Election time, musclemen time

It’s election time. Time to vote in or poll out time-tested lawmakers, who have enriched expressions such as horse-trading and heavyweight, most aptly called bahubali in Hindi, in the political lexicon of the world’s biggest democracy.

A person in jail may not be entitled to vote, but s/he can contest an election. Once elected, s/he can also become a powerful minister.

It’s an irony that lawmakers, despite being “public servants”, aren’t governed by rules applicable to other appointed, not elected, public servants.

Keen to coexist with political musclemen who can ensure votes via coercion or through the barrel of the gun, almost all political leaders in India justify the ill-system, saying a person can’t be held criminal or corrupt unless s/he is convicted by the supreme court (SC).

Delayed justice and escape routes such as bail and stay on a sentence serve the cause of lawmakers, who are slur on the democratic system.

The founding fathers of the well-argued constitution may not have conceived even in their wildest of dreams that a time will come when lawbreakers will become lawmakers.
Unfortunately, SC also missed the opportunity to rectify this lacuna when the judges interpreted the sacred clause of “immunity” from court action and legal proceedings the constitution-makers provided to ensure elected representatives do not feel threatened in expressing their views in parliament.

Parliament or a legislative assembly forms the basic feature of the constitution. But by holding that a person who gives bribe to lawmakers for their actions inside the House is liable to criminal action, the court’s judgment, in fact, gave a shot in the arm to a section of corrupt MPs and MLAs.

It was because of their overnight hopping from one party to the other and turning their loyalty into treachery that the anti-defection law had to be enacted.

The situation remains static. Sometime back the apex court stressed the need for good governance as it observed, “It’s in the context of good governance, there is a need for purity of system, equality and public perception, both internally and internationally. 

“Would you (government) appoint a person, judge or an election commissioner against whom a charge or offence is pending?”

Last week, while disposing of an appeal by a defeated candidate in Punjab, the judges said: “Before parting with the case, we would like to reiterate that in a democratic country the will of the people is paramount and the election of an elected candidate should not be lightly interfered with.

“At the same time, it is the bounden duty and obligation of the court to ensure that purity of election process is fully safeguarded and maintained.”

Thus, the court left it to the electorate to make a sane choice while exercising its franchise.

A study by NGO National Network for India Trust reveals in the 2004 general elections, of the 3,182 candidates surveyed (total contestants 5,435), 518 or 16.28% belonging to major political parties had criminal antecedents.

Another study says nearly 100 members elected to parliament in the last general elections had criminal antecedents.

The election commission has suggested in its reforms proposal that once a charge is framed against a person by a court for a certain offence, during a period of at least six months prior to elections, such a person should not be allowed to contest any election till he is cleared of the charge by the courts.

b_rakesh@dnaindia.net