As India completes its 17th general election in 70 years, it is an occasion to answer pessimists, who have doubted the vibrancy of India’s democracy. When the venerable Economist had put India in the `flawed democracy’ category in 2018, I had suggested that the foundations of Indian democracy run much deeper than what the New Delhi-centric media may portray. &nbsp;&nbsp;

One of the six criteria for that assessment was the country’s electoral system. A look at the electoral process of 2019, however, does give some cause for worry. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The efficacy of an electoral system is determined by how free and fair they are. In other words, how has the well- empowered Election Commission of India (ECI) functioned during the course of the recently-concluded elections? &nbsp;

The ECI can be credited with introducing improvements in the conduct of general election and more than 100 Assembly polls. But it is expected to function without any pressure, including from the incumbent government. Since each poll is unique and the chief election commissioners (CECs) are likely to be different, ECI’s performance may not be uniform. CEC TN Seshan, for example, was remembered as a benchmark for establishing the commission’s independence and neutrality. Even after 29 years, Seshan is remembered as India’s most effective CEC. He is seen as someone who upheld the special stature and unique potential of the ECI to streamline the poll process. Going by the concerns and complaints against the commission’s impartiality in 2019, it could perhaps not be said that it passed all the tests, particularly on the fairness criteria. &nbsp;

Justifiable doubts have been raised about its independence. Even the Supreme Court had to remind the commission midway through the elections, about its powers. Another criteria was whether there was a level-playing field for voters and recognised parties to contest and campaign. If complaints against one leader with a self-declared criminal record are acted upon promptly by the ECI at the expense of another, who is in power in the same state, the message of fair play takes a beating. &nbsp; &nbsp;

The ECI was also silent on the many violations of the Model Code of Conduct. Just when proactive initiatives were needed to safeguard the status of the ECI, the commission lost its voice.

Once the poll notification comes into play, it is the responsibility of the ECI to ensure that the code applies to all candidates and parties equally and not at the discretion of the commission. &nbsp;

None of the eight points in the Model Code of Conduct were adhered to by most leaders and parties, and yet the ECI did little except to issue a notice. &nbsp;

Campaign civility was the biggest casualty in these elections. Never before has a poll campaign led to so much animosity; yet the ECI preferred to opt in for a “wait and watch” policy. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The idea of a chief election commissioner and two commissioners was to add to the efficiency of the ECI. In reality, there was no evidence of such a thing happening. The two election commissioners never gave the impression of sharing any responsibility, or maybe were just plainly ignored.

The time taken to decide contentious issues had put the ECI’s objectivity to test. In fact, the very decision of seven-phase polling, where one has to wait for 43 days to know who is elected, itself is flawed. &nbsp; &nbsp;

Even more alarming was the situation in a state going to Assembly elections. The fact that the state had to function for 43 days, virtually without a government, was overlooked by the ECI.

When government departments and agencies like the income tax, enforcement directorate and the intelligence bureau raided the homes of only those opposed to the government during the poll process, the ECI merely stood by. When questioned, all it could do was to ask the agencies to keep it informed. It is of little surprise that the agencies continued with their own agenda, ignoring the ECI. &nbsp;

The ECI cannot be treated like another government agency. Despite so many of the ECI’s ‘expenditure observers’, there was little that the commission did to curb increased poll expenditure. The cash, gold and liquor confiscated was larger than the 2014 general election levels. &nbsp;

With grapevine about 2019 being the most expensive elections ever, no serious steps were taken to cut down expenses, except to cancel a poll in one Tamil Nadu seat. No new ECI initiative to reduce campaign costs were evident. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Of course, the entire blame cannot be placed at the doorsteps of the ECI, as political parties, news media, and the civil society together are responsible for the state of affairs.

But ultimately, the ECI has to take the lead. It took the initiative in one or two instances, but only when a number of former senior bureaucrats and ex-Army men wrote to the President of India, criticising ECI’s rather submissive postures. &nbsp;

The present ECI, however, needs to be commended for continuing to facilitate ADR analysis on the affidavits of candidates, so as to put critical information about them in the public domain.

