There
are three fundamental issues we have to address in dealing
with political and electoral funding. The first is our ambivalence
on political contributions. Politics is the essence of a
democracy. True politics is a noble endeavour. Politics
helps bridge the gap between limited resources and unlimited
wants. Politics also seeks to reconcile and harmonise conflicting
interests of contending social groups. Politics pervades
all areas of society and influences every facet of life.
The middle classes will do well to shed their aversion to
political process. The distaste for politics is a sure recipe
for disaster. Our endeavour has to be to cleanse the political
and electoral process, and not to throw the baby with the
bath water. Clean politics requires clean money. We should
therefore give tax exemptions to all political contributions
subject to reasonable limit of, say Rs 25000 for individuals
and 5% of the net profit for corporate groups. This will
not seriously affect government's revenue mobilization effort.
If society does not honestly fund political activity, dishonest
funding will drive politics into the hands of criminal gangs
and corrupt elements.
The
second issue is transparency. How much a party or a candidate
receives from whom, and what is offered in return are of
vital importance to the public. Secret contributions, back
room deals and illegitimate expenditure distort the electoral
process, affect governmental decisions, compromise public
interest and undermine competition. Therefore every rupee
collected and spent should be fully disclosed. Given the
current state of law enforcement, there should be severe
penalties for non-disclosure or false disclosure, drastically
increasing the risks of secret funding. The donor should
pay fine equal to ten times the amount and imprisonment.
The recipient should face fine, unseating, disqualification,
imprisonment, and in case of parties de-recognition for
a limited time. Only when there is a definite, though small,
risk of severe punishment can we enforce compliance of transparency
law. Otherwise we will have one more statute contemptuously
ignored. All accounts should be fully audited and made public.
The Election Commission should be the final authority for
determination of non-compliance and imposing all penalties
except imprisonment. Much of our discourse has been hitherto
focused on limits on expenditure, but the real issues are
honest funding and transparency.
Finally
we should look at public funding of elections, but only
after transparency and internal democracy in parties are
in place. The party candidates should be chosen democratically
by the constituency members, or their elected delegates.
Once open and accountable funding and party democracy are
enforced, we should consider public funding. Electoral contest
is not for private gain, but it is a public activity. It
is inimical to democracy and good governance if only individuals
who can spend large sums of personal wealth or private contributions
have a realistic chance of being elected. Public funding
is necessary to encourage the best and brightest to contest
and promote integrity in public life. Sensible public funding
should fulfil certain conditions: it should be objective
and non-discretionary; there should be a transparent and
verifiable mechanism; the electoral rolls should be cleansed
in advance and rigging should be stopped; it should not
impose excessive burden on the exchequer. Public funding
can be indirect and direct. Indirect funding in the form
of free radio and television time is now available to parties
on government channels. This should be extended to private
channels, and it can be a licensing condition. There should
be flexibility in use of time to make communication effective,
attractive and to promote informed discourse. Live debates
among leading contenders is one effective technique successful
in many countries. Direct funding will be most practical,
fair and simple if the candidates or parties are given a
fixed amount of about Rs 10 for every vote obtained in the
constituency, subject to crossing a threshold of, say 10%
of the valid votes polled. Then all candidates will have
a fair chance and entrenched parties will have no monopoly;
funding will be objective and based on popular support;
and non-serious candidates will not get any funding. Recognised
parties could receive 50% of the funding in advance based
on previous elections, and the balance based on their entitlement
according to the votes received in the election. Such elegant
and practical methods can be evolved. What is more, the
cost to the exchequer will be marginal. An estimated 55%
of the population, or about 56 crore people are voters.
Usually about 60 - 65% of votes are cast in elections. For
33 crore votes cast, the fund required will be Rs 330 crores
for Lok Sabha election and equal amount for State Assemblies.
In a cycle of 5 years, a total fund of Rs 660 crores will
be required for public funding of national and state elections
- which is roughly a third of the public expenditure every
day in India!
The
decision of the Congress Party needs to be supported and
encouraged by all right thinking citizens. Public opinion
will goad other parties into action soon. We need to resolutely
and quickly address the issues of political and electoral
funding in order to cleanse elections, promote healthy politics,
encourage the best to contest, ensure true competition in
the economy, restore integrity in public life and safeguard
our democracy. Too much is at stake for us to pretend that
the issue does not concern thinking citizens and wealth
creators.
***