One of the first candidates announced by the Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections was former Telecom Minister Andimuthu Raja. A key accused in the 2G scam relating to the allocation of telecom spectrum, Raja had become the face of the largest corruption scandal the country has ever seen. But he is still considered a strong candidate who is likely to retain his seat, according to party leaders. The simple question is: why? Is the claimed national disgust with corruption just a myth that does not actually matter in the elections?
“It is not that corruption does not matter but it needs to be seen as one of the factors amongst many others when a party chooses candidates,” said Premchand Palety, CEO of C-fore, which conducts opinion and exit polls. Parties make their decisions about a candidate’s likelihood of winning a seat based on factors like caste, local-level performance and the ability to spend money on a campaign.
In fact, a study of the 2009 Lok Sabha election showed that a large section of voters accepted money for their votes in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra. “In the lower socio-economic groups, this is a major issue and so obviously corruption of the candidate would be looked over,” Palety said. Ironically, corrupt candidates are the ones who often have the most money to spend during elections. This means that parties do not mind corruption charges if candidates have other advantages.
Raja, for instance, is seen as the Dalit face of the DMK. Despite being jailed for 15 months from February 2011, he sustained the impression of being active in the affairs of his constituency through his lieutenants. He also has the ability to spend money for an election campaign. “These factors outweigh the corruption liability in political calculation,” admitted a senior DMK leader on condition of anonymity.
This is not an isolated example. In fact, the list of corrupt candidates being included for electoral reasons cuts across state and party barriers.
Though the Bharatiya Janata Party is running on an anti-corruption plank across the country, in Karnataka it ensured that former chief minister BS Yeddyurappa returned to its fold and has fielded him for the Shimoga seat. Yeddyurappa faces charges of corruption in land allotments during his tenure as chief minister between 2008 and 2011. He was forced to step down from the post in July 2011 and even quit the party in November.
Yeddyurappa’s departure ensured that the BJP lost the Karnataka assembly elections last year. His return is seen as an admission that the party cannot win an election without him in the state. His hold over the numerical majority Lingayat sect vote in Karnataka was reason enough for the BJP to forget the corruption charges against him. Earlier this month, the BJP decided to readmit to its fold BS Sriramulu, despite his close association with jailed mining baron Janardhan Reddy. Sriramulu had left the party in November 2011 to protest its treatment of Reddy, but has now been fielded for the Bellary seat, the epicentre of iron-ore scandal.
“The problem is also that the voter perceives all major political parties as corrupt, so until a credible alternative is provided, corruption is a redundant issue,” said RK Radhakrishnan, deputy editor of The Hindu. “It is a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea.” The success of the Aam Aadmi party showed that voters are attracted in cases where a credible alternative exists. But AAP has a negligible presence in many parts of India, especially in the south.
It is in this situation, politicians like Jaganmohan Reddy in Andhra Pradesh are front runners. Jagan was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation in May 2012 and spent over a year in jail on allegations that his companies benefitted from government contracts doled out by his father and former chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, the late YS Rajashekar Reddy. “In fact YSR Reddy was perceived as corrupt by the people but he still won a thumping majority in the 2009 polls because of his populist schemes,” said Palety.
In the final analysis, say observers, corruption ranks below inefficiency in the voters list of priorities. From Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav in Uttar Pradesh, to J Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu, many powerful political figures have won elections despite serious charges of corruption. Their ability to win parliamentary seats in their states has given them bargaining power in alliances in Delhi and has often been used to put political pressure on the agencies investigating the charges against them.
There also seems to be a strong urban versus rural divide while assessing corruption. “A scam like 2G which has received enormous media coverage is a major issue in urban centres but local-level corruption of party workers may be a bigger issue in rural areas,” said Vasanti Rao, the director of the Centre for Media Studies, which assesses the impact of media coverage across the country. What is considered a national corruption issue may not matter at the constituency level.
In addition, major scam charges are more damaging for a candidate from an urban seat than in a rural one seat. The Congress, for instance, was ready to field Ashok Chavan for the rural Nanded seat in Maharashtra even though the former chief minister has been accused of corruption in allocating flats in Adarsh, a building in Mumbai that was intend to house war widows. However, in the Pune seat, the Congress refused a ticket to Suresh Kalmadi, who was jailed for his role in scandals in spending related to the Commonwealth Games in Delhi in 2010.
