KnowLaw

Implementation and Regulation of Intra-Party Democracy in Politics and Electoral Reforms in India

/

Mitakshara Kapoor

India, being the world’s largest democracy, places great importance on the electoral process as a cornerstone of its political system. Free and fair elections are vital for India as they ensure the selection of capable leaders and representatives of the people’s will. However, a 2002 Supreme Court ruling stated that the Election Commission of India lacks the authority to penalize registered political parties for disregarding inner-party democracy. While the court acknowledged the ECI’s power to deregister parties, it emphasized that party registration is distinct from other processes. This makes regulating the behavior and functioning of political parties challenging, compromising the effectiveness of democratic processes. To address this, electoral reforms are necessary to promote inner-party democracy and establish a more accountable and transparent political system.

Major Hurdles in Intra-Party Democracy

Electoral Reforms

As the most significant contributors to Indian democracy, political parties, the health and vitality of the latter are inextricably linked to how well the former carry out democracy. Two main areas primarily highlight the parties’ failure to conduct democratic business. First, there are certain gaps in the transparency and inclusivity of the selection process for party leadership and membership. The fundamental right of all citizens to equal political opportunity to participate in politics and seek office is adversely affected by this.

Second, due to the centralized nature of political parties and the strong anti-defection act of 1985, party legislators are discouraged from casting their votes in the national and state legislatures following their personal beliefs. The anti-defection statute requires that when voting on legislation, elected officials rigorously follow the party whip. They are excluded from the legislature if they don’t follow this.

Leadership and Composition

Elections for organizational offices at different levels are difficult in the majority of the main political parties. It has been noted that a clique of party insiders with influence over the party administration largely determines the leadership. Even in elections where the party’s national organizational or decision-making body members participate, the other members essentially lend their support to the predetermined choice of the party elite.

The majority of the time, elections for leadership positions are unanimously and without controversy decided. Organizational elections that serve only as a formality and rubber stamp are sometimes conducted with grave irregularities.

Also of great concern in Indian politics is the make-up of the party elite. According to numerous research findings, the parties’ centralized and unclear operations caused them to distribute party tickets to only some groups of the population while excluding the rest of society. According to reports, party members with sufficient social and financial resources are given preference when allocating tickets to run in elections.

Additionally, a significant number of party nominees who have a criminal history have recently gained attention. The Supreme Court has also acknowledged that the “criminalization of politics” is becoming more common in India. Because there is no legally binding framework in place for the parties, the “lack of democratic functioning” has prohibited a substantial segment of the population from holding leadership positions and being nominated for elections.

Freedom for Legislators

When it comes to the representativeness of party officials as well as that of the elected representatives of the parties, the democratic spirit is found deficient. The Anti-Defection Law of 1985 mandates that “party legislators follow the party whip, which is established by the directives of the highest levels of the party hierarchy.” This Act was put in place to stop parliamentarians from openly horsetrading to form and destroy governments by swaying legislative majorities. But the current political landscape strongly implies that the law has accomplished very little in terms of its intended objective.

As “the obligatory whip that the statute imposes on the party legislators compels them to conform to the orders of their party high-command in the legislature,” the Act has instead done more harm to the cause of inner-party democracy. As a result, the party leadership has complete control over the legislators’ discretionary authority. Because of this, it is more probable that elected officials will continue to answer to their party’s leadership and authority rather than to the voters who chose the candidate to represent them in the legislature.

Is there a need for Political Will?

The lack of accountability and transparency in the internal operations of the political parties gravely undermines the stability of India’s parliamentary system. Due to issues like the lack of free and fair internal elections, the questionable method of allocating party tickets, the lack of information about those running for office, and the murky area of campaign finance, a serious public debate about the increasing need for political party reforms are urgently required.

Several government-established committees, including the “Dinesh Goswami Committee, the Tarkunde Committee, and the Indrajit Gupta Committee,” which vehemently argued for more transparent working conditions for political parties in the nation, have made several recommendations on electoral reforms, as this article has noted. The “Law Commission Report from 1999” strongly recommended the creation of a regulatory framework to monitor the internal operations and internal party democracy of political parties. Additionally, the Union Law Ministry received a draught of the Political Parties (Registration and Regulation of Affairs) Bill, 2011.

According to the idea, each political party would establish an executive committee, whose members are going to be chosen by the local committee of members of the party’s state divisions. The latter would select the party’s office bearers from among itself without accepting any nominations.

In a democracy, political parties hold sway over key governing institutions. Therefore, the process of democratizing India’s political parties can only be advanced by strong political will resulting from unquestionable electoral demands for it.

India’s Electoral Reforms

Even though the first three general elections were conducted in a free and fair manner, it is generally acknowledged that a decline in standards began with the fourth general election in 1967. Many people believe that the country’s electoral system is what causes political corruption. We shall discuss the difficulties in this area and some of the prior electoral reform initiatives in the parts that follow.

Roadblocks to Electoral Reforms in India

The voting process in India is beset by numerous problems. The following list includes a few of the most notable.

