Parliamentarians begin their career with a lie. The exact words, spoken in chaste Hindi, may have been slightly different from these, but their transliteration into English captures the essence of what Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee had famously said as a young parliamentarian while commenting on the flawed electoral system of our country that overlooks the key role played by money power — apart from muscle power — in deciding the outcome of polls at all levels of our governing structure. In many ways, that is the starting point of political corruption, the reason why politicians lust for money with as much passion as they pursue power — the latter comes with a price tag; only the naïve would believe sincerity of purpose and hard work among the people can pave the path to public office.
When politics becomes dependent on money without which elections cannot be won, office cannot be secured and power cannot be retained, then political corruption is an inevitable consequence. Public memory being wretchedly short and young India blissfully ignorant of the past, it would be in order to recall that this is how it has been ever since the first general election. In the decades of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, ‘booth-capturing’, ‘ballot box-snatching’ and ‘miscounting’ were common practices resorted to by those politicians and their parties with money to pay musclemen for their services. The advent of identity politics made recourse to such ‘tactics’ unnecessary; politicians could appeal for votes on the basis of caste and faith and mobilise support. But that did not lessen the need for money. In fact, Mr TN Seshan’s ‘reforms’ increased it.
Any politician will tell you that getting his or her party’s ‘ticket’ for contesting an election is only a prelude to the electoral battle that lies ahead. Even before getting (or ‘purchasing’, as is the case with certain political parties) the ‘ticket’, potential candidates have to mobilise resources to demonstrate they have adequate money power to wade into the battle and emerge victorious. The winnability factor, a quaint term coined by election managers to grade potential candidates, is to a large measure determined by two other factors: Cash and caste. Does the candidate belong to the right caste? Does he/she have the funds?
Which brings us to a question that I have often been asked: How much does it cost to contest an election? Those who ask the question, also offer their simplistic answer to it: Surely not a lot of money! If we go by the absurd ceilings on poll expenditure fixed by the Election Commission of India, it is definitely not a lot of money. For instance, candidates contesting from Mumbai, for instance, are prohibited from spending more than Rs 25,00,000 if it’s a Lok Sabha constituency and Rs 10,00,000 if it’s an Assembly constituency. Since that is the stipulated ceiling, candidates duly file expenditure accounts that add up to a rupee less than Rs 25,00,000 or Rs 10,00,000. Such is the caution exercised that nobody crosses the red line.
Now, if we were to look at the reality, we would have to dumb down our intelligence to believe that candidates who contest elections in Mumbai actually spend this sum of money and manage to win. In any event, it is a strange ceiling that overlooks the obvious. For instance, a Lok Sabha constituency could comprise anything between six to seven Assembly constituencies. If the election expenditure for an Assembly constituency is fixed at Rs 10,00,000, then logically that for a Lok Sabha constituency should be fixed at a minimum of Rs 60,00,000 to Rs 70,00,000. But no, it isn’t because we love to pretend that elections are contested and won on love and fresh air, on vacuous promises and long-winded speeches, on popular goodwill and the candidates’ credentials.
Having observed at least four general elections from close quarters, I would peg the expenditure incurred by a contestant in a Lok Sabha constituency at nothing less than Rs 5 crore; it would be higher in cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore. That would mean, if there are four or more serious contestants, each constituency would witness at least Rs 20 crore being spent by candidates. Then there is the expenditure incurred by the political parties, which is calculated separately and runs into tens of crores of rupees per State. All this and more money has to be generated, almost on a day to day basis because we now have elections round the year, year after year.
Pause and ask yourself a simple question: Where does this money come from? Most of those who scream and shout, rave and rant against political corruption are clueless about how funds are raised to keep the wheels of politics well-greased and moving. Parties like the BJP and the CPI(M) have a system of collecting money from their members, often a fixed amount pegged to their income, but this does not even yield sufficient funds to maintain offices and pay staff.
The law allows industrial and business houses to contribute money to political parties, but the decision and the transaction have to be recorded. Most prefer not to do so as the Congress is known to harass those who contribute funds to its foes. Hence, when money is contributed, it is done clandestinely. Cash is sent and received; IOUs are stacked up to be encashed at a later date. But such contributions are related to elections. They are not a round-the-year affair.
So what do parties do to keep afloat? More specifically, what do individual politicians do to refill their personal war chests between elections? They strike deals. They facilitate decisions that are helpful for business. They network and jostle for attention. They collect ‘fees’. Like any household, political parties too face sudden crises when cash is required, not in hundreds of rupees but in lakhs and crores. Recall the confidence vote which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had to win, no matter what the cost. Recall also the repeated ‘rebellions’ that Mr BS Yeddyurappa had to face, engineered by a Governor whose claim to fame is getting Ottavio Quattrocchi off the hook.
Yes, the system is rotten. Can we change the ‘system’? The answer to that question, too, is yes, we can. There are two ways of cleansing politics of corruption and thus minimising, if not ending, political corruption. The first is to make the funding of political parties a transparent affair. This can happen if we step forward and fund the party of our choice and demand transparency in its accounts. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen. Mr George Fernandes in his younger days tried walking from door to door, seeking Rs 2 as election contribution. He spent more money on repairing his chappals than he was able to collect for his poll fund. Which brings to mind another reality of middle India: Those who cheer Anna Hazare so lustily are known to leave town with their families and friends the day before voting for a holiday. With such commitment, can we expect change?