It isn’t that the electorate is gullible and unaware of corruption issues, observers say, but rather it has a sophisticated understanding of the realities of electoral politics. So, though corruption is high on the agenda of national debate, it isn’t necessarily an issue in national elections.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
“It is not that corruption does not matter but it needs to be seen as one of the factors amongst many others when a party chooses candidates,” said Premchand Palety, CEO of C-fore, which conducts opinion and exit polls. Parties make their decisions about a candidate’s likelihood of winning a seat based on factors like caste, local-level performance and the ability to spend money on a campaign.
In fact, a study of the 2009 Lok Sabha election showed that a large section of voters accepted money for their votes in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra. “In the lower socio-economic groups, this is a major issue and so obviously corruption of the candidate would be looked over,” Palety said. Ironically, corrupt candidates are the ones who often have the most money to spend during elections. This means that parties do not mind corruption charges if candidates have other advantages.
Raja, for instance, is seen as the Dalit face of the DMK. Despite being jailed for 15 months from February 2011, he sustained the impression of being active in the affairs of his constituency through his lieutenants. He also has the ability to spend money for an election campaign. “These factors outweigh the corruption liability in political calculation,” admitted a senior DMK leader on condition of anonymity.
This is not an isolated example. In fact, the list of corrupt candidates being included for electoral reasons cuts across state and party barriers.
Though the Bharatiya Janata Party is running on an anti-corruption plank across the country, in Karnataka it ensured that former chief minister BS Yeddyurappa returned to its fold and has fielded him for the Shimoga seat. Yeddyurappa faces charges of corruption in land allotments during his tenure as chief minister between 2008 and 2011. He was forced to step down from the post in July 2011 and even quit the party in November.
Yeddyurappa’s departure ensured that the BJP lost the Karnataka assembly elections last year. His return is seen as an admission that the party cannot win an election without him in the state. His hold over the numerical majority Lingayat sect vote in Karnataka was reason enough for the BJP to forget the corruption charges against him. Earlier this month, the BJP decided to readmit to its fold BS Sriramulu, despite his close association with jailed mining baron Janardhan Reddy. Sriramulu had left the party in November 2011 to protest its treatment of Reddy, but has now been fielded for the Bellary seat, the epicentre of iron-ore scandal.
“The problem is also that the voter perceives all major political parties as corrupt, so until a credible alternative is provided, corruption is a redundant issue,” said RK Radhakrishnan, deputy editor of The Hindu. “It is a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea.” The success of the Aam Aadmi party showed that voters are attracted in cases where a credible alternative exists. But AAP has a negligible presence in many parts of India, especially in the south.
It is in this situation, politicians like Jaganmohan Reddy in Andhra Pradesh are front runners. Jagan was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation in May 2012 and spent over a year in jail on allegations that his companies benefitted from government contracts doled out by his father and former chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, the late YS Rajashekar Reddy. “In fact YSR Reddy was perceived as corrupt by the people but he still won a thumping majority in the 2009 polls because of his populist schemes,” said Palety.
In the final analysis, say observers, corruption ranks below inefficiency in the voters list of priorities. From Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav in Uttar Pradesh, to J Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu, many powerful political figures have won elections despite serious charges of corruption. Their ability to win parliamentary seats in their states has given them bargaining power in alliances in Delhi and has often been used to put political pressure on the agencies investigating the charges against them.
There also seems to be a strong urban versus rural divide while assessing corruption. “A scam like 2G which has received enormous media coverage is a major issue in urban centres but local-level corruption of party workers may be a bigger issue in rural areas,” said Vasanti Rao, the director of the Centre for Media Studies, which assesses the impact of media coverage across the country. What is considered a national corruption issue may not matter at the constituency level.
In addition, major scam charges are more damaging for a candidate from an urban seat than in a rural one seat. The Congress, for instance, was ready to field Ashok Chavan for the rural Nanded seat in Maharashtra even though the former chief minister has been accused of corruption in allocating flats in Adarsh, a building in Mumbai that was intend to house war widows. However, in the Pune seat, the Congress refused a ticket to Suresh Kalmadi, who was jailed for his role in scandals in spending related to the Commonwealth Games in Delhi in 2010.
It isn’t that the electorate is gullible and unaware of corruption issues, observers say, but rather it has a sophisticated understanding of the realities of electoral politics. So, though corruption is high on the agenda of national debate, it isn’t necessarily an issue in national elections.
