Whos electable?

The law ministry has drafted a proposed amendment to the Representation of the People Act aimed at the decriminalisation of elections. The amendment,as reported in this newspaper,seeks to debar chargesheeted persons from contesting elections. In this season of rightful and,even more,righteous outrage over corruption in administration and legislatures,this is yet another proposal fuelled by both good intentions the desire for a clean legislature and impatience with democratic procedures in this case,the right to be considered innocent till proven guilty,that is,convicted on the basis of charges framed.

The idea of debarring chargesheeted persons,or those against whom charges have been framed,has been afloat for many years. And while it has so far not been put on the statute book,reforms have been incrementally put in place to enable voters to make a meaningful and informed choice. Therefore,candidates are required to file an affidavit declaring their assets,liabilities,educational qualifications and criminal record. There is also a bar on the candidature of those convicted for an offence and sentenced to imprisonment of two years or more though its implementation has sometimes been controversial. But there is a key difference between a person who has been convicted and one who has been chargesheeted. The former is a beneficiary of a lawful trial; the latter awaits that due process. The difference lies at the heart of a liberal democracy.

Liberal democracy is,however,also dependent on contestations based on political morality. While it may be a particular individuals right to contest elections to be part of a council of ministers,etc the actualisation of that right is mostly mediated by party politics. The trouble with the prescriptive shortcuts being suggested in order to gain a set of ideal representatives barring chargesheeted persons,holding the elected narrowly to account by enforcing the right to recall them,or even blockading them in their houses till they sign on to the peoples draft of a legislation is that they bypass the process of forging an engagement between voter and representative,an organic,progressive engagement of give-and-take based on argument and fact. In effect,by trying to put fetters on those who are or would be legislators by curbing their fundamental rights to a trial before being adjudged guilty,for instance,or to the right of free movement and thought these suggestions ultimately narrow the choice available to voters.