Premium
This is an archive article published on November 1, 2012
Premium

Opinion Corruption’s ground zero

Limiting campaign finance is a good idea that has gone bad

November 1, 2012 11:10 PM IST First published on: Nov 1, 2012 at 11:10 PM IST

It is imperative for democracies to control the influence of money in politics. The Election Commission of India (EC),in an effort to create a level playing field for all contestants,to close the possibility of rich and powerful dominating electoral politics,and to prevent incidents of vote buying,has not only limited contributions (the amount an individual or a business house can donate to candidates or political parties) but also expenditures (the amount a candidate can spend during the campaign). Despite effective monitoring by the EC,the campaign finance regime has failed to achieve any of these objectives. The laws on campaign finance are only honoured in the breach. A lawmaker begins a career in Parliament and state assemblies by breaking the law.

Limiting campaign finance is a good idea that has gone bad. The impulse of the EC to create a level playing field and control everything possible needs serious reconsideration. The commission allows only 14 days of official campaigning,which ends 48 hours before polling closes. More than half of India’s parliamentary constituencies are larger than 3,900 sq km,have more than 1,250 polling stations,and average around 14 lakh electorates (or 20 lakh population). In many constituencies,reaching out to all voters in 14 days poses a significant logistical challenge. These challenges are compounded by restrictions on the number of vehicles a candidate can use during campaigning.

Advertisement

In such a restrictive campaign environment,how can a candidate or party mobilise voters? Candidates use electronic and print media,hire an army of people or rely on middlemen to reach out to voters. The EC allocates free access time in state-owned media only to national and recognised state parties based on the performance of the party in the previous election. For the upcoming state assembly elections in Gujarat,the time allocations through Prasar Bharati are as follows: BJP 191 minutes; Congress 161 minutes; BSP 53 minutes; NCP 48 minutes; and CPI and CPM 45 minutes each. This allocation clearly favours the incumbent party and other large parties. Given the ubiquity of private media,candidates and parties will use “paid news” to reach as many voters as they can in the limited time they have.

The EC allows the maximum expenditure of Rs 40 lakh (the limit before 2011 was only Rs 25 lakh) by a candidate and his supporters in a Lok Sabha constituency. Is this enough to reach voters in large constituencies? To effectively mobilise voters in a Lok Sabha constituency,a candidate would need an organisation of not less than 2,500 people (at least two people for every 1,000 voters or per polling station). Even if a candidate decides to pay the current minimum wage for agricultural labourers in the state of Gujarat (Rs 120 a day),the candidate would end up exceeding the expenditure limit. Then,of course,there are other costs,like skyrocketing petrol prices,campaign materials,etc. It should be no surprise,then,when serious contenders for Lok Sabha in Uttar Pradesh inform us that the cost of running a campaign is Rs 4-5 crore. Candidates competing in England for the British parliament can spend up to approximately Rs 7 crore in a constituency with a greater local-level media penetration that has an average area of less than 375 sq km (one-tenth of a Lok Sabha seat in India) and average electorate size of 70,394 (one-twentieth of a Lok Sabha seat).

Candidates are also hampered in their efforts to mobilise voters because of the weak party organisations in local areas. In many polling booths,parties are unable to appoint polling booth agents. Without an effective party organisation at the local level,candidates turn to middlemen in politics or political fixers to mobilise votes in a short period of time. These “fixers” or “brokers” use money and patronage benefits to influence voters. This has three consequences. First,we have heard repeated incidents similar to what a government officer (and even academic researchers) working on elections told us. While monitoring incidents of vote-buying in a recent state assembly election,voters in a constituency asked the officer,“Koi neta to abhi aaye nahi,aap aaye to aap hi kuch paise dete jao (No politician has yet campaigned in our locality,as you are here,you should give us some money).” The second and more pernicious consequence of the reliance on the networks of middlemen is that,once elected,politicians are beholden to these brokers. The brokers or fixers expect access to government offices,contracts,and disbursements,etc. This sets in place a well institutionalised system for the subversion of rules and norms to favour those connected to politicians. Third,incumbents empowered with funds,in the form of MPLADS and MLALADS,are favoured since they can grease the machine of brokers tied to them. All this leads to more corruption.

Advertisement

India is no exception here. Countries with expenditure limits in election campaigns are doing poorly on Transparency International’s corruption perception index. Australia,Japan,Germany and the United States have no campaign expenditure limit,and rank low on the index. On the other hand,countries like Argentina,Brazil,India and South Africa have campaign expenditure limits and rank poorly on the corruption index.

The financing of election campaigns in India needs more transparency. In the US,business houses donate huge sums of money during political campaigns. These donations are made to influence policies that are favourable to industry-wide groups. Fundraising events occur in full public glare (as during the current presidential election campaign). In India,on the other hand,corporate contributions are opaque as the EC limits campaign contributions. Political donations in India thus become deals (bribes) to get individualised benefits like favourable allocation of 2G spectrum,coal blocks,real estate contracts to select business houses at lower prices. Politicians in India use their time in office to return favours to these business houses on an individual basis.

Given all this,one should not be surprised by two things. First,that during the 2009 general elections,candidates with financial assets of less than Rs 10 lakh had a less than one per cent chance of winning,while candidates worth Rs 50 crore or above had a 33 per cent chance of winning. Second,analyses of the net worth of politicians before they take office and after they have been in office suggest that being a politician is more lucrative than owning gold or investing in the Sensex.

Pradeep chhibber and Rahul Verma are at the Travers Department of Political Science,University of California,Berkeley