By Rahul Kapoor
CRIMINALISATION of politics and corruption in public life has become the biggest threat to India, the world’s largest democracy.
The roots of corruption lie in the election expenses of the candidates. The statutory limit — Rs 15 lakh for a Lok Sabha seat (depending on the constituency and the number of voters), Rs 3 to 6 lakh for state legislatures (depending on the area), and Rs 75,000 for municipal corporators — is too less. In practice, the expenses incurred by the candidates are much more. As the candidates generally don’t have so much money to spend, the funds usually come on the basis of quid pro quo from the business world or the underworld. Once the candidate becomes an MP, MLA or a minister, he has to reciprocate to his donors in a big way. This is the root cause of corruption.
Corruption at higher levels of political leadership leads to corruption in the bureaucracy and other wings of the administration like the police or the Public Works Department. It spreads from top to bottom. It travels downwards into the entire bureaucratic apparatus and also amongst the civilians. Along with money power, muscle power has also polluted elections. Unfortunately, a large number of our MPs and legislators have criminal records against them. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar top the list.
Historic ruling: The Union Government, all political parties and several NGOs including our “Citizens for National Consensus” (CNC) have been advocating electoral reforms with a view to strengthening democracy at various levels. Sadly, despite promises, political parties have not brought about the required changes in the Representation of Peoples' Act (RPA). On May 2, 2002, the Supreme Court gave a historic ruling following a public interest litigation by an NGO. It ruled that every candidate, contesting an election to Parliament, State Legislatures or Municipal Corporation, has to declare the following along with the application for his/her candidature:
A candidate's criminal records (convictions, acquittals and charges etc).
The candidate's financial records (assets & liabilities etc).
The candidate's educational qualifications.
If the candidate fails to file any of the above three declarations, the Returning Officer will have the right to reject his nomination papers . The Supreme Court has ruled that all the three declarations will have to be truthful. The Election Commission had sent a notification on June 28, 2002, to all State Election Officers with a view to enforcing it.
The Supreme Court's thrust has been that the people and the voters have the right to know about the candidate's criminal record, assets and liabilities and educational qualifications. The Returning Officer has to publish these declarations for the voters’ knowledge and, surely, the people will get an opportunity to know about their candidate’s background.
As regards the financial aspect, if a candidate stated that he has assets worth Rs 500 crore or Rs 500, the Returning Officer could not disqualify him/her. If he furnished wrong details and were later detected by the Returning Officer, the latter could take a decision. If the opposing candidate brought out a convincing document to prove that the declaration of his opponent is false, then the Returning Officer was within his rights to reject the nomination. If a candidate is illiterate, it could not become a reason for rejection of his/her nomination papers.
Right to know: The right to information helps people know about their candidates and make an informed choice in the elections. The affidavit declaring the candidate's criminal, financial and educational record is a right of the voters, so that based on such information, they can decide to vote. The Supreme Court has only enunciated the people's right to know under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution. The Returning Officer has the right to reject the nomination papers of a candidate if he fails to provide such information by affidavit. Simply put, while furnishing criminal records, poor educational qualifications or vast wealth may not invite rejection, but refusing to provide details could. The idea behind the affidavit is that the candidate himself makes a voluntary disclosure.
The Supreme Court was quite clear in its May 2 judgement: “It is not possible for this court to give any directions for amending the act or statutory rules. It is for Parliament to amend the Act... However, it is equally settled that in case when the Act or rules are silent on a particular subject and the authority implementing the same has constitutional or statutory powers to implement it, the court can necessarily issue directions or orders on the said subject to fill the vacuum or void till the suitable law is enacted”.
SC intervention: Amazingly, political parties have not accepted the progressive intervention of the Supreme Court. All parliamentarians rejected the court directive. On August 16, 2002, the government brought about an Ordinance, having diluted the court directive. It says that disclosure of information about a candidate’s assets etc., can be made only after he gets elected. This deprives the people’s right to know about the candidate before the election. Secondly, the Ordinance says that after a candidate gets elected, the statement of assets and liabilities has to be given to the Presiding Officer of the two Houses and the State Legislatures. Any contravention will not come before the courts but will come before the Privileges Committee of the House. Consider how political parties are protecting the corrupt in their ranks. There is no mention about the candidate’s income either in the Supreme Court's directive or in the Ordinance though this will help people know the candidate’s degree of corruption at the end of his five-year tenure.
Criminal record: The court's directive on the disclosure of criminal record before the Returning Officer would have helped voters to know the antecedents of their candidates before making their choice. The Supreme Court wanted the following declaration by candidates:
Whether the candidate was convicted, acquitted or discharged in any criminal offence; if convicted, whether he/she has been sentenced, imprisoned or fined;
Whether the candidate was accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more.
