Backpage
IT is ironic, if not paradoxical, that despite the widespread acceptance of democracy, the continuing popularity of elections at all levels of the polity and even the enthusiastic participation of citizens, particularly those from the lower end of the class-caste spectrum, in political rallies and campaigns, levels of trust in political institutions and actors, political parties and politicians, remains alarmingly low. They, in fact, are consistently rated below non-political, nonrepresentative institutions like courts, the Election Commission and even the army. This, to anyone interested in the evolution of a healthy democracy, can only be a matter of concern. Nevertheless, while we all have a long list of ills afflicting our political parties, we are at a loss about desirable processes of initiating reform.
Why? We know that modern, complex democracies are unthinkable without parties, in fact cannot function without them. Be it selecting candidates for elections, mobilizing the electorate, formulating agendas, passing legislation the political socialization of the citizenry is primarily conducted through parties, vehicles through which we contest for and exercise power in society. Yet, far too many of us shy away from joining political parties, seeing them not as meritocratic organizations engaging with ideas and programmes but as oligarchic fiefdoms, usually in control of specific individuals, families or coteries, mere electoral machines unduly influenced, if not captive to, money and muscle power.
In many ways, exceptions apart, this is not an incorrect description. Most political parties remain improperly organized, rarely follow their own constitutions, suffer from insufficient intra-party democracy, do not have membership lists, are opaque about their accounts, and the list can be expanded. Not merely small, ethnic, leader oriented parties, but even those claiming to be ideology driven and cadre based reflect the same tendencies. It comes as no surprise that most political parties enjoy low credibility and are steadily losing membership. Worse, their discrediting serves to delegitimise politics itself, increasingly seen as the last refuge of scoundrels.
Unfortunately, these issues are more debated in non-party forums and by those not associated with political parties than in the organizations themselves. Politicians most often seem to raise issues of internal democracy, transparency and accountability only when they are marginalized within their parties, or expelled. Witness, the recent outburst of Uma Bharti, till recently an important leader of the BJP, accusing the top echelons of the party for indulging in anti-party activity.
More troubling is the fact that most of those debating party reform remain skeptical about the likelihood of internal party processes and thus favour external regulation as if legislation or the intervention of an outside, independent regulator can address the problem of a debilitated political culture. True that state regulation, for instance specifying conditions for parties to gain recognition insisting on a written constitution, updated membership lists, audited accounts, regular elections to party posts, and so on can facilitate internal democracy. But then why is it that the different political parties find it impossible to ensure the necessary legislation? Or why look to the Election Commission to ensure that parties follow their own constitutions? There is, after all, no guarantee that independent commissions can be fair arbitrators of the process. And will this not constrain the autonomy of agency of what in essence is a voluntary association?
Take the other vexed question of the criminalisation of parties and politics. Even while complaining about the problem, each political party to varying degrees relies on bahubalis to win elections. No wonder there is no consensus on criteria to bar candidates from contesting elections. Even the fact that charges related to grievous crimes like murder and rape have been framed by competent judicial authority, is not accepted as sufficient ground to debar candidates. The insistence on final conviction in our judicial system can only provide an unending rope to such elements. Should we instead focus on intervention by civil society scrutinizing the affidavits filed by candidates and publicizing the findings.
Both politics and political parties are much too crucial for our democracy to be left to professional politicians alone. Without all of us as citizens taking greater interest in the health of our political parties pressurizing them to be transparent about their modes of working and engaging with them on their proposed policies and programmes we may continue to muddle along as we have been doing. Following the legislative route, though essential, demands both reticence and caution; otherwise we may lapse into an over-regulated, guided democracy, much like what some of our neighbour states have attempted.
Harsh Sethi
