Political Diary

New Delhi, 16 April 2011

Electoral Reforms

SYSTEM AGAINST BALLOT

By Poonam I Kaushish

Paisa phenko gaddi pakaro. This seems to be the tour de force of candidates in the ongoing five State Assembly elections. Election Commission or no Election Commission. How does it matter if Rs 60 crores has been seized in Tamil Nadu, Rs 25 crores in Kerala, Rs 15 crores in West Bengal, Rs 10 crores in Assam et al. This is only chiller. After all darlings, elections’ is the business of amassing wealth: Spend Rs 100 make Rs 10000. Money hai toh paisa aur power hai!    

Sadly, the ongoing election nautanki once again underscores all that ails India. Polls are not about governance, accountability and transparency or ideology. It’s all about choosing the lesser evil. Not about getting the right man for the right job. Whereby, our “professional” netagan, our feudal lords continue to hold the country to ransom playing ducks and drakes with its life, like the Pindaris of yester centuries.

Clearly, with over 50 per cent of the electorate between 18-30 years, a middle-class numbering almost 50 million and the country boasting of over 70 per cent literacy rate, the time has come for introducing radical electoral reforms as polls per se are the root cause of corruption.. Enough is enough. It is high time we evolve a programme to secure good, clean and truly democratic representation in Parliament and the State Assemblies.

Where should a beginning be made and who should cast the first stone? States Chief Election Commissioner Quraishi, “The two most important issues are how to stop criminals from entering the electoral fray and how to make election funding transparent. Someone who has spent Rs 2 crore in fighting elections, much beyond the permitted limit, will surely try to earn ten times more once elected. He will try to recover and repay the cost. This is how corruption begins."

This is not all. If one Party puts up a dacoit the other Party finds a bigger criminal with winning ability. If a rich man is contesting the polls, the other Party finds a candidate with matching money power. Think. In 2004 elections, 18% of the MPs had a criminal background.

In the 2006 Bihar and 2007 UP elections it was over 39%. The number has increased manifold in the present Lok Sabha and the on-going Assembly polls. Thanks to our antiquated laws whereby a person is innocent till held guilty. Which never happens as a MP or MLA can file an appeal or a revision petition. An endless exercise given the judicial process.

The mockery of the law by the politicians is apparent. Criminals like Pappu Yadav, Shahbuddin, Anand Mohan, DP Yadav etc run campaigns from jail and get elected. Undoubtedly, stringent measures are required. Criminals who have been charge-sheeted should be barred from standing for elections.

On the issue of political funding, donations to all parties should be made by cheques and their accounts approved by auditors who are backed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The Representation of People Act needs to be amended to allow the EC to question the Parties and candidates on their expenses and to take action on the de-registration of a Party/ candidate when any mismanagement or violation is found.

Another good idea is to replace the present system of “first-past-the-post” with proportional representation. Whereby a person is declared winner only if he polls over 50 per cent of the votes cast. Today, we have an absurd situation wherein a candidate wins the election by securing just 30-35 per cent of the total number of votes polled. Logically, he cannot be deemed to be a choice of the majority of the electorate. To overcome this limitation, the first-past-the-post system should be replaced with a two-stage electoral process.

In this, a second round of election would be held between the top two candidates who polled the highest number of votes. In round two, the candidate who gets more than 51 per cent of the total votes polled in the second round is declared the winner. A good way to end vote-bank politics. Nepal has achieved success in this manner.

Yet another proposal is the power to reject all candidates as not good enough. All it would take is a press of the button “None of the Above” at the end of the list on the electronic voting machine. If introduced, this would motivate even those voters to vote, who do not vote in the absence of a right candidate.

Though Rule 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 states that citizens have the option to choose `none of the above', they can only record their views in a register. Not in the EVM. Arguably, if a voter has a right to vote, he should also have the right not to vote.

Recall, the Election Commission has been pursuing this idea with the Government for the last 11 years. It has sought the Government clearance because the proposal needed an amendment to the Representation of People Act 1951. Without success. The Commission had recommended that the law should be amended to specially provide for negative/neutral voting. For this purpose, Rules 22 and 49B of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 be suitably amended.

Not only that. An election would be declared null and void and a fresh poll ordered if the maximum votes polled rejected all the candidates. Adding insult to injury, those candidates rejected in the earlier round would be barred from contesting the re-poll even though the “none of the above” button would not be there.

Some reformers have advocated the concept of negative voting. Simply put, a voter should not only vote for a candidate of his or her choice but also simultaneously veto candidates unacceptable to him or her. The negative votes polled by a particular candidate would then be deducted from his tally at the counting and the person with the largest vote declared elected.

Along with negative voting, voices have been raised over the citizens’ right to recall their non-functional and incompetent netas. Interestingly, Jayprakash Narayan wanted the right to recall introduced in the Constitution. This would act like the Damocles sword over the MPs and MLAs and make them accountable to their voters. It would enable the people to assert themselves as the masters, recall candidates found wanting and elect others in their place. In fact, in 2003 a village in Madhya Pradesh wanted a referendum held midway. Dissatisfied with their Panchayat mukhiya, the villagers demanded his removal and the right to elect another in his place.

What next? As money and muscle become the torchbearers of elections, we need to be resolute and not allow our shameless, self-serving netas to push the country more and more towards a feudal democracy. Political accountability is paramount. The voter must decide on who stands for unity, integrity and stability and who does not.

But at the same time, we have to acknowledge two basic truths. People get the Government they deserve. Moreover, we need to realize are own responsibility and learn from past experience. We must not allow ourselves to be taken for granted any more. After all, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. What gives? ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)