The Big Story: A weak commission

When the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Union government bulldozed established parliamentary conventions and forced sweeping changes to several laws through the Finance Bill in March, the Opposition cried foul. The Congress accused the BJP of invalidating the importance of debates in the parliamentary process and of undermining the authority of the Rajya Sabha as the Finance Bill does not need the approval of the Upper House. In all, about 40 drastic changes to various laws were made through the Finance Bill, which, as its name suggests, was conceived in the Constitution to deal only with financial matters.

One of those significant changes was on political funding. The Centre introduced the system of electoral bonds and provided, through an amendment to the Representation of Peoples Act, anonymity to corporations to donate to political parties via this new tool. The government’s argument was that the bonds would be routed through the banking system, thereby helping curb black money infusion and generate revenue for the banks.

The Election Commission of India, the constitutional body tasked with conducting free and fair elections, should have immediately protested this move openly and vehemently. The reason is simple. Reports over the years on political funding patterns in India have established that at least 69% of all such money to the major parties comes from “unknown sources”. When this was the case, the Union government, in the garb of improving transparency, pushed through a mechanism that made political funding even murkier by giving corporates complete anonymity as they pump money into the political system. This has serious consequences in a democracy, foremost being vested interests trying to influence policy decisions through their financial might.

But the Election Commission of India chose silence over protest when the major changes were taking place in March, despite legal mandate that it has to be consulted on matters affecting the electoral process. However, with barely a few days to go for his retirement, Chief Election Commissioner Nasim Zaidi alleged on Sunday that the commission had not been consulted on the electoral bonds and that he had written to the Union law ministry about it.

The commission was provided a fair degree of independence for a specific purpose. It had the duty to encourage a transparent electoral process and resist any move that would affect the conduct of free and fair polls. However, constitutional status seems to have not affected the bureaucratic mindset that still prevails in the commission, which avoids any confrontation with the government of the day. Instead of taking the Centre head on during the passage of the Finance Bill, the commission is now crying about invasion of its territory. While it is extremely difficult to push a government with a majority to drop a measure it considers necessary, the cause is completely lost when such efforts begin not before the law is enacted but after. The commission’s first real criticism of electoral bonds came in May, a month after the law was effected.

In contrast, the commission has aggressively gone after Opposition parties, for example when they raised questions on the electronic voting machines. The commission even sought contempt powers to crack down what it termed as “malicious charges”.

By failing to be pursue a crucial issue that could fundamentally alter the mechanics of electoral campaigns, the commission has clearly not measured up to its responsibilities.

The Big Scroll

  • Jagdeeop C Chokkar writes on how Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley promised transparency but delivered corporates the tool of anonymity. 
  • Rohan Venkataramakrishnan explains the changes to electoral funding effected through the Finance Bill in March. 

Punditry

  1. In the Mint, Rahul Tongia says there has to be a re-think of the Union Budget to reflect the new Goods and Services Tax regime. 
  2. In The Hindu, Krishna Kumar writes on how India’s education system has failed to integrate rural India with the mainstream, thereby putting students in the villages at a great disadvantage. 
  3. In the Economic and Political Weekly, Ayesha Minhaz reports on how the Andhra Pradesh government is acquiring huge tracts of forest land to build its new capital Amaravati and the ecological and societal consequences of this project. 
  4. Is criticising internet trolls a manner of censorship? Lindy West in the New York Times disagrees. 

Giggles

Don’t miss

Sajida Ali and Erum Hafeez write on how Pakistan’s demographic dividend could turn into its nemesis if the country fails on the economic front.

“Given the disparity in numbers, it follows then that the young generation are facing a multitude of challenges; some crucial, others marginal and some even self-imposed. The stressors for our youth include a range of social, cultural and economic factors, including limited education, health and employment opportunities. A majority of them complain about an unfavourable and hostile environment where only the fittest can survive. It is evidently supported by the statistics that rank Pakistan 147 out of 188 countries in the Human Development Index, lower than many developing countries in South Asia.”