|
By Mukul Sharma Is there a problem with having so many millionaires contesting the 2009 elections? Yes, says Mukul Sharma. It is not their riches themselves that are the problem, but their potential for misuse. Will a rich candidate from a mining district put his political power behind the displaced, for instance?
Talk of poverty is common; wealth is taboo. Even when crorepati candidates (millionaires and billionaires) are on the rise in elections today. There is no doubt that our elections are conditioned by wealth, and that the rich are thriving on the benefits of their money power. In the first phase of elections, data available on 1,440 candidates out of a total of 1,715, compiled and analysed by National Election Watch, is revealing: There are 193 crorepatis contesting elections in this phase; their number has increased from 9% in 2004 to 14% in 2009. Congress has 45, followed by the BJP and BSP with 30 and 22 respectively. All parties, including independents, share this burden. Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar , Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have the majority of millionaires. Their total assets go as high as 173, 125, 89, 72, 56, 45, 30 crore. Neither the earth nor the sky is the limit. And the assets declared by candidates may just reveal a partial picture, considering that most of them (979 candidates) do not even bother to have a permanent account number (PAN), which is necessary for filing annual income-tax returns. There are several incongruities in the rich occupying a considerable electoral space. For example, while a majority of the people in the Vidarbha and Marathwada region of Maharashtra are living in poverty, the personal wealth of the election candidates from the region has increased significantly in the past five years. Both regions have 224 candidates, and the average asset value is Rs 68 lakh, up from Rs 37 lakh in 2004. Further, there are 28 crorepatis among them. Topping the list is a ministerial candidate, with assets worth Rs 76 crore. The highest number -- three each -- of crorepatis are in one of the poorest tribal segments, Gadchiroli-Chimur, and in farmer suicides-affected Akola. Being at the service of its citizens, the State is the steward of the people’s resources, which it must administer with a view to the common good. As an instrument of a democratic State, political representation and public administration at different levels – national, regional, local – should consist of people who have the track record and commitment to identify and share fully in the destiny of the common people. In this context, we cannot forget or underestimate the class dimension of political representation. Who will represent whom? What will be represented and how? Will rich candidates from the mining areas of Andhra Pradesh leverage their political power for the poor, displaced, devastated villagers? How will the richest candidate of Arunachal Pradesh, connected with the timber trade, champion the protection and conservation of degraded forests and forest-dwellers? In the electoral context, riches are not in themselves condemned, their misuse is the problem. This misuse could result in corruption, seduction, bypassing of accountability, and other unlawful activities. Our electoral space should be a place to build relationships between elections and equity. Democracy all over is of course being used by all – the poor and rich, upper and lower castes, men and women -- for extracting benefits. Not every citizen in this country occupies an equal share in the democratic space; the shares are disparate. The electoral space, however, is not infinite; it has boundaries in terms of a fixed number of constituencies and seats. More wealthy people in the electoral fray means a smaller share on the other side. These boundaries should therefore point us towards the need to protect the democratic parameters of sincerity, legitimacy and suitability in selection of candidates by the party. The commercialisation, commoditisation and corporatisation of the electoral space by an increasing presence and domination of the rich, must be guarded against by new checks and balances, and if required, by new legislations. Reforming the financial architecture of Indian elections, and going beyond a simple and ineffective system of expenditure cap, is vital to electoral reforms and democracy. Today’s grey and black, hidden and implicit, flowing and hot money systems working within elections at all levels are one of the main flywheels of both political and democratic destruction, while simultaneously exacerbating the gap between the rich and the poor. Protecting the Indian electoral scenario from unaccounted money flows and distribution is an urgent task. Haunted by disturbing images of distribution of money amongst the people by major political leaders, the Election Commission had rightly reminded us of the need to cool out the hot money during the election process, but this is just one small step. Estimates of illegal money flows in the elections run very high. India has proudly produced a number of millionaires and billionaires in the past decades, and these concentration of wealth in an unequal society have been prominently displayed -- and without any embarrassment. The electoral process is getting more and more influenced by this trend. In this context, the concerns about crorepati candidates are not just a matter of elections, but also one of equity. Though elections in India are also a huge economic activity, this form of it is disastrous, as ultimately it will keep the people poor and constrain their capacity to enhance their lives and move towards deepening democracy. Time and again, the rich and mighty shield themselves against inequality and poverty, exploitation and injustice, by dropping some charity and benefits at the doorsteps of the poor. Indian elections should not be another time to deprive the poor and the citizens of India of their democratic resources, in order for the rich to corner the country’s resources. Wealth is the twin of poverty. Both develop jointly and neither can be fully understood without reference to the other. Many commentators and campaigners today put the spotlight on people’s participation in election processes like the right to vote, and the criminalisation of politics. But the entry and influence of the rich in distorting elections and democratic processes has remained in the shadows. The quest for fairness in the electoral world means altering the reach of the rich in the first place, not the poor. The issue of fair elections, in other words, cannot be separated from unfair wealth. (Mukul Sharma is a journalist and writer) InfoChange News & Features, April 2009 |
