The enormous scale on which money was spent this year on the US presidential elections reminds one that, despite the disparity in resources, things are no better in India. Donors expect favours from the successful candidate, from ambassadorships to influence over policy. India’s Chief Election Commissioner, Nasim Zaidi, sounded the alarm early this month and suggested specific measures to curb “pay-to-play” practices during elections.
However, the Election Commission baulked at the idea of state funding for candidates’ election expenses. An official said that it would require a lot of time and effort to bring about a consensus on the proposal and to settle the details.
As far back as September 1980, a former Chief Election Commissioner, S.L. Shakdhar, said in a speech: “The state should be responsible for financing candidates’ election expenses. The legitimate election expenses of candidates should be progressively shifted to and borne by the state. It is not difficult to lay down norms for identifying the areas and the quantum of financial assistance on the basis of the poll performance of political parties at an election”.
“Such assistance may take the form of supply of paper and electoral rolls, the printing of a limited number of posters, supply of petrol and diesel coupons for a restricted number of vehicles, provision of postage, and payments to polling agents and other personnel.”
“I believe that if an election fund of, say, Rs 100 crores for a period of five years is created initially, it will take care not only of government expenses on the conduct of elections but also of the expenses incurred by the candidates and political parties.” The idea of state help in specific respects caught on.
On December 2, 2016, the Union minister for commerce and industry, Nirmala Sitharaman, made an earnest plea for state-funded polls and urged the Election Commission to go over the proposal in detail.
The government set up a committee specifically on state funding, headed by the leader of the Communist Party of India, Indrajit Gupta. It recommended partial state funding and creation of a state fund with a reserve of Rs 6 billion. It also recommended that, as a first step, only part of the financial burden of political parties may be shifted to the state. State subvention may be given only in kind, in the form of certain facilities to the recognised political parties and their candidates.
The law commission endorsed the committee’s recommendations. On the principle of state funding itself, the law commission emphasised a vital precondition: democratic governance of political parties. Party elections are a mere formality. It is the dominant leaders or cabals who oversee the electoral process and determine its outcome. Public money should not be spent to line their pockets.
The solution lies in adapting a German statute. The Parteiengesetz, German law on political parties, provides for state funding, but only as part of a scheme whose core is democratic administration of political parties. It comprises 41 articles divided into seven chapters, dealing with “internal organisation”; “nomination of candidates for election”; “public financing” (reimbursement of election campaign expenses); and “presentation of accounts”. It obligates political parties to maintain a written Constitution, rules and programmes. The rights of members are defined. Free elections to party organs are mandatory.
As I wrote in a previous article, “The executive committee must be elected at least every second calendar year. The party executive and representatives to assemblies of delegates must be elected by secret ballot. Likewise, party candidates for election to parliament must be elected by secret ballot by the party. Besides, Section 21 of the related federal electoral law lays down that a party’s candidate must be elected in an assembly of party members in his constituency.” It is thus not open to cabals or party bosses to handpick candidates for election to legislatures.
Chapter VI of the Parteiengesetz imposes an obligation to publish audited accounts. Article 23, Para 1 demands: “The executive committee of the party shall make a public statement of the sources and the expenditure of funds received by its party within a calendar/ accounting year as well as of the assets of the party in a statement of accounts.” It is in this context that Chapter IV provides for the reimbursement of campaign expenses.
The act also requires political parties to submit their audited accounts to the Speaker of the Lower House of Parliament who, after scrutiny, presents them to the House. It is he, not the government, who sanctions money for the parties. They submit copies of their Constitution and programmes to a federal returning officer. It is, of course, vital to the success of the scheme that the Speaker is an independent figure and not a party hack.
The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.
By arrangement with Dawn
