Clean financing of parties

By Harish Khare

LAST WEEK two unrelated but converging developments took place and both underlined the unhealthy role of money in political life. Both developments involved Dr. Manmohan Singh. First, the former Finance Minister managed to get himself re-elected to the Rajya Sabha from Assam. On the face of it, there was nothing to write home about. After all, the Congress had just won a famous victory and had enough votes to ensure another Rajya Sabha term for Dr. Manmohan Singh. But it was not all that easy; the good doctor had to insist that the Congress would not give in to the temptation of using its surplus votes to try to get in a second candidate as well. Dr. Manmohan Singh probably knew that had the Congress put up a second candidate he would have met the fate that befell Mr. R. D. Pradhan in Maharashtra in 1998 and Mr. Inder Khosla in Uttar Pradesh in 2000. Rival candidates with bulky money votes would have simply suborned the loyalty of the loyal Congress MLAs. In the case of Mr. Khosla, the Congress was reduced to having to pay its own MLAs to vote for the party candidate; yet it could not get its candidate elected because it was outfinanced by other candidates in purchasing the MLAs and their votes. Dr. Singh could spare himself the Khosla nightmare only because the party gave in to his insistence, even if it meant gifting a Rajya Sabha seat to the BJP.

The second development also involved the former Finance Minister. Fresh from his Assam victory, he finalised and submitted a report to the Congress Working Committee on party finances. After suggesting many ways the party could operate on ``clean'' money, the Manmohan Singh Committee report concludes that ``the Congress must take the lead in bringing about a new culture of transparency, accountability and integrity in financing.'' Amen. Dr. Singh had the credentials -and the competent colleagues on the committee- to address one of the most urgent maladies afflicting the Indian polity.

The pervasiveness of this malady was so shockingly and so graphically revealed in the Tehelka expose. What was more, the total immorality of a Bangaru Laxman or a Jaya Jaitly accepting ``donations'' was sought to be justified as a morally acceptable way of political parties going about the business of collecting ``party funds''. From the safety of their ministerial perches, the BJP and the Samata Party leaders fell over one another to portray themselves as the unapologetic custodians of the same corrupt political culture they once raved and ranted against.

Yet the malady of tainted money being used to finance political activities is not a partisan concern. It is different from the specific problem of funds needed at the time of an election; any number of leaders and public analysts have wasted their efforts trying to create a system of public funding of elections. On the other hand, the Manmohan Singh Committee report invites attention and debate because it seeks to address itself to the problem of financing the ``normal'' - non-election time - activities of the Congress. The Committee's plea is that the Congress can collect sufficient funds openly, transparently and honestly without resorting to unhealthy practices.

In the recent months the AICC leadership has stumbled upon the idea that it has a dozen-odd milching cows, presiding over the Congress- ruled States. What is not realised is that the demands made by the AICC on the Congress Chief Ministers have a cascading and deleterious effect on the quality of governance in the States. The Congress is not alone in tapping State Governments. The Keshubhai Patel regime in Gujarat gets away with murder because of its financial usefulness to central leaders.

Yet the parties do need funds. After all only the most naive would believe that parties do not have any activities - and therefore do not incur any expenses - before and after an electoral round. If nothing else, all parties have to maintain establishments on a substantial scale. The AICC is a classic example of an all-India political party apparatus. The BJP too is not far behind. The two communist parties have impressive establishments. Only the Samata Party chooses to operate out of the former Defence Minister's residence; the arrangement probably has less to do with financial constraints and more to do with the Fernandes-Jaitly duo's way of controlling the outfit.

Also, political leaders need some kind of financial support. No party can take the position that it would expect a leader to commit his/her time, skills and energy when needed, and then abandon the retired politician to his/her fate. Even Mahatma Gandhi needed a Jamnalal Bajaj to take care of the expenses. Remember Sarojini Naidu's cryptic comment: ``It costs a lot to keep Bapu in poverty.'' Decent parties find ways of enabling an E. M. S. Namboodiripad or a Sitaram Kesri or a Khushabhau Thakre to spend life in reasonable comfort, long after they cease to able to ``work'' for the organisation. The same holds true for the ``working'' leaders.

Will, then, the problem of corruption in political life get addressed if parties had the kind of ``clean'' funds suggested by the Manmohan Singh Committee? Of course, there is a very tiny minority among our leaders whose integrity will not get questioned, whatever the system of political financial arrangement. There will always be the A. K. Antonys, the Ahmed Patels, the Manmohan Singhs, the M. L. Fotedars, the Nitish Kumars, the Khushabhau Thakres, the Mamta Banerjees, etc.; then there will be leaders who will either have sufficient family wealth - a Madhavrao Scindia or a Natwar Sigh - or enough professional skills - an Arun Jaitley or an Arun Shourie or a Kapil Sibal -not ever to want to dirty their hands with unclean money.

Beyond this minority of men of probity is the vast majority of unemployed and unemployable political ``leaders'' who want to pilfer the state's funds or abuse the state' patronage and discretion to line their pockets.

The Satish Sharma syndrome retains its seductive attraction.In fact, increasingly, political life is being dominated by very rich individuals who want to use the leverage of their wealth to advance their own and their associates' political and business interests. Political parties find themselves increasingly having to rely on these resourceful individuals, who are willing to spend their personal funds for party activities. The comforting fiction is that these individuals spend their funds entirely altruistically. For instance, the People's Front leaders want to believe in the fiction that they can advance an wholesome political agenda while allowing the corporate leaders of the Samajwadi Party to pick up the tab.

The result is that there is a self-perpetuating political elite - staking claim to leadership positions, Rajya Sabha seats, Lok Sabha nominations and to corporations and commissions - which wants to live in the spacious official bungalows in New Delhi; these ``leaders'' will jettison parties and alliances, as long as they are able to remain in ``circulation''. This phenomenon has induced a cultivated indifference to party loyalty and public purpose, and a wilful debasement of political discourse.

The political parties will therefore have to be liberated from reliance on these compromised individuals if the party leaders have to have the autonomy to take bold and honest decisions. As is obvious, the Indian State's retreat from the commanding heights of the economy has only increased the scope for dishonest entrepreneurs joining hands with dishonest politicians and dishonest bureaucrats. The polity's long term interests then can only be served if the parties and leaders recover their autonomy by reducing their dependence on unclean money. The Manmohan Singh Committee and the Congress party have taken the first step. It must become a collective enterprise.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : The tobacco war
Next     : An S.C. Bench for the South - II