Time to revive debate on state funding of elections beyond academic realm
By K Raveendran
Considering the bitter results of uninhibited political funding to the ruling party through the obnoxious electoral bond scheme, leading to the subversion of democratic processes, it may be time to go back to the concept of state funding of elections if democracy is to survive in the country.
It is perhaps the most appropriate time to do this, as a constitutional bench headed by chief justice D Y Chandrachud is set to decide on a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the electoral bonds scheme. The delay in a decision, which the court reserved in November last year, has no doubt disappointed pro-democracy activists and enthusiasts, but the Supreme Court can make amends by making a meaningful intervention and set things right by suggesting a more equitable and fair arrangement. In doing this, the court may have to go beyond the scope of the present petitions, but such an approach would go a long way in preserving democracy in the country, which otherwise stands threatened.
The electoral bond scheme, criticized for facilitating uninhibited political funding to the ruling party, has increasingly come under scrutiny. BJP has pocketed most proceeds from the scheme, leaving other parties, including the main opposition Congress party, with as little as one-tenth of the total. The disproportionate money power has emboldened the ruling party to embark on some of the most outlandish destabilisation plans against opposition-ruled states, manifesting in the ouster of legitimately elected governments and installation of its own puppet outfits with the help of blatant defections. Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Bihar stand out as the worst caricatures of BJP’s subversive politics.
Examining the historical perspectives, recommendations from the Indrajit Gupta Committee report of 1998 and the Law Commission of India report of 1999, both advocating for total state funding of elections, underscore the longstanding nature of this debate. The Indrajit Gupta committee recommended two limitations to state funding: firstly, that state funds should be given only to national and state parties allotted a symbol and not to independent candidates. Secondly, that in the short-term state funding should only be given in kind, in the form of certain facilities to the recognised political parties and their candidates. The committee noted that at the time of the report’s preparation, the economic situation of the country only suited partial and not full state funding of elections.
The 1999 Law Commission report by and large concurred with the Indrajit Gupta panel’s report and stressed that total state funding of elections was desirable as long as political parties were prohibited from taking funds from other sources. The Commission also agreed with the premise that only partial state funding was possible given the economic conditions at that time. But additionally, it recommended an appropriate regulatory framework which entailed provisions to ensure that political parties followed internal democracy and maintained internal structures and accounts, their auditing and submission to Election Commission before state funding was allowed.
About a decade prior to that, a report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, titled ‘Ethics in Governance’ had also recommended partial state funding of elections to restrict ‘illegitimate and unnecessary funding’ of elections expenses.
But unfortunately, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, 2001, did not endorse state funding of elections, although it concurred with the 1999 Law Commission report that the appropriate framework for regulation of political parties would need to be implemented before state funding is considered.
The net result is that despite these recommendations, state funding has remained largely academic. Advocates for state funding highlight its potential to bring about transparency, equality, and a reduction in corruption within the electoral process. By providing a more level playing field for all political parties and candidates, state funding could foster a healthier democratic ecosystem, free from the allegations of favouritism associated with the existing system.
The present scheme has also faced criticism for lack of transparency, as the donors’ identities remain undisclosed. This opacity has led to concerns about potential misuse and abuse of the system, raising questions about the integrity of the entire electoral process.
The time may be ripe for India to reassess its approach to electoral financing and embrace a system that truly embodies the spirit of a democratic republic. And the Supreme Court is perhaps is in a position to initiate such a momentous shift in the country’s electoral system. (IPA Service)