The second would be to reform the electoral system. If we were to junk the present system for, say, the list system based on proportionate share of votes, we could minimise election expenditure and thereby curb the need for mobilising funds through means that are more often than not patently corrupt. That would require a new Republic, which is per se not a bad idea since what we have is clearly untenable and will get worse with each passing day. Do we have the courage to admit failure and initiate corrective action?
Source: The Pioneer
When politics becomes dependent on money without which elections cannot be won, office cannot be secured and power cannot be retained, then political corruption is an inevitable consequence. Public memory being wretchedly short and young India blissfully ignorant of the past, it would be in order to recall that this is how it has been ever since the first general election. In the decades of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, ‘booth-capturing’, ‘ballot box-snatching’ and ‘miscounting’ were common practices resorted to by those politicians and their parties with money to pay musclemen for their services. The advent of identity politics made recourse to such ‘tactics’ unnecessary; politicians could appeal for votes on the basis of caste and faith and mobilise support. But that did not lessen the need for money. In fact, Mr TN Seshan’s ‘reforms’ increased it.
Any politician will tell you that getting his or her party’s ‘ticket’ for contesting an election is only a prelude to the electoral battle that lies ahead. Even before getting (or ‘purchasing’, as is the case with certain political parties) the ‘ticket’, potential candidates have to mobilise resources to demonstrate they have adequate money power to wade into the battle and emerge victorious. The winnability factor, a quaint term coined by election managers to grade potential candidates, is to a large measure determined by two other factors: Cash and caste. Does the candidate belong to the right caste? Does he/she have the funds?
Which brings us to a question that I have often been asked: How much does it cost to contest an election? Those who ask the question, also offer their simplistic answer to it: Surely not a lot of money! If we go by the absurd ceilings on poll expenditure fixed by the Election Commission of India, it is definitely not a lot of money. For instance, candidates contesting from Mumbai, for instance, are prohibited from spending more than Rs 25,00,000 if it’s a Lok Sabha constituency and Rs 10,00,000 if it’s an Assembly constituency. Since that is the stipulated ceiling, candidates duly file expenditure accounts that add up to a rupee less than Rs 25,00,000 or Rs 10,00,000. Such is the caution exercised that nobody crosses the red line.
Now, if we were to look at the reality, we would have to dumb down our intelligence to believe that candidates who contest elections in Mumbai actually spend this sum of money and manage to win. In any event, it is a strange ceiling that overlooks the obvious. For instance, a Lok Sabha constituency could comprise anything between six to seven Assembly constituencies. If the election expenditure for an Assembly constituency is fixed at Rs 10,00,000, then logically that for a Lok Sabha constituency should be fixed at a minimum of Rs 60,00,000 to Rs 70,00,000. But no, it isn’t because we love to pretend that elections are contested and won on love and fresh air, on vacuous promises and long-winded speeches, on popular goodwill and the candidates’ credentials.
Having observed at least four general elections from close quarters, I would peg the expenditure incurred by a contestant in a Lok Sabha constituency at nothing less than Rs 5 crore; it would be higher in cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore. That would mean, if there are four or more serious contestants, each constituency would witness at least Rs 20 crore being spent by candidates. Then there is the expenditure incurred by the political parties, which is calculated separately and runs into tens of crores of rupees per State. All this and more money has to be generated, almost on a day to day basis because we now have elections round the year, year after year.
Pause and ask yourself a simple question: Where does this money come from? Most of those who scream and shout, rave and rant against political corruption are clueless about how funds are raised to keep the wheels of politics well-greased and moving. Parties like the BJP and the CPI(M) have a system of collecting money from their members, often a fixed amount pegged to their income, but this does not even yield sufficient funds to maintain offices and pay staff.
The law allows industrial and business houses to contribute money to political parties, but the decision and the transaction have to be recorded. Most prefer not to do so as the Congress is known to harass those who contribute funds to its foes. Hence, when money is contributed, it is done clandestinely. Cash is sent and received; IOUs are stacked up to be encashed at a later date. But such contributions are related to elections. They are not a round-the-year affair.
So what do parties do to keep afloat? More specifically, what do individual politicians do to refill their personal war chests between elections? They strike deals. They facilitate decisions that are helpful for business. They network and jostle for attention. They collect ‘fees’. Like any household, political parties too face sudden crises when cash is required, not in hundreds of rupees but in lakhs and crores. Recall the confidence vote which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had to win, no matter what the cost. Recall also the repeated ‘rebellions’ that Mr BS Yeddyurappa had to face, engineered by a Governor whose claim to fame is getting Ottavio Quattrocchi off the hook.
Yes, the system is rotten. Can we change the ‘system’? The answer to that question, too, is yes, we can. There are two ways of cleansing politics of corruption and thus minimising, if not ending, political corruption. The first is to make the funding of political parties a transparent affair. This can happen if we step forward and fund the party of our choice and demand transparency in its accounts. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen. Mr George Fernandes in his younger days tried walking from door to door, seeking Rs 2 as election contribution. He spent more money on repairing his chappals than he was able to collect for his poll fund. Which brings to mind another reality of middle India: Those who cheer Anna Hazare so lustily are known to leave town with their families and friends the day before voting for a holiday. With such commitment, can we expect change?
The second would be to reform the electoral system. If we were to junk the present system for, say, the list system based on proportionate share of votes, we could minimise election expenditure and thereby curb the need for mobilising funds through means that are more often than not patently corrupt. That would require a new Republic, which is per se not a bad idea since what we have is clearly untenable and will get worse with each passing day. Do we have the courage to admit failure and initiate corrective action?
Source: The Pioneer
