Elections in Goa are over and done with, and the rest of the country will shortly follow suit. Money has already changed hands and candidates across the political spectrum will be anxiously waiting for the outcome of their “investments”. The 2019 election expenditure is estimated to cross $10 billion, outdoing the US Presidential elections ($6.5 billion) and competing with any stock exchange you can think of. It is the largest investment lottery held once every five years, fueled by an unparalleled “risk appetite” of political leaders at the expense of an electorate waiting to feed on the frenzy with increasing demands for cash and goodies for votes. But the funds to feed this frenzy have to come from somewhere. Party membership fees can never cover the massive expenses of an election; the shortfall is covered by corporate houses.
Over the years there have been various token attempts to bring some semblance of accountability to political funding. I do not believe there is a single Indian on this planet who will argue that there is no black money involved in this funding. Parties at best have made weak attempts at giving such funding some appearance of respectability. The latest attempt was the introduction of the “electoral bonds”. These were introduced under the Electoral Bonds Scheme 2018.It permitted a party registered under the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 and securing not less than one percent of the votes polled in the preceding election to receive such bonds. Electoral Bonds may be purchased only by citizens of India, including NRIs either as individuals or as a group. The name of the donor does not appear on the bond and may be known only to the bank which issues the bond. The party may well be aware of the identity of the donor but the general public has no way of finding out who the donor is. Nor is it able to make any connection between a donor and a recipient party. The lack of transparency is absolute; presumably to protect the donor from any “repercussions” in case the donor backs the wrong horse. Alternatively, if his horse wins, the donor acquires the means to influence policy decisions behind the scenes, by “cashing in on his chips”. Vested interests obviously will reign supreme over the interests of the state.
The scheme was introduced as a money bill to amend various sections of the RBI Act; triggering off an immediate debate about whether a money bill can amend a parent Act. This legal conundrum is yet to be settled. In any case the notification of the Department of Economic Affairs of the Ministry of Finance in January gave details of these bonds, from which two truths emerged.
First the anonymity of the donor is absolute. Under no circumstances can the public gain access to this information. Para 7(4) of the notification reads “Confidentiality of the information furnished by the buyer shall not be disclosed to any authority for any purpose”. This total prohibition of disclosure is a subordinate legislation; a notification that becomes legislative policy. It is difficult to understand how a subordinate legislation which should deal with implementation of policy can override the parent act, which deals with the actual policy. Transparency is the corner stone of a true democracy, and to legislate against transparency by suggesting that such a measure will further the cause of democracy is the ultimate canard. The legislature can provide for confidentiality to protect state secrets. That would be in the interests of the state. It cannot provide for confidentiality in political funding by private individuals or groups as no public interest is served.
The NGO Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenged the scheme in the SC, demanding that the names of donors be made public to ensure transparency in the poll process. The petition claimed that “private corporate interests would take precedence over the needs and rights of the people of the State in policy considerations”
The SC whilst refusing any interim stay on the bond scheme, ordered that all parties must submit details of the identity of donors with the amount donated and the source account by 30th May in a sealed cover. It contended that if the identity of the purchasers of electoral bonds meant for transparent political funding is not known, then the efforts of the government to curtail black money in elections would be “futile”. CJI Ranjan Gogoi contested the theory that the anonymous scheme ensured that all money which went into poll funding was white. “If the identity of the donor is unknown, your entire exercise to eliminate black money becomes a futile exercise. Black money only becomes white,” he observed.
Further the central government and the EC have taken contrary stands. The former justified the decision, saying it would promote transparency in political funding and the latter maintained that the changes made in the law would have “serious repercussions”. The EC told the Supreme Court that electoral bonds, contrary to government claims, wreck transparency in political funding.
The second truth that emerges is that the ruling party will have access to the identity of and the amount donated to various parties. Such privileged information will provide unfair advantage and leverage to the party in power enabling it to corner the bulk of the funds. Statistics confirm that both these objectives have been achieved and the finance ministers attempts to sugar coat the introduction of these bonds stands out as an example of supreme hypocrisy.
Finally, it is the electorate that will be the final arbiter in this matter. It has already shown it’s mettle by maintaining India’s position as the world’s largest democracy and by extracting its pound of flesh at every election by increasing the price of its vote. Hopefully our politicians will be forced to see the light of day and find a better solution in their own interests.
(The writer is a founder member of the Voluntary Health Association of Goa.)