In the Ordinance, there is avoidable ambiguity about the extent of disclosure of criminal records. There must be clear-cut provisions to bar the entry of criminals in Parliament and State Legislatures.
Article 19 (1) (a) provides for freedom of speech and expression. The voter's freedom of expression in case of election would include casting of votes i.e. the voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote. For this purpose, information about the candidate is a must. This right of information of the voter is denied by the introduction of a new Section 33 (b) in the Ordinance which says: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, decree or order of any court or any direction, order or any other instruction issued by the Election Commission, no candidate shall be liable to disclose or furnish any such information in respect of his election, which is not required to be disclosed or furnished under this Act, or the rule, made thereunder”.
Thus, the real purpose of the Ordinance was to substantially nullify the Supreme Court's directive.
President’s querries: President A.P.J.Abdul Kalam raised certain points and sent back the Ordinance to the Union Government for reconsideration. However, the government returned it back to him the same day for his assent. The President had no choice, but to sign on the dotted line.
On August 28, 2002, the People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the Union Government challenging the Representation of People (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002, promulgated by the President. Never before have the people reacted against an Ordinance. A large number of good leaders among the political parties must be sharing people's concerns and apprehensions. As the citizens are united against the Ordinance, they are bound to succeed.
Collective experience: With the scuttling of the Supreme Court's directive on electoral reforms, the political parties have only exposed themselves before the people. Apparently, they cannot do away with corruption and criminality in public life. Most political parties are not amendable to any appeals, protests or suggestions by citizens’ groups and NGOs. Our collective experience suggests that even appeals to voters “not to vote for the corrupt people and criminals” do not yield results, as there are hardly any honest and decent candidates in the elections. Both the options have failed to succeed.
Therefore, an independent mass movement has become necessary. The people should assert their powers. A united people's movement has to make it clear to our political leaders that they cannot ignore the people anymore; that the people can punish the criminals and the corrupt in politics. Changes will have to come through peaceful, democratic and constitutional methods. Only an independent mass movement can assert the people's power.
As a focussed effort, here is a possible success story of Mumbai city. Once Mumbai succeeds, the entire nation is bound to emulate the experiment. The mass movement for Mumbai has to aim at enlisting the support of a small ground force of about 20,000 mass workers. Mumbai elects six MPs, about 34 MLAs and about 227 municipal corporators. In a population of about 1 crore 20 lakh in Mumbai, there are about 80 lakh voters. The average voting percentage is 50 per cent, implying that there are about 40 lakh non-voters. Often voting in some areas is below 50 per cent. In Mumbai, a ground force of 20,000 can certainly influence 40 lakh non-voters to vote for good and decent candidates. Every member of this force will have to work among about 200 non-voters (40 lakh non-voters divided by 20,000 mass workers) i.e. about two or three buildings of Mumbai per individual mass worker.
The good and decent individuals will be motivated to stand for elections once they see this ground force behind them. Today, good people are reluctant to join politics. In the absence of ground support, they also face the danger of losing their security deposits. But a ground support force, which can work for their electoral success, will be able to motivate them to stand for elections. The demands of a success story are: creation of a ground force, motivating good people to stand for election, and then, making non-voters to vote. The collective mass movement can change the quality of our Parliament and state legislatures in a big way.
Independent movement: An independent mass movement will neither have big money nor big muscle power. Such a movement has to be cost effective and manageable. With determination and focussed effort, it is achievable. This is the most cost effective way to get decent people elected and eliminate corruption and criminalisation of politics.
It is possible to form a ground force of 20,000. There are well-meaning organisations among youth, students, women, senior citizens, professional organisations and NGOs. The collective strength of these organisations plus a new mass movement can organise more than 20,000 members. Unity of purpose and focus can be achieved amongst the existing organisations and new members enrolled through a mass movement.
Pressure groups: Concerned citizens of eminence and NGOs like AGNI, Citizens for National Consensus (CNC), Dignity Foundation, A Hundred Citizens, Lok Satta, Nagar, Citispace, PROUD and many such other organisations and NGOs can be involved in the mass movement. Pressure groups at the top can influence changes in the electoral laws, opinions in governance and in Parliament and state legislatures. Such protests will also embolden and motivate the masses. The next is to jointly organise a mass movement for cleaning up criminalisation and corruption in politics.
Mumbai has started many historic movements. It can once again be the torch-bearer of blazing another success story. Let us think of the enormous resources that would be released in a corruption-free India for growth and development of the entire country and for raising the quality of life to human levels for those co-citizens, who still live in sub-human conditions. Enormous resources, siphoned off in corruption, can be utilised for human resource development and for the growth and development of rural and urban India. There is need for a new beginning to make India corruption-free.
No comments:
Post a Comment