Letter to Political Parties

Dear Friends

Please find enclosed a letter that we have sent to Political Parties ahead of their meeting on 8th July along with some perspectives on recent EC's order on disclosures (revised talking points).

with warm regards

Jayaprakash Narayan
National Coordinator

Lok Satta
401/408 Nirmal Towers
Dwarakapuri Colony, Punjagutta
Hyderabad - 500 082
Tel: 040 3350778/3350790
Fax: 040 3350783
E-mail: loksatta@satyam.net.in
url: www.loksatta.org
________________________________________________________________________________________
An Open Letter to Political Parties

It is good to note that an all-party meeting is being held on July 8 to discuss electoral reforms. In a democracy, the primacy of political process and supremacy of parliament must be universally respected and strengthened. The strident criticism of political activity and revulsion of politics exhibited unthinkingly by some is a source of great concern to true lovers of liberty and defenders of democracy.

We believe what India needs is more politics, not less; and more democracy, not less. Political parties are the most vital Instruments for involving people in political action, and therefore our effort should be to strengthen them and make them more effective. The many concerned citizens who are distancing themselves from politics need to be engaged in political process. Above all, we should work towards enhancing legitimacy of the democratic process by simple, practical, effective reforms.

All the major political parties have been expressing deep concern about electoral reforms. Many committees and experts have studied the subject. The Election Commission is doing its best to uphold the sanctity of our electoral process. But a lot more remains to be done. Voter registration is still flawed, and studies indicate many eligible voters’ names are missing, and ineligible names find place in electoral rolls. This can be corrected by making voter registration simpler, more people-friendly and accessible by utilizing the local post offices as a nodal agency. Similarly polling irregularities, which are still common, can be curbed by simple steps. Political parties ought to be strengthened by amendments to X schedule of the Constitution, and effective checks against defections, even as the members legitimate right to dissent is respected. Internal democratic norms
in parties should be revitalized and more and more people must be attracted to play a meaningful role in political process. Representational legitimacy needs to be enhanced by providing for general elections based on party platform and party lists. Parties and candidates are starved of legitimate funds for political activity. We need to strengthen their hands by providing
tax incentives to political contributions, strengthening disclosure norms promoting transparency, and providing for public
funding in a verifiable and fair manner. All these and other reforms are crying for attention.

These are obviously the deep concerns of politicians whose hard work and commitment are sustaining our democratic process and defending our liberty. Fortunately, we also have several non-partisan and public spirited organizations all over the country who are committed to this cause of strengthening democracy. Association for Democratic Reforms, AGNI, Common Cause, Lok Sevak Sangh, Transparency International, CYSD, Public Affairs Center, Catalyst Trust, Parivartan, Centre for Media Studies, Concerned Citizens for Calcutta, PUCL, Lok Satta and many other organizations are forming a broad coalition to further this cause. Several jurists, experts, administrators and activists are also involved in this process.

Ultimately, the success of the democratic process depends on our respecting the right of the voter to full information about
the background of individual candidates. This right is reiterated by the recent Supreme Court judgment. It will strengthen the political process and help to weed out corrupt and criminal elements from making a way into legislatures which are the custodians of our constitution. In this context it is paramount that the political parties wholeheartedly endorse the recent Election Commission order dated June 28. We enclose a brief note which should dispel any reservations/apprehensions about this order in any quarter.

The people of India look up to you, the political parties and public representatives for leadership and direction to defend
liberty, strengthen democracy and respect people’s sovereignty. We most earnestly urge you to take this opportunity to fortify electoral reforms which shield our legislatures from persons of dubious background, strengthen our democracy and enhance popular respect for the political process.
 
 

New Delhi, July 6, 2002
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Perspectives on Recent EC’s order on Disclosures

1. Did the Supreme Court exceed its jurisdiction in its May 2 judgment and intrude into legislative arena?

Ans. No.  Prescribing qualifications for contesting elections is the exclusive prerogative of the legislature. The Court merely decided that the people in a democracy are entitled to know about the candidates who seek to represent them and acquire power on their behalf. This right to know is integral to Article 19 (1) of the constitution.

2. Did the Election Commission exceed its jurisdiction?

Ans. No. As the Supreme Court pointed out, under Art 324, the Election Commission has the responsibility of superintendence, direction and control of elections. The EC cannot legislate or prescribe qualifications. But prescribing affidavits, seeking information, making disclosures mandatory are the legitimate functions  assigned to the  EC under the constitution.

