By K Raveendran
The Narendra Modi government’s electoral bond scheme has been thrown out of the window by the Supreme Court. That is certainly good riddance to an obnoxious and highly abused scheme. But in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling, a stark reality emerges – the convoluted landscape of political financing in India that requires a thorough overhaul.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna in his separate judgment has suggested a revisit the electoral trust system with new guidelines as an alternative. But on closer scrutiny, that would appear to be another futile exercise. The electoral trust scheme, already found wanting in many respects before the Modi government’s treacherous electoral bonds entered the scene and held forth, has been tried, tested and found inadequate. The suggested antidote thus fails to address the chronic issues that continue to plague India’s electoral funding. This prompts a compelling question: Is it not time to usher in a new era of state-funded elections that prioritizes transparency and levels the playing field for all contenders?
At the heart of the matter lies the persistent lack of transparency that shrouds the origins of political funds within the electoral trust system. This opacity has not escaped attention and has led to calls for the disclosure of the identities of contributors to electoral trusts becomes imperative in an age where citizens demand accountability and integrity in the exercise of their democratic right.
In fact, the electoral trust system’s Achilles’ heel is its lack of obligation to disclose the names of contributors. This glaring omission not only robs citizens of the power to make informed choices but also raises the spectre of potential conflicts of interest. Transparency International India, a stalwart in the battle against corruption, emphasizes that disclosure is the linchpin in fortifying democratic principles and preventing the erosion of public trust.
While electoral trusts were designed to streamline political funding, they constitute only a fraction of the financial behemoth that sustains political parties. Private donations, corporate sponsorships, and undisclosed contributions remain significant funding streams, perpetuating an uneven playing field that tilts the scene in favour of the financially endowed. Dr. Jagdeep Chhokar, a co-founder of Association of Democratic Reforms, has unearthed the impact of financial muscle on political outcomes, unveiling a stark reality where wealth, not merit, often dictates electoral success.
Compounding the conundrum is the sheer number of political parties in India, presenting a formidable challenge for electoral trusts to ensure fair resource distribution. Dr. Trilochan Sastry, another luminary in the ADR camp, underscores the necessity for systemic reforms in the face of a multitude of political entities with diverse funding dynamics.
Money’s pernicious influence extends beyond the logistics of campaigns to the very heart of candidate selection. Financial prowess has been found to bestows substantial advantage upon well-funded candidates. This stark reality perpetuates a cycle of inequality within the political arena, where innovative ideas and merit often take a back seat to monetary might.
Studies have revealed the direct and indirect influence of money on electoral politics. The ability of a company to influence the electoral process through political contributions is much higher when compared to that of an individual. A company has a much graver influence on the political process, both in terms of the quantum of money contributed to political parties and the purpose of making such contributions. Contributions made by individuals have a degree of support or affiliation to a political association. However, contributions made by companies are purely business transactions, made with the intent of securing benefits in return. We have been seeing this in action dramatically in recent times.
In the light of the inadequacies in both the electoral bond and electoral trust schemes, the clarion call for a paradigm shift in state-funded elections becomes resonant. A robust state funding mechanism, fortified with stringent disclosure requirements, contribution limits, and vigilant oversight, emerges as the antidote to the malaise afflicting India’s electoral financing system. The voices of civil society organizations, legal luminaries, and political analysts must coalesce in a resounding chorus, demanding a transparent and inclusive electoral funding system that aligns with the democratic ethos.
A bold and comprehensive reform agenda is what is needed, one that not only addresses the past shortcomings but also paves the way for a future where political funding is a beacon of transparency and fairness. The time has come for a new narrative in Indian electoral politics – one that places the power back in the hands of the people and rejuvenates the spirit of a robust and resilient democracy. (IPA Service)
The post Electoral Funding Quagmire: No Real Progress Possible With Peripheral Changes first appeared on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.