  • Money Power – Candidates in every constituency must spend millions of dollars on advertising, marketing, and other expenses. The majority of contenders spend significantly more than is permitted.
  • Muscle Power – Numerous complaints of improper and troubling voting-related events, including the use of force, intimidation, booth capturing, etc., have surfaced in some regions of the country.
  • The criminalization of Politics and Politicization of Criminals – Criminals get involved in politics and make sure that their influence and resources help them win, preventing the prosecution of their crimes. As long as they have people who can win, political parties are content as well. Political parties use criminals in elections to raise money, and in exchange, they give them political protection and patronage.
  • Misuse of Government Machinery – The broad consensus is that the party in power uses government resources, such as official cars for campaigning, advertisements paid for by the exchequer, payments made from ministers’ discretionary funds, and other strategies, to increase the likelihood that their candidates will win.
  • Non-serious independent candidates – To capture a significant share of the votes that would otherwise have gone to rival candidates, serious candidates field non-serious candidates in elections.
  • Casteism – There are instances where some caste groups firmly support certain political parties. As a result, political parties make concessions to appeal to various castes, and castes also attempt to pressure parties into providing tickets for the elections of their members. Caste voting is very common in the nation, which is a significant blemish on democracy and equality. Additionally, this causes rifts throughout the nation.
  • Communalism – The Indian political culture of pluralism, parliamentarians, secularism, and federalism is seriously threatened by communal polarization.
  • Lack of Moral Values in Politics – Politics in India has turned into a business as a result of political corruption. People get involved in politics to increase their wealth and influence. There aren’t many politicians who want to improve a lot of their constituents. The Gandhian principles of sacrifice and service are absent from India’s political landscape.

Electoral Reforms Undertaken

Authorities’ efforts to modify the electoral process can be broadly categorized into two groups: Pre-2000 and Post-2000.” These two topics are covered in the section below:

Pre-2000 Electoral Reforms

  • Lowering of Voting Age – The Constitution’s 61st Amendment Act lowered the voting age requirement from 21 to 18 years.
  • Deputation to Election Commission – For the duration of their employment, all staff members involved in creating, reviewing, and making corrections to the electoral rolls for elections are considered to be on deputation to the EC, and they are under the EC’s supervision.
  • Increase in the number of proposers and the security deposit – For elections to the Rajya Sabha and State Legislative Councils, the number of electors necessary to sign as proposers in the nomination papers has been increased to 10% of the electors of the constituency or ten such electors, whichever is less, primarily to discourage frivolous candidates. Additionally, the security deposit has increased to deter insincere applicants.
  • Electronic Voting Machine (EVMs) – EVMs were first employed in the state elections of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan in 1998. Today, they are extensively used because they are reliable, effective, and a better option for the environment.
  • Disqualification on conviction for violating the National Honours Act, 1971 – The person will be barred from running for office in the state legislatures and the Parliament for six years as a result.
  • Restriction on contesting from more than 2 constituencies – A candidate is limited to running in no more than two constituencies.
  • Death of a contesting candidate – In the past, a candidate’s death caused the election to be thrown out. No election will be annulled in the future due to the demise of a candidate. The party in question will have the opportunity to nominate a different candidate within 7 days after receiving a notice to that effect from the Election Commission, however, if the deceased candidate was set up by a recognized national or state party.
  • It is against the law to approach or be close to a voting booth while armed. This has a maximum 2-year prison sentence as punishment.
  • Organizational employees are entitled to paid time off on election days, and doing so in violation of the policy is fined.
  • Prohibition on the sale of liquor – Within 48 hours of the hour set for the polls to close, no alcohol or other intoxicants may be purchased, supplied, or distributed at any store, restaurant, or other location, whether private or public.
  • The time limit for bye-elections – Bye-elections will henceforth be held for any vacancy in a House of Parliament or a State Legislature within six months of the occurrence of that vacancy.
  • The campaigning period has been shortened.

Electoral Reforms Post-2000

The nation’s electoral system is the focus of the revisions. The list of such electoral reforms is provided below:

  • Ceiling on election expenditure – There is currently no cap on the amount a political party can spend on a candidate or an election. However, the Commission has set a spending limit for each contender. It ranges from Rs. 50 to 70 lakhs for the Lok Sabha elections (depending on the state from which they are running), and from Rs. 20 to 28 lakhs for an assembly election.
  • Restriction on exit polls – Before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the EC released a statement stating that the results of exit polls could only be broadcast after the conclusion of the election’s final phase. To prevent prospective voters from being misled or prejudiced in any way, this was done.
  • Voting through postal ballot – The EC decided to broaden the scope of postal ballot voting in the nation in 2013. Before this, only Indian diplomats serving overseas and a small number of defence personnel could cast postal ballots. Service voters, special voters, wives of service voters and special voters, those subject to preventive detention, people on election duty, and Notified voters are the six groups of voters who can now use the postal ballot.
  • Awareness Creation – To commemorate the founding day of the EC, the government chose to honor January 25 as “National Voters Day.”
  • Political parties must inform the EC of any contributions that exceed Rs 20,000 to receive income tax benefits.
  • Candidates must disclose their criminal histories, financial resources, and other information, and it is now an electoral offense to falsely state facts in an affidavit, which is punishable by up to six months in prison or a fine, or both.

Concluding the Discussion

Both the governance structure and political financing need to be changed to stop the never-ending cycle of corruption and the erosion of democratic politics. It is crucial to close the current legal loopholes to promote accountability and transparency throughout the whole governance structure.

For people to experience changes taking place at their level and to actualize and appreciate the importance of voting, long-term empowerment of local bodies and localized power must be implemented. This would reduce people’s propensity for receiving free things. Additionally, local bureaucracy must be held accountable and responsible to prevent the political parties from bearing their load. According to statistics, it costs a party’s workers 3–4 crores a year to indirectly maintain an assembly constituency. This creates a close connection between party workers and the bureaucracy, which takes on menial contracts, intervenes in police investigations, etc. instead of paying them, leading to misuse of the administrative process.

Voters who sacrifice their moral standards and accept gifts or cash in exchange for their votes forfeit their right to hold the government to account. Voters must therefore base their decisions on the candidates’ values, credentials, and skills rather than their riches, caste, community, or criminal history. This could be the most successful strategy for reducing the impact of money on politics.

The constitutional functionaries, who have agreed to maintain the fundamental principles of the Constitution, are in the duty of making sure that corruption does not infiltrate the current political system.

References