No wonder the Supreme Court asked the ECI to ensure that candidates put up information about their criminal antecedents in the public domain during the campaign, more than once. It is another matter that hardly a few followed it.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-revealing-a-vibrant-democracy-2751753">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

As India completes its 17th general election in 70 years, it is an occasion to answer pessimists, who have doubted the vibrancy of India’s democracy. When the venerable Economist had put India in the `flawed democracy’ category in 2018, I had suggested that the foundations of Indian democracy run much deeper than what the New Delhi-centric media may portray.

As India completes its 17th general election in 70 years, it is an occasion to answer pessimists, who have doubted the vibrancy of India’s democracy. When the venerable Economist had put India in the `flawed democracy’ category in 2018, I had suggested that the foundations of Indian democracy run much deeper than what the New Delhi-centric media may portray. One of the six criteria for that assessment was the country’s electoral system. A look at the electoral process of 2019, however, does give some cause for worry. The efficacy of an electoral system is determined by how free and fair they are. In other words, how has the well- empowered Election Commission of India (ECI) functioned during the course of the recently-concluded elections? The ECI can be credited with introducing improvements in the conduct of general election and more than 100 Assembly polls. But it is expected to function without any pressure, including from the incumbent government. Since each poll is unique and the chief election commissioners (CECs) are likely to be different, ECI’s performance may not be uniform. CEC TN Seshan, for example, was remembered as a benchmark for establishing the commission’s independence and neutrality. Even after 29 years, Seshan is remembered as India’s most effective CEC. He is seen as someone who upheld the special stature and unique potential of the ECI to streamline the poll process. Going by the concerns and complaints against the commission’s impartiality in 2019, it could perhaps not be said that it passed all the tests, particularly on the fairness criteria. Justifiable doubts have been raised about its independence. Even the Supreme Court had to remind the commission midway through the elections, about its powers. Another criteria was whether there was a level-playing field for voters and recognised parties to contest and campaign. If complaints against one leader with a self-declared criminal record are acted upon promptly by the ECI at the expense of another, who is in power in the same state, the message of fair play takes a beating. The ECI was also silent on the many violations of the Model Code of Conduct. Just when proactive initiatives were needed to safeguard the status of the ECI, the commission lost its voice. Once the poll notification comes into play, it is the responsibility of the ECI to ensure that the code applies to all candidates and parties equally and not at the discretion of the commission. None of the eight points in the Model Code of Conduct were adhered to by most leaders and parties, and yet the ECI did little except to issue a notice. Campaign civility was the biggest casualty in these elections. Never before has a poll campaign led to so much animosity; yet the ECI preferred to opt in for a “wait and watch” policy. The idea of a chief election commissioner and two commissioners was to add to the efficiency of the ECI. In reality, there was no evidence of such a thing happening. The two election commissioners never gave the impression of sharing any responsibility, or maybe were just plainly ignored. The time taken to decide contentious issues had put the ECI’s objectivity to test. In fact, the very decision of seven-phase polling, where one has to wait for 43 days to know who is elected, itself is flawed. Even more alarming was the situation in a state going to Assembly elections. The fact that the state had to function for 43 days, virtually without a government, was overlooked by the ECI. When government departments and agencies like the income tax, enforcement directorate and the intelligence bureau raided the homes of only those opposed to the government during the poll process, the ECI merely stood by. When questioned, all it could do was to ask the agencies to keep it informed. It is of little surprise that the agencies continued with their own agenda, ignoring the ECI. The ECI cannot be treated like another government agency. Despite so many of the ECI’s ‘expenditure observers’, there was little that the commission did to curb increased poll expenditure. The cash, gold and liquor confiscated was larger than the 2014 general election levels. With grapevine about 2019 being the most expensive elections ever, no serious steps were taken to cut down expenses, except to cancel a poll in one Tamil Nadu seat. No new ECI initiative to reduce campaign costs were evident. Of course, the entire blame cannot be placed at the doorsteps of the ECI, as political parties, news media, and the civil society together are responsible for the state of affairs. But ultimately, the ECI has to take the lead. It took the initiative in one or two instances, but only when a number of former senior bureaucrats and ex-Army men wrote to the President of India, criticising ECI’s rather submissive postures. The present ECI, however, needs to be commended for continuing to facilitate ADR analysis on the affidavits of candidates, so as to put critical information about them in the public domain. No wonder the Supreme Court asked the ECI to ensure that candidates put up information about their criminal antecedents in the public domain during the campaign, more than once. It is another matter that hardly a few followed it. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Revealing a vibrant democracy: Electoral reforms are the need of the hour

With two of the seven-phased 2019 general election left to go, the Election Commission (EC) has reported countrywide confiscation of cash, gold, liquor and drugs. The haul, at the last count, is valued at over Rs 5,000 crore.&nbsp;

By the time polling concludes on May 19, this figure could go up significantly. Since the announcement of the election schedule on March 10, money has been impounded in drives by the authorities. The EC figures say that cash amounting to Rs 142 crore was seized between March 11 and 25 this year, the first 15 days of the general elections being announced.

