False ceiling

The limit on poll expenses is too low and unrealistic. It should be raised

Additionally, the Election Commission needs to clear the vagueness that surrounds its policies on expenses by political parties ahead of the elections.

For example, the United Progressive Alliance government is spending hundreds of crores of the taxpayers’ money on the Bharat Nirman campaign, which is essentially a political campaign of the ruling Congress at the Centre. In the same vein, Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi is said to have roped in a number of agencies to build “brand” and image at huge expenses.

How does the Election Commisison see such expenses?

They should come within the ambit of the election expenses.

In fact, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party are India’s two rich political parties which spend huge amounts of money during polls. This puts other parties at a disadvantage.

The writer is the national secretary of the Samajwadi Party

Undoubtedly, there is no match between what candidates declare as their poll expenses and what they actually spend. But the big question is: Will raising the limit of poll expenses compel candidates to declare their real expenses? And if it is to be raised, then what should be the upper limit? The truth is, no upper limit, howsoever high, can eliminate unaccounted poll expenses. The present system of deciding the upper limit of poll expense, which is at the discretion of the Election Commission, need not be disturbed. What we need are drastic and massive poll reforms so that good candidates come into the fray — people who may be able to contest elections within the prescribed limit of poll expense. Unfortunately, the poll system, as it stands today is tailor-stitched to suit “professional’ politicians who join politics to mint money by corrupt and unfair means. Unaccount-ed poll expenses is their investment in the business of politics.

Much has been said about the supervisory role of the Election Commission, especially after the Central Information Commission’s recent verdict that six national political parties should be brought under the purview of the Right to Information Act.

But, practically speaking, neither the government nor the political parties have ever cared for or respected the Election Commission’s repeatedly recommended and longpending poll reforms. These non-implemented suggestions from the Election Commission include a very important recommendation of adding “none to vote” option to the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), which will make political parties field only good candidates. Poll reforms is the only way to effectively check the role of money in elections.

There has been talk of the government funding poll campaigns. This is an entirely absurd proposition because it assumes that since the government is funding campaigns, our professional politicians will not spend a single paise from their pockets.

In fact, all indirect funding to political parties — leasing out government land and giving accommodation at highly subsidised rates, free voters’ lists, free campaign slots on All India Radio and Doordrashan — should be abolished in case political parties do not wish to be covered under the RTI Act.

Tax exemptions available to political parties and their contributors should also be abolished. Funding of political parties should be made public. Presently only 20 per cent of their total funds are made public.

Political parties made a hue and cry when the Election Commission, for the first time, required all candidates to declare details of their wealth and criminal record. But even the Supreme Court held the Election Commission justified by striking down the ordinance that was brought to nullify the Election Commission's directives.

It is time that the Election Commission, without waiting for a nod from the Union government for adding the option of “none to vote” on EVMs, should sue motto do so as it is a right already available to voters. Such an action from the Election Commission will bring good people in legislature but also check election spend. The writer is an

RTI activist