Opinion Karat vs Mamata

Today,the Trinamool is in the company of Maoists,it adds. Prakash Karat also writes that “so-called pariborton would lead to establishing the rule of the dominant classes and vested interests in the rural areas… This attack on the Left is,in actual terms,a class attack aimed… against the common people and the gains that they have achieved. The dislodging of the Left Front government is meant to facilitate the rollback of the relations in land which has been in favour of the poor peasants and rural poor.”

There is also mention of her support to Gorkhaland. Karat says the Trinamool is providing support and sustenance to ethnic,religious and caste identities,whether it is the Gorkhaland movement or the demand for Kamtapuri.

Bardhan vs Mamata

In an article in his party’s New Age,CPI General Secretary A.B. Bardhan on the other hand admits that Mamata managed to work up a “large following among sections of the people utilising certain errors and failures of the (Left) government.” He says the Left forces in West Bengal have “introspected,identified their mistakes,self-critically reviewed their own style of work,and resolved determinedly to correct them and reforge their links with the masses.”

Bardhan also attacks Mamata bitterly. He says that “to give her opposition a cutting edge she has had no scruples in joining hands with the Maoists,all shades of separatists and divisive forces to create a reign of terror and political instability in the state.”

Bardhan notes that the “motley combination of TMC,Congress,Maoists and a crowd of groups and intellectuals with Mamata Banerjee as their head”,which speaks of ushering in a change in Bengal,has not been able to come forward with a political manifesto or even a simple declaration about what changes they visualise. “All of us have seen her management of the railways portfolio. The railways are near bankruptcy today. She is trying to persuade the finance minister to bail her out and double the budgetary allocation this year. If this be a sample of her administrative skills,what can those people expect who wish to see her in the chief minister’s chair?” he asks.

Transparency,not funding

“It is welcome that the government has committed itself to reform political funding. But the thinking,in terms of state funding of elections,is flawed,” an article in New Age said,discussing one of the mandates given to a recently-formed anti-corruption GoM. Over a decade ago,a parliamentary committee headed by CPI veteran Indrajit Gupta made a strong case for partial state funding of elections.

The article argues that the “basic goal in political funding reform should be to achieve complete transparency as to how much parties and politicians spend and how they finance that spending. Reform of political funding is necessary,even if not sufficient,to tackle corruption.”

It points out that politics is not just elections,as a political party has to keep functioning in between elections. “Its leaders keep travelling,its offices run,its full-time workers have to be paid,its meetings,conventions,etc,cost money. All this cannot be funded by the state… For the state to try and fund even a portion of the election expenses of recognised political parties would discriminate against new entrants and restrict competition… State funding of elections is not the answer.”

It says parties can mobilise funds from patrons and well-wishers ,but should make that information public. Besides,political expenditure has to be monitored from the ground up. “In every locality,explicit political activity can be recorded on a website,backed with photographs from ubiquitous cell phone cameras. Every party or politician must record,alongside,how much was spent on that activity and where that money came from… This must be open to scrutiny and challenge by rival political parties and voluntary watchdog groups.”