Interestingly, what is confiscated is likely to be less than five per cent of what is being spent by candidates and parties in this general election. &nbsp;These are extremely worrying trends. The total approximate expenditure in this election — as calculated by me and now being confirmed by the news media — is Rs 50,000 crore. This is arguably the largest sum of money ever spent in an election, the American presidential polls included. Yet, there is scarcely a word on the subject by any political party or leader; a subject that poses a threat to the very fundamentals of the Republic. At the same time, leaders and candidates continue to accuse each other of bribing voters.&nbsp;

The news media, particularly TV channels, have been prominently reporting the confiscations with all the imagery at their command. Based on a survey conducted during the 2009 and 2014 Lok Sabha polls, the Centre for Media Studies (CMS) had demonstrated that extravagant media coverage of the seizures heightened the expectations of the voters sky high. With more billionaires than before contesting the polls, the expectation of the money spent too has skyrocketed.

According to the Commission, with gold, silver, liquor and cash taken together at the end of the second phase, Gujarat topped with seizures worth Rs 1,000 crore, followed by Punjab and Delhi. Only a case study can tell us why Gujarat, dominated by one party, has to unleash so many lures to keep the electorate in good humour. &nbsp;

On cash confiscations alone, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Karnataka top the table. Now Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal too have joined this note-for-vote race. In Andhra Pradesh, a week before the first phase of polling on April 11, the EC had identified 116 of the 175 assembly constituencies as money guzzlers. In other states too, the Commission has shortlisted constituencies where the money is likely to play a dominant role in the elections.&nbsp;

Yet, despite EC’s expenditure observers scanning the political landscape with a fine microscope, no breakthrough in reversing this trend is evident. That so much cash, liquor, gold and silver (now even drugs) is flowing extensively in so many different directions, does not bother anyone. It is clear that the percentage of voters who are being seduced with such lures is on the increase. &nbsp;

Two major studies conducted by the CMS in 2005 and 2007 in 20 or more states, and select studies since then in every round of elections, have confirmed that the note-for-vote trend continues unabated, never mind the lip service politicians pay to wage a historic battle against corruption. The studies had indicated that cash was in distribution, irrespective of class, both in urban and the rural areas.

CMS studies on corruption over the 15 years have proved beyond any doubt that election-time expenditure of candidates is the mother of all corruption.

Without addressing this malaise, no other initiative or measure taken by the government is going to make any difference. That most — if not all — of this election money remains unaccounted, is of no concern to India’s political parties and their leaders. On the contrary, they seem to like it. &nbsp;&nbsp;

There is another, larger issue at stake here. Despite such intense campaigning by candidates and parties, whirlwind visits and public meetings of top leaders and saturation media coverage, why do contestants still have to rely on enticements and cash doles? If politicians genuinely believed that their campaigns motivated voters, they would not be throwing away money like this.

They might as well bid for votes and let the richest among them win! After all, that is where things are coming down to. It is also likely that our leaders secretly believe that money is more important than controversies, personal accusations and irrelevant rhetoric.

In this particular paradigm, it is difficult to see better sense prevail. It is also ambitious to expect an elected public representative who can strengthen democracy and represent peoples’ concerns in an effective manner. &nbsp; 
 
The 2019 Lok Sabha polls will go down as a watershed election. Quid pro quo has become the norm, with corporates and businesses becoming the major source of electoral funding.&nbsp;

Citizen or voter contribution to candidates and parties is no longer sought. The question is are we even aware of this change and its implications, or even whether this shift has taken place transparently?&nbsp;

Under the circumstances, news media can play a more positive and proactive role, making a difference to reverse the present trend, if only they are determined enough to pursue it as a strategy. But if the media itself is drowned in a conflict of interest and in an obliging mood, even that would be difficult.&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-the-note-for-vote-syndrome-2747667">original article</a>)

 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.) 
&nbsp;

With two of the seven-phased 2019 general election left to go, the Election Commission (EC) has reported countrywide confiscation of cash, gold, liquor and drugs.

