<p>Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821), a diplomat, writer, and philosopher, wrote in 1811 that every nation has the government it deserves.</p>.<p> The famous comment is wrongly attributed as well to Alexis de Tocqueville, author of ‘Democracy in America,’ the popular version of which is “In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.” Irish playwright G B Shaw echoed similar sentiment.<br /><br />But who are the victims of a bad government? The people, surely. Because bad regimes cannot be easily be voted out – even in a democracy. Arab Springs might be the result of popular groundswell of hatred for oppressive regimes accumulated over the years bursting forth in one final implosion to unseat governments but mass mobilisations of that scale takes years to build up.<br /><br />With the Assembly elections in five states including the famed badland of UP round the corner and a general election in 2014, electoral reform is surely going to be the talking point this season. The Election Commission’s notice to Union law minister Salman Khurshid following his promise of a 9 per cent sub-quota for socially and economically backward Muslims in Uttar Pradesh is another subtle example on how across the board political parties in the state are engaged in competitive electoral mobilisation along caste and religious lines.<br /><br />Overstepping powers<br /><br />In June 2002, the Election Commission on the direction of the Supreme Court, issued an order under Article 324 that each candidate must submit an affidavit regarding the information of his/her criminal antecedents and assets (both movable and immovable) of self and those of spouses and dependents as well. But political parties cried wolf, alleging that the EC and the apex court, were ‘overstepping’ their powers. In 2003, a law was introduced to prohibit the election of criminals to the legislative bodies. Still, criminals roam free in parliament and in the state assemblies and the glossing over their criminal backgrounds creates a bigger irony by making law-makers of law-breakers.<br /><br />According to an estimate, 150 MPs out of the 541 elected MPs in the 2009 general elections have criminal records, 72 of whom have been charged of serious crimes including murder, rape, etc. The number of MPs with criminal antecedents were representative of all parties – a democratic thing ironically – and proportionate to the number of seats of that party. Now thanks to organisations such as the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch (NEW) working in the field of electoral reforms for the past few years, the issue of electoral malpractice and the criminalisation of politics have been propped up as topics of national debate. </p>.<p>It is because of a public interest litigation filed by the founding members of the ADR that resulted in a Supreme Court judgment making mandatory the declaration of assets and criminal records of all those seeking to contest assembly and parliamentary elections.<br /><br />The Tarkunde committee report of 1975, the Goswami report of 1990, the Election Commission’s recommendations of 1998 and the Indrajit Gupta committee report of 1998 produced a comprehensive set of proposals regarding electoral reforms. The Law Commission of India, in their 170th report in 1999, proposed amendment to the Representation of the People Act by which framing of charges by court in respect of any offence, electoral or others, would be a ground for disqualifying the candidate from contesting election. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution in a report in 2001 proposed that any person convicted for any heinous crime like murder, rape, smuggling, dacoity, etc. should be permanently debarred from contesting for any political office.<br /><br />We are yet to find a foolproof mechanism to make funding of elections more transparent, and to completely debar criminals from contesting elections, to facilitate reform of political parties to make them less dependent on family and kin. Because of a lack of transparent audit and use of technology, delivery of social services is seen to be arbitrary and inefficient. <br /><br />The Dinesh Goswami committee on electoral reforms submitted a comprehensive report to government in 1990. In 2001, the National Committee to Review the Constitution elaborated extensively on the need for electoral reforms. In 2004, the Election Commission itself made a series of recommendations. As late as December 2010, the ministry of law and justice prepared a background paper on electoral reforms in association with the commission. Now if one considers that between 1990 and now, virtually every political party has had some part to play in governance, but did little to bring in reform one cannot but conclude vested interests coming in the way of reforms irrespective of political dispensations. Are we, therefore, condemned to get the government we deserve? </p>
<p>Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821), a diplomat, writer, and philosopher, wrote in 1811 that every nation has the government it deserves.</p>.<p> The famous comment is wrongly attributed as well to Alexis de Tocqueville, author of ‘Democracy in America,’ the popular version of which is “In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.” Irish playwright G B Shaw echoed similar sentiment.<br /><br />But who are the victims of a bad government? The people, surely. Because bad regimes cannot be easily be voted out – even in a democracy. Arab Springs might be the result of popular groundswell of hatred for oppressive regimes accumulated over the years bursting forth in one final implosion to unseat governments but mass mobilisations of that scale takes years to build up.<br /><br />With the Assembly elections in five states including the famed badland of UP round the corner and a general election in 2014, electoral reform is surely going to be the talking point this season. The Election Commission’s notice to Union law minister Salman Khurshid following his promise of a 9 per cent sub-quota for socially and economically backward Muslims in Uttar Pradesh is another subtle example on how across the board political parties in the state are engaged in competitive electoral mobilisation along caste and religious lines.<br /><br />Overstepping powers<br /><br />In June 2002, the Election Commission on the direction of the Supreme Court, issued an order under Article 324 that each candidate must submit an affidavit regarding the information of his/her criminal antecedents and assets (both movable and immovable) of self and those of spouses and dependents as well. But political parties cried wolf, alleging that the EC and the apex court, were ‘overstepping’ their powers. In 2003, a law was introduced to prohibit the election of criminals to the legislative bodies. Still, criminals roam free in parliament and in the state assemblies and the glossing over their criminal backgrounds creates a bigger irony by making law-makers of law-breakers.<br /><br />According to an estimate, 150 MPs out of the 541 elected MPs in the 2009 general elections have criminal records, 72 of whom have been charged of serious crimes including murder, rape, etc. The number of MPs with criminal antecedents were representative of all parties – a democratic thing ironically – and proportionate to the number of seats of that party. Now thanks to organisations such as the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch (NEW) working in the field of electoral reforms for the past few years, the issue of electoral malpractice and the criminalisation of politics have been propped up as topics of national debate. </p>.<p>It is because of a public interest litigation filed by the founding members of the ADR that resulted in a Supreme Court judgment making mandatory the declaration of assets and criminal records of all those seeking to contest assembly and parliamentary elections.<br /><br />The Tarkunde committee report of 1975, the Goswami report of 1990, the Election Commission’s recommendations of 1998 and the Indrajit Gupta committee report of 1998 produced a comprehensive set of proposals regarding electoral reforms. The Law Commission of India, in their 170th report in 1999, proposed amendment to the Representation of the People Act by which framing of charges by court in respect of any offence, electoral or others, would be a ground for disqualifying the candidate from contesting election. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution in a report in 2001 proposed that any person convicted for any heinous crime like murder, rape, smuggling, dacoity, etc. should be permanently debarred from contesting for any political office.<br /><br />We are yet to find a foolproof mechanism to make funding of elections more transparent, and to completely debar criminals from contesting elections, to facilitate reform of political parties to make them less dependent on family and kin. Because of a lack of transparent audit and use of technology, delivery of social services is seen to be arbitrary and inefficient. <br /><br />The Dinesh Goswami committee on electoral reforms submitted a comprehensive report to government in 1990. In 2001, the National Committee to Review the Constitution elaborated extensively on the need for electoral reforms. In 2004, the Election Commission itself made a series of recommendations. As late as December 2010, the ministry of law and justice prepared a background paper on electoral reforms in association with the commission. Now if one considers that between 1990 and now, virtually every political party has had some part to play in governance, but did little to bring in reform one cannot but conclude vested interests coming in the way of reforms irrespective of political dispensations. Are we, therefore, condemned to get the government we deserve? </p>
