Strike at the root

Admittedly, India has changed enormously since 1947. We produce more and build better. We have a large and diversified pool of scientific and technological manpower. We have made dramatic progress in software technology. We even have surplus food stocks! We have obviously won many a battle, but have we won the war 8212; the war against poverty, illiteracy and social degradation? The answer is obviously in the negative.The next question is: why is this situation proving to be so intractable?

The answer lies in the erosion of values in our public and personal lives. These have affected our democratic way of living and, more importantly, the functioning of the political system. Parliamentary democracy is the core of our political system and periodic elections to the legislature are its cornerstone. To restore purity to the electoral system should, therefore, be a primary concern.

The theme of electoral reforms has been the subject matter of much debate. Many bodies other than the Election Commission, including the Law Commission, have considered this issue. There is no lack of material or proposals for improving the system.

If certain basic factors are addressed many ills, which are symptoms rather than causes, will be automatically dealt with. One such is the factor of money and muscle power, leading to the establishment of a close nexus between criminal elements and politics. Electoral reform which fails to tacklethis will be futile.

Persons against whom the courts have framed serious charges should be denied the right to contest elections or to be appointed as election or polling agents. Persons who have been detained under the Preventive Detention Acts for alleged heinous crimes and not for political dissent or disturbing public tranquillity and the detention has been confirmed by the Advisory Committee during the five preceding years should also suffer this stricture. I shall suggest that persons who have been released from jail after serving a term for committing heinous crimes should also be debarred from all election-related activity for a specified period. These are somewhat harsh measures and may affect a few deserving people. But given the seriousness of the problem, it must be accepted.

For curbing excessive expenditure, I suggest that limits should be fixed more pragmatically. A political party may be permitted to incur expenditure in addition to these limits only on specified items. Parties must beduty-bound to keep full accounts and have them periodically audited. This may actually strengthen democracy within all political parties.

Barring independent candidates may, sometimes, be necessary, even good, for the system. At least, we can think of enhancing the security deposit in case of such candidates. I am also not in favour of State funding for candidates sponsored by political parties. At present, given the weakness in democracy within many parties, it may support the hegemony of a handful of personalities.

Going by recent experience, a fixed term for the Lok Sabha would seem welcome. However, while it will certainly make tenures secure, it will nullify an important weapon for checking defection. It is to be recalled in this context that Dr Alladi Krishnaswami, during the debate in the Constituent Assembly, cited the fact that the President will have no power to dissolve the House as one of the arguments to prefer the cabinet form of government to the presidential system. I am also not sure howa stable Lok Sabha in a period of unstable governments will affect governance and public life. Personally, I am not in favour of this proposal.

Then there is the desirability of adopting the rule requiring that only a candidate polling more than 50 per cent of votes should be declared elected. Looking at the present statistical data, the adoption of such a system will curtail the almost never-ending process of elections.

I have a feeling that while a lot of attention is being given to the EC8217;s steps to check malpractices, the routine work of preparing for elections and holding them has suffered. Take the case of preparing electoral roles. There are so many blatant deficiencies that one wonders if larger reforms will have much meaning in the eyes of the public. Use electronic voting machine by all means, but why not give priority to electoral rolls? Circulate the rolls so that the electorate can have ample opportunities to check their entries. Unless electoral rolls are properly prepared, how can we talkof transparent, fair and truly representative elections?

For the debate to be meaningful, we will have to cover a little wider canvas. I suggest that anti-defection provisions be tightened but at the same time, Parliament should make a provision under which decisions taken should appear to be non-partisan.

With elections being held more frequently and with caretaker governments remaining in office for longer periods, more effective governance during these periods is becoming desirable. I suggest that the President should invite a debate, particularly in Parliament, to consider if the German system will be suitable. Article 67 of the German Constitution Basic Laws provides that the Bundestag may express its lack of confidence in the federal Chancellor only by electing a successor with the majority of its members and requesting the Federal President to dismiss the incumbent. The Federal President must comply with the request and appoint the person elected.

Things have come to such a pass that it isnecessary for elections to be held with a neutral government in office in the states and at the Centre. Parliament should consider the issue. I am firmly of the view that if our elections are held properly our polity, public life and governance will improve. When we were contesting elections, money power brought no votes and muscle power was non-existent.

The writer is a former governor