With two of the seven-phased 2019 general election left to go, the Election Commission (EC) has reported countrywide confiscation of cash, gold, liquor and drugs. The haul, at the last count, is valued at over Rs 5,000 crore. By the time polling concludes on May 19, this figure could go up significantly. Since the announcement of the election schedule on March 10, money has been impounded in drives by the authorities. The EC figures say that cash amounting to Rs 142 crore was seized between March 11 and 25 this year, the first 15 days of the general elections being announced. Interestingly, what is confiscated is likely to be less than five per cent of what is being spent by candidates and parties in this general election. These are extremely worrying trends. The total approximate expenditure in this election — as calculated by me and now being confirmed by the news media — is Rs 50,000 crore. This is arguably the largest sum of money ever spent in an election, the American presidential polls included. Yet, there is scarcely a word on the subject by any political party or leader; a subject that poses a threat to the very fundamentals of the Republic. At the same time, leaders and candidates continue to accuse each other of bribing voters. The news media, particularly TV channels, have been prominently reporting the confiscations with all the imagery at their command. Based on a survey conducted during the 2009 and 2014 Lok Sabha polls, the Centre for Media Studies (CMS) had demonstrated that extravagant media coverage of the seizures heightened the expectations of the voters sky high. With more billionaires than before contesting the polls, the expectation of the money spent too has skyrocketed. According to the Commission, with gold, silver, liquor and cash taken together at the end of the second phase, Gujarat topped with seizures worth Rs 1,000 crore, followed by Punjab and Delhi. Only a case study can tell us why Gujarat, dominated by one party, has to unleash so many lures to keep the electorate in good humour. On cash confiscations alone, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Karnataka top the table. Now Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal too have joined this note-for-vote race. In Andhra Pradesh, a week before the first phase of polling on April 11, the EC had identified 116 of the 175 assembly constituencies as money guzzlers. In other states too, the Commission has shortlisted constituencies where the money is likely to play a dominant role in the elections. Yet, despite EC’s expenditure observers scanning the political landscape with a fine microscope, no breakthrough in reversing this trend is evident. That so much cash, liquor, gold and silver (now even drugs) is flowing extensively in so many different directions, does not bother anyone. It is clear that the percentage of voters who are being seduced with such lures is on the increase. Two major studies conducted by the CMS in 2005 and 2007 in 20 or more states, and select studies since then in every round of elections, have confirmed that the note-for-vote trend continues unabated, never mind the lip service politicians pay to wage a historic battle against corruption. The studies had indicated that cash was in distribution, irrespective of class, both in urban and the rural areas. CMS studies on corruption over the 15 years have proved beyond any doubt that election-time expenditure of candidates is the mother of all corruption. Without addressing this malaise, no other initiative or measure taken by the government is going to make any difference. That most — if not all — of this election money remains unaccounted, is of no concern to India’s political parties and their leaders. On the contrary, they seem to like it. There is another, larger issue at stake here. Despite such intense campaigning by candidates and parties, whirlwind visits and public meetings of top leaders and saturation media coverage, why do contestants still have to rely on enticements and cash doles? If politicians genuinely believed that their campaigns motivated voters, they would not be throwing away money like this. They might as well bid for votes and let the richest among them win! After all, that is where things are coming down to. It is also likely that our leaders secretly believe that money is more important than controversies, personal accusations and irrelevant rhetoric. In this particular paradigm, it is difficult to see better sense prevail. It is also ambitious to expect an elected public representative who can strengthen democracy and represent peoples’ concerns in an effective manner. The 2019 Lok Sabha polls will go down as a watershed election. Quid pro quo has become the norm, with corporates and businesses becoming the major source of electoral funding. Citizen or voter contribution to candidates and parties is no longer sought. The question is are we even aware of this change and its implications, or even whether this shift has taken place transparently? Under the circumstances, news media can play a more positive and proactive role, making a difference to reverse the present trend, if only they are determined enough to pursue it as a strategy. But if the media itself is drowned in a conflict of interest and in an obliging mood, even that would be difficult. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

