Keep criminals out

Despite all the high-minded posturing on the criminalisation of politics, the line between law makers and law breakers in our country has only become more tenuous. At last count, and according to statistics gathered by the Election Commission, at least 40 MPs and 700 MLAs faced criminal charges including murder, dacoity, rape, theft and extortion. Behind these statistics lies a conspiracy of silence about the dubious antecedents of many candidates in the political fray; it is this that gives them both the confidence and the legitimacy to ask for the people8217;s vote. The Delhi High Court8217;s directive to the Election Commission last week to make public information about a candidate8217;s criminal background is, therefore, a welcome initiative. It will empower the voter by expanding her right to information. By stripping those with criminal backgrounds of a vital fig leaf, it will hopefully discourage them from insinuating themselves into the political process.

Over the years, many a legislative initiative to root out criminals from politics has run aground on grey areas and loopholes in the legal system, apart, of course, from the palpable lack of political will. Nothing ever came of the Law Commission8217;s proposal that those who have been chargesheeted must be debarred from contesting. Or of the Vohra Committee report which detailed the nexus between the criminal, politician and the bureaucrat. Similarly, the much-touted Bill on electoral reforms still remains only a pious promise; as the court has pointed out, it is yet to be tabled in Parliament. This is because there are vested interests across the political spectrum which feed upon the criminal-politician nexus. The malaise runs deep; basically, its roots lie in the decay of the political party as institution. Shirking the effort to cultivate a base at the grassroots, the political party has become parasitic on money and muscle power to acquire and retain power. Having obtained hold over political parties,cadres of organised crime then exert pressure on law-enforcement agencies, dictate policies, and finally, field their men in elections.

In this scenario, will the court8217;s decision to provide the voter with more information make the difference? There is reason for optimism to be tempered with caution here. While it is true that making public the dubious antecedents of candidates is a significant step towards forearming the voter as she makes her choice, it will not be enough. In the past, the voters have often cast their votes for corrupt or criminal candidates despite knowing that they are criminal and/or corrupt because of the absence of a real alternative, because the choice has been a constricted one. When all parties field similarly dubious candidates, the contest is restricted between twiddledee and twiddledum. The enhancement of the information available to the voter, therefore, cannot become the excuse to shift the entire onus of halting the criminalisation of politics on her. For the political system to be cleansed, the political party must also own up to its share of the responsibility. Only then can it be ensured that democracy doesnot lose when a candidate wins.