Patricia Mukhim
Recently I was at a meeting where a former minister and MLA was launching yet another of his business ventures. Other honourable invitees included fellow MLAs holding various positions in the MUA Government. The honourables in their speech lauded the MLA-businessman for conducting his business so profitably and for his rapid wealth ranking since he started his political career till date. They went into raptures about how wonderfully their colleague has balanced business and politics. One of them however, could not resist the urge to take a dig at his colleague. He said the MLA-businessman was perhaps more successful as a businessman than a politician. The MLA-businessman named the venture after his children and said they would run it. His colleague rebutted saying that the MLA-businessman would actually be the real driver while his children would be the face of the business.
Don’t ask me why I was present at the function. I must have been on one of my sleep-walking jaunts. It is my firm conviction that an elected representative who is a public servant paid out of the public exchequer cannot be running a business simply because it is a conflict of interest. More so if the person also happens to be a minister in charge of a department that is also directly related to the business he conducts. We have seen how the Public Works Department (PWD) which was given to Sniawbhalang Dhar who owns a road construction company ended up in our roads having more potholes than ever before. Shillong roads and those in the periphery are in the worst condition ever. We all believed Dr Mukul Sangma to be highly cerebral but it’s astonishing that he did not envisage the outcome of giving the PWD to a businessman. I wonder if the roads as they are at present would be an election issue or whether we will forget the most important issues as the elections draw closer. After all this has been our forte! I would not even be surprised if both Sniawbhalang Dhar and his brother Ngaitlang Dhar are re-elected in 2018. That would not only be a slap on our faces but it would also send the message that corruption and scams are kosher in Meghalaya and that those who continue to raise their voices against corruption are idiots who have not learnt to live with the system.
An MLA being a public servant is not supposed to hold an office of profit. What is a business venture if not an office of profit? Why should office of profit be construed as such only when a person is earning from the public exchequer? The book, “Faultlines in Indian Democracy,” by G Ramachandra Reddy lays out the problems that threaten our Democracy. Even when a blatant act of corruption is pointed out by media there is no public outcry. MLAs/ministers strut around as if they are paragons of virtue. People continue to vote them because the MLA continues to buy them off with money and pays for their personal needs. That’s the value of democracy in this country and we still wonder why we are going down the gutter. Speaking about gutters have we ever seen roads in any part of the country that are built without making provisions for drains? Well, you see many such roads in Meghalaya.
Reddy points out that MLAs/MPs must be held accountable for business of profit also and not only for Office of Profit (Art 191). When a minister is also running a business it is inevitable that he will bend all the rules to facilitate his own business. This happened in the infamous Bellary mining case in Karnataka where the business is run by MPs, MLAs and ministers and where the revenue accrual is to the tune of Rs 5000 crore annually. As a result the mining regulations, Forest Conservation Act and Environmental Protection Act are violated with impunity. When those who make laws themselves violate all the laws then it is futile to expect the ordinary citizen to respect those same laws!
It is high time to have a constitutional amendment prohibiting elected representative from profiting from business. This might be the only way to deter businessmen from entering politics and for better people with no money to burn during elections to contest elections. If the law does not permit judges and bureaucrats from running businesses why should politicians be exempted from this rule? As of now, though MLAs/MPs/MDCs are public servants and are liable for criminal action under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, they cannot ordinarily be booked under the disproportionate assets case for income accruing from the businesses they conduct since income from such business is legal as long as it is not prohibited by the law and the Constitution.
Another major flaw of Indian democracy is to allow former militants with blood on their hands to contest elections just because they have surrendered. The argument is that this will help in bringing durable peace. But will the criminal mind (I use the word criminal here because as far as I am concerned the agenda of the HNLC has been plain and simple extortion. There is not even a hint of sub-nationalism in their movement against the state) transform itself into a law abiding template? Julius Dorphang has proven that he does not care about the law. He knows that raping a minor girl is an outrage but he did it because he thinks the law will never catch up with him. After all, the law never caught up with him when he was the Chairman of the HNLC! The fact that such law breakers are able to win elections also speaks about the completely uninformed electorate that votes on the basis of emotions or because they were paid money or because the candidate rendered them some personal favour. This is the bane of democracy!
Ironically, the state as the custodian of public welfare is not doing much to deepen democracy. The Election Commission has followed in the footsteps of all those who promote their products in the NorthEast by producing a song video with the most popular singers, asking those who have reached the voting age to enrol themselves. The ECI apparently wants the youth to have a sense of stake-holdership. Also the ECI believes that voting will empower the youth with the agency of voice and therefore they will engage and not secede from the system. A rather simplistic ideal I would say because the youth have been voting since 1988 but have they engaged on issues that threaten to disrupt the democratic process? Have the youth raised a strong voice against corruption? Have the youth blown the whistle on any case of corruption till date and followed it through? Isn’t it a fact that as we get closer to the election date, several football clubs and youth bodies will approach the candidates and ask them for money, ostensibly to strengthen their clubs or to buy football boots and uniforms? Are the youth not the ones who demand money from candidates for picnics and sightseeing trips? So the ECI’s argument of enrolling youth to make a difference to the quality of democracy does not cut any ice. If you ask me the ECI should be conducting mass awareness programmes which would include street plays, discussions in the rural outback etc on the diminishing returns of voting on the basis of clan, religion and for personal reasons. While voting is a personal choice there has to be a community discussion on what sort of candidates will be able to best serve the constituency.
It is also time to create platforms where voters can question their candidates on the promises made. Those who have been MLAs for the last five years must give a report card in writing to their constituents. This is a right we should demand. We need to know how each penny of the MLA fund is used. We need to know why the bulk of the fund is used up in the penultimate year and we also need to know who are the beneficiaries who have received cheques from the MLA and what are the grounds on which they qualify to receive that special assistance.
The problem with our people is that they believe the MLA is using his private funds to assist the needy. This is a fallacy that needs to be deconstructed and the ECI has an obligation to the people of this country to do more than just enrol voters.