2019 Lok Sabha polls will go down as the most expensive election in the history of democracy

As we approach the halfway mark of the seven-phase 2019 elections, it is clear that this is the ugliest campaign in India’s 70-year-old electoral history. As a witness to three general elections and an activist observer or researcher in 12 others, one has never witnessed so much bad blood as this seventeenth general election.&nbsp;

This, of course, has not happened overnight. It has reached this stage because critical issues confronting the electoral system have not been addressed over the years. To ensure fair and free polls, the Election Commission of India (ECI) was given statutory status. In 1962, the idea of a ‘model code’, experimented for the first time in Kerala in 1960, was adopted. In 1979, certain restraints were introduced for the party in power. In 1991, Election Commissioner T N Seshan demonstrated what a proactive and independent ECI could do to ensure independence. There were more than a couple of parliamentary committees set up to propose electoral reforms. But with political parties becoming all-powerful, despite losing much of their sheen, electoral practices have continued to decline.&nbsp;

Take Indonesia. With a history of two decades of elections and 187 million voters, the country had a one-day national poll recently. Whereas in India, a voter has to wait for 43 days to know the winner, despite the EVMs. &nbsp;Never before has the ECI been seen to be as partisan as today and no efforts have been made to ensure that the electoral process regains credibility.&nbsp;

Instruments like the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) have outlived their utility. The irrelevance of ECI’s instruments is evident from a cursory reading of the code. Neither of the eight provisions dealing with the conduct of poll is being observed either by the candidates or the political parties in the fray. &nbsp;The first of the eight is on “general conduct” of polls. This includes a ban on “caste and communal feelings”, “criticism of candidates on the basis of unverified reports”, and “bribing of voters”. &nbsp;“No political party can use pictures of defence and military personnel”, in a poll campaign, is another MCC guideline, which has been thrown out of the window. &nbsp;

In 1979, MCC prohibited government advertisement of their ‘achievements’ and banned announcement of grants and schemes, so that the ruling party does not get an unfair advantage. The government or the ruling party “should not launch any welfare programmes, including ribbon cutting ceremonies”, said the code.&nbsp;

However, what is happening is exactly the opposite and the Supreme Court had to remind the ECI that it is not toothless. An analysis of nominations filed for assemblies and Parliament in the last few elections, according to the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), reveals that the percentage of rich, privileged and those with a criminal background, total to nearly one-third of the elected members. CMS studies on poll expenditure over the last three general elections, bring out three critical points. First, a significant per cent of voters is being paid money across the states, both in rural and urban India. Second, the expenditure being incurred by parties and candidates has been going up in such a way that only millionaires can now contest. &nbsp;Third, the campaigns are focused on lure rather than on issues and concerns. Neither is there evidence that political parties have become accountable or are taking their manifestos seriously.

Despite ECI’s hundreds of “expenditure observers,” the extent of unaccounted money confiscated is on rise with no effect on the overall poll expenditure. Only one Assembly member was ever disqualified in UP, a couple of years ago, for not submitting accounts, as required. &nbsp; 
 
There have been several parliamentary panels on poll funding in the last four decades, but their recommendations have remained only on paper. If anything, recent government measures are aimed at facilitating funding, including from foreign corporates, with no transparency. It is tempting to ask why we have not pursued a different kind of electoral campaign or evaluated the actual requirements of a contesting candidate. There is no reason why a candidate should not reach out to voters, present his or her credentials, address voters’ concerns and propose what he or she will do if elected.&nbsp;

Candidates mainly stress on the negative aspects of their rivals. Increasingly, many of them spend more time on their opponents, than on what they propose to do.&nbsp;Big changes are needed. Candidates can campaign together so that voters can make a better choice more transparently. There must be minimum joint public meetings in every constituency.

It will help bring down poll expenditure substantially. When competing candidates address voters together, they are likely to be more positive and cordial. After all, if two bitter rivals can come together in a poll alliance, why can’t opposing candidates campaign together? Unless political leaders and parties come forward to restore the sanctity of electoral practices, nothing is going to change. And unless that happens, it is difficult to expect good governance, deepen democracy and inclusive development.

