance of the country. It cannot be dictatorship internally and democratic in its functioning outside” It then went on to reiterate that “It is therefore, necessary to introduce internal democracy, financial transparency and accountability in the working of the political parties” (italics added).

The crux of the matter is that all such recommendations of making new laws and also implementing them, can only be done by the political establishment, and the politicians being familiar and also possibly comfortable with the existing system, do not want to change anything, or at least the political establishment has shown absolutely no signs of wanting to do this. A simple and current example of this is that although the major political parties made categorical statements before the five state assembly elections in November-December 2008, that no tickets will be given to candidates who have criminal cases pending against them but every party did precisely that, as shown in the table below.

State
Total number of candidates with pending criminal cases
Elected MLAs with pending criminal cases
TOTAL MLAs with pending criminal cases


BJP
Congress
Others


Number
%
Number
Number
Number
Number
%
Chhatisgarh
76
8.00%
6
5
0
11
12.00%
Delhi
91
14.00%
9
16
2
27
39.00%
Madhya Pradesh
190
18.00%
27
23
4
54
23.00%
Rajasthan
189
11.00%
7
13
10
30
15.00%

This brings us to the third issue, what can citizens do.

It is the elected representatives who are authorised to do the above mentioned changes under the existing scheme of things, and since they are politicians above anything else, it is not realistic to expect them to make any of the above changes on their own. That is where the role of the citizens becomes absolutely critical and completely unavoidable. It is now being said more and more frequently that 'politics is too serious a business to be left only to politicians'. Citizens have no choice whatsoever but to get actively involved in politics if they want the governance of the country to improve. Felix Frankfurter, a former Professor of Law and later appointed as a judge of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, expressed this very eloquently in the following words:

“Democracy involves hardship – the hardship of the unceasing responsibility of every citizen. Where the entire people do not take a continuous and considered part in public life, there can be no democracy in any meaningful sense of the term. Democracy is always a beckoning goal, not a safe harbor. For freedom is an unremitting endeavor, never a final achievement. That is why no office in the land is more important than that of being a citizen” (Italic added).

What can and should the citizens do? The clamour against politicians after the Mumbai episode in November last year, is partly misplaced. It should not have been against politics and politicians in general, but against the present lot of politicians. Politics and politicians are essential in a representative democracy such as ours. They perform the essential task of mobilising and consolidating public opinion. However, over the years, our politicians seem to have decided that they have the exclusive right to decide what is good for the country and for its people, and under the garb of this, they have been doing what is good for them, their families and friends, their communities, and their parties, completely forgetting about the nation and its people. And that is the change we need: for politicians to think about the country and its people also, in addition to themselves, their families and friends, and their parties. And then, there is the million dollar question: How can, and do, we, the citizens, go about doing this.

The first thing we can do is to start taking responsibility for the situation in which we and the country currently are. And if we do not like that situation, feel responsible for doing something concrete to change it rather than merely blaming everyone and everything, including 'the system'. One of the simplest things we can do is to go out and vote. If our names are not on the electoral rolls (voters' list) then we should make it our business to find out the procedure for correcting that and actually do it. There might be some obstacles and pin-pricks in that but we owe it to ourselves and the country, to get ourselves registered as voters, getting over all hurdles, so that we can exercise the most sacred of our rights as citizens—the right to vote. We should obviously vote with care, making an informed choice while choosing whom to vote for. Each citizen has the right, and should exercise it, to vote for a candidate of her/his choice. It is actually immaterial whether a person makes the choice on the basis of the candidate or the party, so long as it is an informed choice.

However, what does one do if one does not like any of the candidates and any of the political parties? There is the provision of Section 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, (and NOT of the Representation of People Act) which reads as follows:

“49-O. Elector deciding not to vote.-If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form-17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.”
What the rule means is that a voter can ensure that her/his vote is not misused such as being cast fraudulently in favour of any candidate, and in that process the voter loses the secrecy of her/his vote. Rule 49-O does not mean that if a large number of voters use it, none of the candidates will be elected and there will be re-election, as has been mistakenly mentioned in several attempts to popularise this provision. This obviously is not the ideal solution but is the only one available at the present time.

The ideal solution will be if the electronic voting machine provide for an extra option, by way of an extra button, which says “None of the above”, and if this option gets the maximum number of votes polled, then there should be a re-election, and none of the candidates who contested the earlier election should be allowed to contest the second time. In the current political and electoral climate in the country, this is likely to be considered much too radical to happen, or to be allowed to happen by the political establishment, but this is precisely what citizens involved in politics should strive for because only such actions can attract 'good' people to entering the arena of competitive politics.

There are many other actions that can be taken and the best compilation of these is the 170th report of the Law Commission of India which was submitted to the government in May 1999 but the government, led by the current breed of politicians, has obviously not found any time or inclination to even think of its implementation. It is now left to citizens to create conditions where the political establishment will be forced to make worthwhile changes in the political and electoral systems, the most significant of which are internal democracy and financial transparency of political parties.
-------------------------------------