Aquick survey of voters shows that most people are looking for good, clean candidates this election. Nothing surprising in that and against the backdrop of the defections throughout the term and the 16 resignations of MLAs and one ‘merger’ of a party with another in the past four months, such an aspiration is definitely expected. When the people want honest candidates, isn’t it the duty of the political parties to field candidates that meet this criteria? Currently, the parties have begun to publicise the criminal cases pending against their candidates, with the status of the cases. They have to do this under the election rules. Keeping aside cases that may have been filed when individuals have been part of demonstrations against the government, there are other criminal cases that are not of a political nature, and it is these that are of concern.
The analysis conducted by the Association for Democratic Reforms of the affidavits filed by the candidates finds that 77 of the 301 candidates have criminal cases, of which 53 are serious criminal offences. This is much higher than in 2017, when the number of candidates with criminal cases was 30 and with serious criminal cases was 21. The increase in number reflects on the selection process of the parties, where the ‘winnability’ criterion scores over all other factors in choice of candidates. The candidates are spread across most parties, and under such circumstances is it possible to have what the people aspire for – clean individuals – on the ballot in every constituency? Yet, in 2017 candidates with serious crimes were all elected by the people. Does this indicate that Goa is okay with such candidates and then having them as MLAs?
The fact that political parties did not concern themselves with screening for criminal cases indicates that they have other priorities when selecting candidates. Even the Supreme Court directions that parties will have to give reasons for selecting candidates with criminal cases doesn’t appear to have changed the selection process. In fact the number of candidates with criminal cases has increased. As per the ADR report, there are 12 red alert constituencies, which means that in these there are three or more contesting candidates who have declared criminal cases against themselves. How then does such a candidate list go with the wishes of the people to have clean candidates? Besides, will the political system be ever cleaned up if at election time the parties do not look further than the odds of the candidate winning to make their choice?
Political parties have a responsibility to give voters such candidates that meet the aspirations of the people. If the parties fail in this, can the people be blamed for voting somebody from among those that are on the ballot? Ultimately, in an election somebody has to win and here it is the person with the most number of votes that is elected. There is, however, the NOTA alternative available, and though this has been on the ballot for the last few elections, not many voters have opted to choose this as an option. Besides, while the NOTA button is on the ballot and the votes are counted, the result of the election does not in any way change. It only acts as a means to allow voters to register their silent protest on the selection of candidates. It goes no further than that. This does call for election reforms that will change the current criteria by which candidates are selected by the parties. It could be a difficult proposition as it has to be brought about by the parties and it hardly appears plausible that those same parties will want to alter the status quo as the current system benefits them more than it does the people. It may actually require the courts to step in again.