It is time to relook the relevance of ECI’s code of conduct. This is not possible without the support, cooperation and participation of the news media. The judiciary needs to be consulted in repositioning the ECI. India needs an electoral shake-up as the republic enters the 75th year. &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-poll-code-nothing-really-model-about-it-2743200">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

As we approach the halfway mark of the seven-phase 2019 elections, it is clear that this is the ugliest campaign in India’s 70-year-old electoral history. As a witness to three general elections and an activist observer or researcher in 12 others, one has never witnessed so much bad blood as this seventeenth general election.

As we approach the halfway mark of the seven-phase 2019 elections, it is clear that this is the ugliest campaign in India’s 70-year-old electoral history. As a witness to three general elections and an activist observer or researcher in 12 others, one has never witnessed so much bad blood as this seventeenth general election. This, of course, has not happened overnight. It has reached this stage because critical issues confronting the electoral system have not been addressed over the years. To ensure fair and free polls, the Election Commission of India (ECI) was given statutory status. In 1962, the idea of a ‘model code’, experimented for the first time in Kerala in 1960, was adopted. In 1979, certain restraints were introduced for the party in power. In 1991, Election Commissioner T N Seshan demonstrated what a proactive and independent ECI could do to ensure independence. There were more than a couple of parliamentary committees set up to propose electoral reforms. But with political parties becoming all-powerful, despite losing much of their sheen, electoral practices have continued to decline. Take Indonesia. With a history of two decades of elections and 187 million voters, the country had a one-day national poll recently. Whereas in India, a voter has to wait for 43 days to know the winner, despite the EVMs. Never before has the ECI been seen to be as partisan as today and no efforts have been made to ensure that the electoral process regains credibility. Instruments like the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) have outlived their utility. The irrelevance of ECI’s instruments is evident from a cursory reading of the code. Neither of the eight provisions dealing with the conduct of poll is being observed either by the candidates or the political parties in the fray. The first of the eight is on “general conduct” of polls. This includes a ban on “caste and communal feelings”, “criticism of candidates on the basis of unverified reports”, and “bribing of voters”. “No political party can use pictures of defence and military personnel”, in a poll campaign, is another MCC guideline, which has been thrown out of the window. In 1979, MCC prohibited government advertisement of their ‘achievements’ and banned announcement of grants and schemes, so that the ruling party does not get an unfair advantage. The government or the ruling party “should not launch any welfare programmes, including ribbon cutting ceremonies”, said the code. However, what is happening is exactly the opposite and the Supreme Court had to remind the ECI that it is not toothless. An analysis of nominations filed for assemblies and Parliament in the last few elections, according to the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), reveals that the percentage of rich, privileged and those with a criminal background, total to nearly one-third of the elected members. CMS studies on poll expenditure over the last three general elections, bring out three critical points. First, a significant per cent of voters is being paid money across the states, both in rural and urban India. Second, the expenditure being incurred by parties and candidates has been going up in such a way that only millionaires can now contest. Third, the campaigns are focused on lure rather than on issues and concerns. Neither is there evidence that political parties have become accountable or are taking their manifestos seriously. Despite ECI’s hundreds of “expenditure observers,” the extent of unaccounted money confiscated is on rise with no effect on the overall poll expenditure. Only one Assembly member was ever disqualified in UP, a couple of years ago, for not submitting accounts, as required. There have been several parliamentary panels on poll funding in the last four decades, but their recommendations have remained only on paper. If anything, recent government measures are aimed at facilitating funding, including from foreign corporates, with no transparency. It is tempting to ask why we have not pursued a different kind of electoral campaign or evaluated the actual requirements of a contesting candidate. There is no reason why a candidate should not reach out to voters, present his or her credentials, address voters’ concerns and propose what he or she will do if elected. Candidates mainly stress on the negative aspects of their rivals. Increasingly, many of them spend more time on their opponents, than on what they propose to do. Big changes are needed. Candidates can campaign together so that voters can make a better choice more transparently. There must be minimum joint public meetings in every constituency. It will help bring down poll expenditure substantially. When competing candidates address voters together, they are likely to be more positive and cordial. After all, if two bitter rivals can come together in a poll alliance, why can’t opposing candidates campaign together? Unless political leaders and parties come forward to restore the sanctity of electoral practices, nothing is going to change. And unless that happens, it is difficult to expect good governance, deepen democracy and inclusive development. It is time to relook the relevance of ECI’s code of conduct. This is not possible without the support, cooperation and participation of the news media. The judiciary needs to be consulted in repositioning the ECI. India needs an electoral shake-up as the republic enters the 75th year. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Political leaders and parties must come forward to restore the sanctity of electoral practices

What exactly is good governance that every political leader claims to bestow on the people, best enshrined in their 2019 election manifestos?&nbsp;

If voters are not acquainted with what constitutes good governance during election time, when else will people know? Never mind the claims and counter-claims, citizens need to know about good governance, so that it does not merely remain a poll time rhetoric.

