Politics in India will not be the same once the bill for simultaneous polls becomes law. It would not be a stretch to describe this bill as the mother of all democratic political reforms in India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi must be credited for his resoluteness and conviction in bringing it to this moment.
His critics, who can’t stomach it, are only assailing the move instead of logically arguing it. However, they can’t deny that despite having the option of allowing the status quo to continue, Modi has decided to take the bull by its horns.
This is noteworthy because in the pre-2014 era, many people in India used to believe that politicians, regardless of their party, had no will to introduce systemic reforms in politics. This was possibly the reason why people like N R Narayana Murthy had once condemned the entire political class, alleging that the vested interests of politicians made them pro-status quo. Modi’s leadership reflects a rejection of that lure.
So it’s heartening to note that the bill for simultaneous elections is now on the anvil. Provisions in this legislation are bound to lead to several desirable transformations.
Firstly, it would mean less time for electoral politics and more for real governance. Secondly, it would greatly reduce the amount of populism political parties are compelled to indulge in as some or the other electoral battle is always around the corner. Thirdly, several reforms that are inherent to simultaneous elections would hugely save resources, human, economic and material. However, what is perhaps more important and hence desirable is that this critical reform generates some healthy debate around a series of other political reforms the nation badly needs for good governance.
This long list of much-needed reforms starts from the way most political parties conduct their internal affairs. Many political scientists have reflected on the mushrooming of parties, their largely unorganised character, opaque recruitment procedures, lack of an ideological foundation and, above all, a worryingly tight grip of controlling dynasties.
Considering that most opposition parties have an essential vested interest in allowing the status quo to continue, they are bound to oppose more political reforms. But then, one can hold a mirror to them for advocating political reforms. Not too long ago—in the last decade of the last century—many, like the then Vice President Krishan Kant, had openly expressed concerns about the patronage given by a large number of parties to party operators and power brokers. Putting it bluntly, Kant had said: “While in the 1950s, an MP or MLA was considered a representative of the people, in the 1960s they came to be known as their advocates and now people think ‘they elect their dalals, or brokers.”
Earlier, when the centenary session of Congress was held in Mumbai in 1985, Rajiv Gandhi had used the same term and denounced the tendency of party workers to function as power brokers.
Kant had correctly diagnosed what ails our party politics. Without mincing words, he had observed parties that are “without any genuine commitment to ideology or national programme” had become “a loose alliance of such interest groups”. Considering that except for the BJP and the communists, other parties hardly have any long-term ideology, Kant’s observations are not far from the truth.
While legislation facilitating simultaneous elections is the right step at the right time, other critical issues to enhance the quality of democracy also merit some attention.
• Is it not high time to think of a comprehensive law regulating and disciplining the functioning of parties, making their conduct more transparent, accountable and democratic? While regulating the functioning of NGOs, many government agencies in India put a condition that family members or blood relations cannot be a part of the managing body. Can there be a similar regulation for political parties?
• Should we not make the process of establishing a new party more serious and elaborate so as to avoid a bumper crop of over 2,700 parties, mostly inactive or just technically alive?
• Can we not make every party mandatorily publish an annual report of their activities?
• Can we try to emulate the remarkable practice in Germany wherein their parties establish stiftungs—foundations or trusts—to undertake policy research and capacity building of party functionaries? The possibility of making comprehensive training mandatory for all first-timers, whether elected representatives or party office bearers, could also be explored.
• Can we think of giving incentives to elected representatives for filing a report to the electorate to be published every year?
• Can we also explore whether mandatory publication of a manifesto by all contesting parties at levels followed by a compulsory action taken report (ATR) on the promises? Even parties that lose could be asked to give information about their efforts to follow up on their promises.
• Can it also be made mandatory to publish a constituency manifesto by each contesting candidate at all levels, followed by a publication of an annual ATR?
While discussing the enormity of political reforms, we also will have to consider reforms in the way our houses of elected representatives, primarily our parliament, function. It would be pertinent to recall what Atal Bihari Vajpayee observed in 1996: “Neither parliament nor the state vidhan sabhas are doing with any degree of competence or commitment what they are primarily meant to do: legislative function… Barring exceptions, those who get elected to these apex democratic institutions are neither trained, formally or informally, in law-making nor do they seem to have an inclination to develop the necessary knowledge and competence in their profession.”
While it is not easy to walk this reform talk, people of India who want an improved quality of democracy have a strong reason to hope. After all, Modi hai to mumkin hai!
(Views are personal)
Vinay Sahasrabuddhe | Senior BJP leader