SEVERAL recent events ought to alert people to the dangers of what clearly are widening
   holes in the bottom of our political boat.

   The first is the recent Election Commission (EC)report on three parliamentary elections. It is
   as outspoken a document as the worrisome health of our political system demands. The other
   is the indictment of a former prime minister for buying votes of MPs.

   The EC report starts with a self-indictment. It admits that its report is the first in the past 13
   years. Such a lapse on its part cannot be condoned just because of its otherwise good record.
   More important, it also implies an unforgivable lapse on the part of the people. We had not even
   realised that for 13 long years, the EC had not presented its report.

   The achievements of the Commission are numerous and impressive. It succeeded in securing
   free time from All India Radio and Doordarshan for recognised political parties to present their
   creed and credentials to the people. The significance of this free facility to political parties is
   wider. It is an effective first step towards state funding of elections.

   What stands out as new in its accomplishments was its frontal challenge to some very serious
   issues. First, to the abuse of the open democratic process by people with criminal records. In
   spite of the lack of adequate legal powers vested in it, the Commission used its acumen to curb
   and control this phenomenon.

   Second, its daring initiative to nudge the political parties to revitalise internal democracy. In its
   own words: For a true and meaningful democracy, while elections should be held fairly and
   peacefully, it is equally essential that there should be internal democracy, within the recognised
   political parties. In 1996, the Commission put the political parties on notice, and asked them to
   follow their constitution, and hold regular party elections. The major national and regional parties
   duly obeyed. The report claims that elections are now being held on a regular basis.

   While cataloguing its achievements, the Commission is by no means oblivious to the fact that
   several serious issues remain to be resolved. One, the health of our principal players, the
   political parties who are entrusted by the people with the task of guarding the democratic
   framework of our Constitution. Two, the urgency of improving the ground rules for the credibility
   of the electoral process and regulating the behaviour of the players in the field. Three, a more
   principled demarcation of roles between the executive and the EC.

   Clearly, in the resolution of these issues, the Commission's role can only be supplementary.
   The political parties and government have given enough proof that they are inclined to do only
   the minimum. Here comes the role and responsibility of popular opinion and activism which
   alone can exert the required pressure on the political parties to adopt internal democracy and
   on the government to act with despatch on reforms in the electoral domain. A first step is to
   endow the Commission with unqualified autonomy and dignity. So far the record of these main
   actors is not too encouraging.

   Alas, a popular view of our political parties is that they have become pocket boroughs for
   self-serving individuals and cliques. Even if there is only an iota of truth behind such a view, it is
   not good for our political health. The Commission is entitled to congratulate itself for getting the
   parties to hold internal elections, but the farcical nature of these so-called elections can fool no
   one. The roll of membership of most parties is itself suspect. How then can they produce
   democratic elections? The parties are not only highly centralised but exist mainly at the top.
   There is little at the base by way of regular, informed, active membership.

   Recent studies by Lok Satta (a citizens' initiative for democratic reforms), of the ground
   situation of four leading political parties in Andhra says it all. It reveals the frightening
   hollowness of the principal parties. Their hollowness differs with each other only in degrees. The
   study results are a warning to the electorate in India to evaluate thoroughly a political party
   before entrusting power and public affairs in its hands, to ensure that these are not misused for
   private ends and in ways which are unconstitutional and unprincipled. Indeed, there can be no
   significant sustained improvement in the character and health of our parties without keen and
   critical interest by the public at large aided by institutions carrying out a continuous study of the
   functioning of each recognised political party.

   It is no exaggeration to say that in the matter of thwarting purposive electoral reforms, the
   government has much to answer for. It has deftly frustrated the recommendations of successive
   committees on electoral reforms including by the Law Commission and the EC over the years.
   Here the reference to government is to the political and bureaucratic elite which is determined to
   retain power over the electoral process.

   It is gratifying that the Commission has not hesitated to press cases against governments. For
   four years, the Commission has been involved in considerable litigation in the state high courts,
   and the Supreme Court against state governments and the Central government on various
   electoral matters. The cases relate to first, the Commission's control over those involved in
   elections, and second, to the date of enforcement of the model code of conduct. Letters written
   to successive prime ministers to try and resolve these issues received little response.

   The report says that it is only during the latter part of this year that the Union law minister has
   resolved them to the satisfaction of the Commission. It is now expected that the Commission's
   control over staff during elections, will be effectively clarified and the application of the code of
   conduct also settled. Finally, the Commission's compulsory use of identity cards has also been
   effectively established and settled by the Supreme Court. But this may not be the end of the
   road. The reason why the Commission had to go to the courts against the government is that it
   does not have the sustained support of popular opinion.

   The Delhi high court's recent welcome directive that candidates should declare their assets and
   background in advance is a shot in the arm, and not a substitute, for the people's vigil over the
   electoral players and process.

http://www.loksatta.org/inthepress.htm

Home | About Us | Activities | Organisation | F.A.Q | Contact Us | In The News

©2000 LOK SATTA, All Rights Reserved.