3. Should the EC have waited for a legislation?

Ans. In fact disclosures do not require amendment of the Representation of People Act, 1951. All it takes is amendment of rule 4 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The government has the power to make rules. EC sent proposals to the government to amend the rules. However, government delayed the matter. Supreme Court judgment came on May 2. An all – party meeting has been convened on July 8, well after the deadline set by the Supreme Court for implementation of its directions. The government should have amended the rules quickly and taken other initiatives for electoral reform. In the absence of governmental action, the EC was forced to act under Art 324 to comply with Court’s direction.

4. Are we setting a precedent for judiciary to legislate?

Ans. Parliament  ought to be and is, indeed, supreme legislative authority. The disclosure mandated  by the EC under Art 324 is not legislation. This merely  enforces the citizens’ right to know about the candidates, which is implied in the Constitution. All it takes to implement the Supreme Court’s directive is an executive order or change of rules. Election Commission is a part of the executive, but independent of government. There is no usurpation of Parliament’s power.

5. Can a nomination be rejected on flimsy grounds on the basis of EC’s new rules?

Ans. No. The EC’s order is categorical. Only when there are proven substantial defects, is a nomination liable for rejection. For instance if there is proven criminal record, or pending charges framed by a magistrate, non-disclosure would entail rejection.

6.  In the unlikely event of frivolous rejection of nomination, what is the remedy?

Ans. The EC’s general principle is to accept a nomination, and not to reject it. Election officials usually advise the candidate informally in advance about the defects in nomination. Officials are firmly directed to overlook minor or technical defects.
In the unlikely event of rejection of nomination, there is no remedy at present before the election, except EC’s intervention under Art 324. Otherwise an election petition after the election is the remedy. If an objection is raised at the time of scrutiny, the candidate has time for two more days to rebut it.

However, there have been exceptionally rare cases of frivolous rejection in the past. Instead of taking away the Citizen’s
right to full disclosure, it may be worthwhile to formally provide for EC’s instant intervention, based on District Election Officer’s report upon a complaint. Such a safeguard can be provided by executive orders, and it will completely eliminate chances of arbitrary rejection.

7. Is the candidate’s right to privacy affected by disclosures?

Ans. There are two competing rights which should be considered – the candidate’s right to privacy, and  the citizens’ right
to be informed, and the right of the community for proper representation. When there is a conflict between the candidate’s
rights and those of the community, the latter should prevail. At all times we should recognize that the candidate is seeking the mandate of the people, and he wishes to exercise power on behalf of the people. Right to privacy is an individual right, but public figures have an obligation to disclose those details necessary to maintain probity in public life and help citizens make
an informed choice.

8. Will this disclosure automatically eliminate corruption and criminals from politics?

Ans. No. But this is one significant step. Evidence shows that full disclosure deters candidates with unsavory record. Parties also will tend to avoid nominating new candidates with unsatisfactory record. But established candidates are usually unaffected by disclosures. Criminalization of politics and malpractices will thus be arrested, but not reversed. A lot more needs to be done to cleanse elections.

9. Is electoral reform an elitist concern?

Ans. Not at all. In reality, people are extremely restive about the nature of our elections. Owing to electoral defects, and
often unsatisfactory choice offered to people, things remain the same no matter who is elected. That is why people tend to
vote against the establishment and incumbents most of the time. We require honest efforts to improve the electoral process
and enhance its legitimacy. Unless citizens actively pursue these goals, there is real danger of democracy being derailed.

10. Does this approach become anti-political?

Ans. Politics is about promotion of public good. These efforts to reform are informed by great respect for, and belief in, the political process. Reviling politics is a dangerous exercise. Liberty is preserved only by strong and competitive political process. Most of our politicians are decent and well-meaning. However many are forced to make unhappy compromises because of compulsions imposed by our electoral and governance system. Reform efforts are undertaken with deep understanding of the difficulties politicians face. These efforts will strengthen the majority of decent and honourable
elements, and undermine the few black sheep.

11. What more needs to be done?

Ans. We need to improve electoral rolls and make voter verification and registration simple, easy, locally accessible and citizen-friendly. Local post-office can be the nodal agency for the purpose. We need to implement measures to curb
polling irregularities and fraudulent voting. We need to strengthen political parties and make them accountable and
democratic in their functioning.

We need a proper funding law to help parties and politicians raise legitimate resources for political action. We also should provide tax incentives for political funding.

Finally, we should seriously examine methods to enhance legitimacy of representation, measures to promote fairer and less-costly elections based on a party’s platform.

Despite many flaws, our elections are a remarkable exercise, and they are a testimony to our democratic spirit. Politicians are struggling against odds to sustain and deepen democracy in our country. We need to make this task easier through reform process. Anti-political approach is detrimental to democracy. Equally, status quo is clearly unsustainable and counter-productive.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________