|
Declaration Divide
Were the
political parties justified in their united attempt to overturn the EC order
on disclosure of their criminal antecedents and assets? India Today's Lakshmi
Iyer delves into the ongoing debate.
It
was a rare show unity that leaders of 21 political parties put up at an
all-party meeting on July 8. Rejecting the Election Commission's June
28 order that required candidates to declare their criminal antecedents
if any, and, assets and liabilities, the parties urged the Government
to bring a new legislation to supercede the order.
Speed was of utmost importance. The political class wanted to overturn
the EC order at any cost before nominations will be filed for a Rajya
Sabha by-election in Maharashtra and vice-presidential election later
this month.
A Delhi-based hotelier, who wanted to contest the by-election on a Nationalist
Congress Party ticket, became a casualty of the new norm. Since three
cases were pending against him, the NCP dithered nominating him. The Government,
of course, could have overruled the EC order through an ordinance. But
since the monsoon session of Parliament was beginning on July 15, it promised
to have the new law in place within a week.
Primarily, political parties tackled the EC order with moral indignation.
They felt the commission, though acting on the Supreme Court directive,
had transgressed into legislative area. The core of their argument was
that Parliament was supreme and it alone had the power to alter terms
and conditions for contesting elections by amending the Representation
of People's Act, 1951.
Politicians see electoral reforms as a means to distrust them.
BJP spokesman Arun Jaitley says it was merely fashionable to think politicians
are corrupt. "But do you know 50 per cent of
the MPs do not possess cars ?," he asks. The distrust of the political
class demonstrates anti-democratic tendencies, declares
Congress spokesman S. Jaipal Reddy. "The middle class, which is the
most corrupt class is obsessed with corruption of the political class,"
says one opposition MP.
While no political party had problems about disclosing criminal
antecedents, both the Congress and the BJP—which have savoured power
at the Centre as well as in the states—raised serious objections
to disclosing assets and liabilities. The Congress filed an intervention
application pleading that the disclosure of assets violated the right
to privacy of individuals. Even the impeccable Rajya Sabha leader of the
Opposition, Dr Manmohan Singh, saw no reason why voters should have details
of jewellery his wife possessed. Jaitley felt the disclosure of assets
and liabilities would work to the disadvantage of those who were clean
and honest. Dishonest politicians would anyway hold benami assets.
Significantly, political parties that represented the Mandal class
objected to disclosing educational details. Even though neither
the Supreme Court nor the EC had specified any education criteria, political
leaders felt education was not relevant to representative democracy. "A
university degree does not impart any special ability to lead masses,"
maintains D.P. Yadav of the Janata Dal (United). Besides education criteria
militated against the right to universal suffrage. For anyone eligible
to vote is eligible to contest for an elective post.
In all this rigmarole, does it seem politicians are obfuscating the electoral
reforms issue? Pro-democracy activists thinks so. They feel winnabilitly
is more important to political parties, then criminal background of candidates.
That is why, when the EC asks them to disclose criminal record / assets
and liabilities, politicians assert that they alone have the right to
determine how much information about themselves they should make public.
"It is not Parliament but the people of India who are supreme,"
asserts Profesor Trilochan Sastry, the prime mover behind the
Association for Democratic Reforms that triumphantly litigated
for voters' right to information.
Citing the US example, he points out that the Federal Election
Commission scans nomination papers and puts them on the internet. "It
contains details like the candidates' income tax returns, assets, liabilities
and sources of funding for fighting the
election. In India the nomination paper currently has name,
fathers/husbands name, address, voter registration number, and
name of the party to which the candidate belongs. That is all."
He admits that the 11 faculty and alumni of the Indian Institute
of Management, Ahmedabad, who moved the court for greater
disclosure had not sought details of assets and education details
of candidates in their original writ petition filed in the Delhi
High Court. "We just wanted voters to know about any criminal
antecedents before voting ."
But does such knowledge influence voting considering the majority of voters
are unlettered? Certainly. Hyderabad-based Dr Jayprakash Narayan of the
Lok Satta points out that his 1999 campaign to keep criminals out of the
fray in Andhra Pradesh has begun to show results. "Political parties
themselves are now hesitating to field criminals. From the state legislatures,
it has percolated to panchayati raj institutions. Our campaign blocked
election of a person with criminal background as president of the Kurnool
Zilla Parishad."
Social activist L.C. Jain points out that politicians have evaded
accountability for a long time. In the past 25 years, the
Representation of People's Act has not been amended. He recalls how in
1977 Janata Party MPs themselves flouted a Jaiprakash
Naryanan's administered pledge to clean up public life. This
included declaring assets. Of the 275 MPs, only 40 filed such
declarations at the party office.
Jain recalls how Jawaharlal Nehru led the first Parliament to
expel H.G. Mudgal for his dealings with the Bombay Bullion
Association which included canvassing support for it in
Parliament in return for some alleged financial and other
business advantages. Half a century later, political parties have no compunction
in sending industrialists to the Rajya Sabha almost as a matter of rule.
Jain's take on the politicians' fuss about declaring their educational
details is interesting. "If class
IV employees have to state their education, why should MPs/ MLAs be exempted."
Political
scientist Yogendra Yadav describes the tug of war
between the political class and the pro-democracy activists as a
struggle between political cartel versus social club. "It is all
about gate-keeping. Disclosures are useful but not central to
electoral reforms," he says.
Pro-democracy
activists are, of course, undeterred by the
determination of the political class to overturn their gains in
the court of law. Twenty-two organisations have formed a "national
campaign for electoral reforms" to persuade political parties to
clean the augean stable.
|
|
|
|
|