Governance is not same as the “Government”. It is much more. For example, can a government provide governance without the involvement of civil society?&nbsp;

Governance includes developments in communities, academics, businesses, the unorganised sector and self-promoted enterprises.&nbsp;

For most political leaders today, governance is what the government does or how well it controls and commands or offers doles in the name of welfare.&nbsp;

Governance is an outcome and sum total of what and how different pillars of the state perform and function. The distinguishing feature of governance include how actively involved and participative citizens are.&nbsp;

Good governance is not the result of a one-time initiative of a political party that has been in power for one term. It encompasses long term concerns and consequences.&nbsp;

A certain collective spirit between an elected government and civil society should be evident in the functioning and implementation of development programmes.&nbsp;

Some chief ministers claim good governance as dictated by their intentions and some others talk about Ram Rajya, while still others, it is Swarajya.&nbsp;

Prime Minister Narendra Modi talked of Su Raj from the Red Fort on the eve of the 70th anniversary of independence. In 1929, Mahatma Gandhi said that Swaraj means peace to people and prosperity and happiness for everyone. But for most leaders today, it is an index of personal popularity.&nbsp;

Popularity today is a managed affair, not necessarily based on fulfilling promises or sustaining development. Political leaders talk of good governance as “achievements” of their government. Governance cannot be an outcome of popularity of any government’s flagship schemes.&nbsp;

Two years ago in Switzerland, a referendum was held on guaranteed basic income by the government for every family in the country. It was rejected by an overwhelming percentage of people. After considerable debate, the Swiss people viewed the proposal as “unsustainable”.

They felt that such a dole makes them dependent on the government and does not promote human dignity. Finland, Netherlands and Singapore too toyed with such an idea, but gave up for the same reasons.&nbsp;

Can such a referendum take place in India? Political parties, when in power, are only too anxious to dole out sops. Good governance implies luring people in the name of welfare, making them dependent and as unproductive as possible.

Clarity and understanding about good governance is needed not just among political leaders, but also in the news media and civil society.

In the ultimate analysis, good governance in a parliamentary democracy is not possible without good politics; good politics is not feasible without good political parties and political parties cannot be good without concerned and responsible leaders.&nbsp;

All of this is not possible without an active citizenry, who do not fall prey to populistic or temporal lures. Our political parties have become more powerful than “We the People”, as they endeavour for centralisation.

Governance has to go beyond an election-centric view. If the government and the pillars of the state are not sensitive to increasing election costs, then it makes entry into electoral politics prohibitive.&nbsp;

With significant sections of the news media coming under the sway of politicians, a rise in motivated poll surveys and spurt in fake and paid messages, it is unrealistic to expect elections to be free, fair and inclusive.&nbsp;

Two national studies conducted by the Centre of Media Studies (CMS) in 2005 and 2007 had pointed out that the 'note for vote' phenomena was not confined to any state or section, but spread across.&nbsp;

An Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) analysis of Election Commission data brings out that in the last 15 years, the percentage of criminals, billionaires and those with conflict of interest, is on the increase.&nbsp;

The much-hyped economic reforms of the last 25 years had not improved level playing opportunities in the country. A number of studies have brought out how centralisation is on the increase, despite measures for decentralisation.&nbsp;

Despite anti-defection laws, defections continue to destabilise elected governments. And political parties are not willing to come under the Right to Information Act (RTI) even when it could help to revive themselves. These are trends enough to demonstrate that India is not on the path of good governance.&nbsp;

This 2019 poll campaign has many firsts to its 'credit'. Never before have armed forces been dragged into poll rhetoric. Neither have communalism and nationalism been raked up as they are being done today.&nbsp;

 
No political party has referred to corruption involving citizens in availing public services, raised environmental issues or acknowledged a languishing primary education without a policy and direction.&nbsp;

As the actor turned politician Kamal Haasan said, this election is all about “buying, bidding and luring”. I have been an active observer of election campaigns for the last 50 years, but have never seen a poll scene as gloomy as 2019. 
 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-sops-and-welfare-state-2739624">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.) 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

What exactly is good governance that every political leader claims to bestow on the people, best enshrined in their 2019 election manifestos? If voters are not acquainted with what constitutes good governance during election time, when else will people know?

