Opinion Putting paid to ‘paid news’

Without holding a brief for the EC,one must recognise that the ambit of the action that the EC can take is limited by judicial review.

The next candidate for taking action is the judiciary. While recognising that the higher judiciary does not seem to have covered itself in glory recently, particularly in the areas of the RTI and judicial appointments,some of its past actions have indeed been progressive. One such issue is election expenses and Section 77 of the RP Act which requires candidates to keep their election expenses within a prescribed limit. 

In 1974,despite the SC ruling that “expenditure incurred by friends and supporters directly in connection with the election of the candidate” should be considered as expenditure incurred by the candidate,Parliament amended the law by inserting Explanation 1 in subsection (1) of Section 77,which nullified the SC judgment. It was amended again in 2003,to be replaced by even more fuzzy provisions.

Why all this rigmarole? Because it is convenient and comfortable to have a system which can be manipulated. Big money is brought into the electoral process forcing the SC to observe that even the “fig leaf to hide the reality” of the impact of big money on the outcome of elections has been removed. Subsequently,the provisions of the RP Act and the Income Tax Act are used to confuse,and sometimes browbeat,the tax authorities.

If the EC and the judiciary are hemmed in,who else is left for doing something concrete to deal with “paid news”? The obvious answer is — the takers and the givers of money,namely,the media and the political class.

The media,who rightly claim that a free press is essential for a democratic society,need to remember that credibility and integrity are not divisible or negotiable. If they do not take steps to set their own house in order,the political establishment would be happy to do it for them,and then the media will shout for freedom of the press. Also,the commoditisation of news,chasing circulation figures and advertising revenues and “building brands” for news media as if these are consumable products,are straws in the wind which might move the general public in the direction of the same disdain for the media that exits in the public psyche today about politicians.

The observation of Rajagopalachari to the editor of The Statesman when the former was the Governor of West Bengal: “A Government is protected by the vigilant care of the press. But who can look after the press except the conscience of the editor?” is worth heeding by media-owners and journalists.

That leaves us with the second participant in the act: the political class,which pays the money. It is clear that election expenditure declared by candidates is almost farcical. While there is a constant clamour by politicians and political parties that election expenses have become very high,the expenses declared by candidates who contest elections present a very different picture. Data for the 2009 Lok Sabha election shows that only four out of 6753 candidates exceeded the prescribed limit and only 30 spent between 90 to 100 per cent of the limit. The average expenditure was between 50-55 per cent of the limit,between Rs.12.5 and 13.75 lakhs against the limit of Rs.25 lakhs. Obviously,there is something seriously wrong with the whole process.

This situation is likely to continue as long as political parties are run as corporate houses and elections are contested as campaigns to be won at any cost,including that of ideology. Seemingly,the pressures of competitive electoral politics prevent parties from coming together to reform themselves and the system. One solution was suggested by the Law Commission of India in 1999. In its 170th report on electoral reforms it said: “If democracy and accountability constitute the core of our constitutional system,the same concepts must also apply to and bind the political parties which are integral to parliamentary democracy. It is the political parties that form the government,man the Parliament and run the governance of the country. It is therefore necessary to introduce internal democracy,financial transparency and accountability in the working of the political parties. A political party which does not respect democratic principles in its internal working cannot be expected to respect those principles in the governance of the country. It cannot be dictatorship internally and democratic in its functioning outside”.

This one step,of introducing internal democracy and financial transparency in party functioning,will perhaps take care of a lot of ills that plague our democracy today. But the political establishment will not do it of its own free will. But persistent and relentless pressure from all sides — the public,the media — could make it move in the right direction.

The writer was a professor and former dean of IIM,Ahmedabad