What exactly is good governance that every political leader claims to bestow on the people, best enshrined in their 2019 election manifestos? If voters are not acquainted with what constitutes good governance during election time, when else will people know? Never mind the claims and counter-claims, citizens need to know about good governance, so that it does not merely remain a poll time rhetoric. Governance is not same as the “Government”. It is much more. For example, can a government provide governance without the involvement of civil society? Governance includes developments in communities, academics, businesses, the unorganised sector and self-promoted enterprises. For most political leaders today, governance is what the government does or how well it controls and commands or offers doles in the name of welfare. Governance is an outcome and sum total of what and how different pillars of the state perform and function. The distinguishing feature of governance include how actively involved and participative citizens are. Good governance is not the result of a one-time initiative of a political party that has been in power for one term. It encompasses long term concerns and consequences. A certain collective spirit between an elected government and civil society should be evident in the functioning and implementation of development programmes. Some chief ministers claim good governance as dictated by their intentions and some others talk about Ram Rajya, while still others, it is Swarajya. Prime Minister Narendra Modi talked of Su Raj from the Red Fort on the eve of the 70th anniversary of independence. In 1929, Mahatma Gandhi said that Swaraj means peace to people and prosperity and happiness for everyone. But for most leaders today, it is an index of personal popularity. Popularity today is a managed affair, not necessarily based on fulfilling promises or sustaining development. Political leaders talk of good governance as “achievements” of their government. Governance cannot be an outcome of popularity of any government’s flagship schemes. Two years ago in Switzerland, a referendum was held on guaranteed basic income by the government for every family in the country. It was rejected by an overwhelming percentage of people. After considerable debate, the Swiss people viewed the proposal as “unsustainable”. They felt that such a dole makes them dependent on the government and does not promote human dignity. Finland, Netherlands and Singapore too toyed with such an idea, but gave up for the same reasons. Can such a referendum take place in India? Political parties, when in power, are only too anxious to dole out sops. Good governance implies luring people in the name of welfare, making them dependent and as unproductive as possible. Clarity and understanding about good governance is needed not just among political leaders, but also in the news media and civil society. In the ultimate analysis, good governance in a parliamentary democracy is not possible without good politics; good politics is not feasible without good political parties and political parties cannot be good without concerned and responsible leaders. All of this is not possible without an active citizenry, who do not fall prey to populistic or temporal lures. Our political parties have become more powerful than “We the People”, as they endeavour for centralisation. Governance has to go beyond an election-centric view. If the government and the pillars of the state are not sensitive to increasing election costs, then it makes entry into electoral politics prohibitive. With significant sections of the news media coming under the sway of politicians, a rise in motivated poll surveys and spurt in fake and paid messages, it is unrealistic to expect elections to be free, fair and inclusive. Two national studies conducted by the Centre of Media Studies (CMS) in 2005 and 2007 had pointed out that the 'note for vote' phenomena was not confined to any state or section, but spread across. An Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) analysis of Election Commission data brings out that in the last 15 years, the percentage of criminals, billionaires and those with conflict of interest, is on the increase. The much-hyped economic reforms of the last 25 years had not improved level playing opportunities in the country. A number of studies have brought out how centralisation is on the increase, despite measures for decentralisation. Despite anti-defection laws, defections continue to destabilise elected governments. And political parties are not willing to come under the Right to Information Act (RTI) even when it could help to revive themselves. These are trends enough to demonstrate that India is not on the path of good governance. This 2019 poll campaign has many firsts to its 'credit'. Never before have armed forces been dragged into poll rhetoric. Neither have communalism and nationalism been raked up as they are being done today. No political party has referred to corruption involving citizens in availing public services, raised environmental issues or acknowledged a languishing primary education without a policy and direction. As the actor turned politician Kamal Haasan said, this election is all about “buying, bidding and luring”. I have been an active observer of election campaigns for the last 50 years, but have never seen a poll scene as gloomy as 2019. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

In a democracy, good governance is not possible without good politics

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

N Bhaskara Rao

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.