NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES
SEARCH REDIFF

Search the Internet          Tips

Let's start a party

Some years back, I was watching this Tamil movie called Makkal Aatchi (People's government).

The hero, trying to escape a situation, hides in one of those huge covered lorries filled with large crates. The drunken lorry driver crashes the vehicle in a wooded stretch on the highway. He dies, the hero falls unconscious.

The hero -- played by Malayalam star Mammootty -- recovers consciousness and sees that one of the crates has split open, spilling bundles of currency notes. Working frantically, he ferries all the money deep into the woods, hides it, and makes his way back home.

There, he tells his two friends about the incident. The three of them try to figure out what to do with the windfall -- after all, you can't be broke one day and fling the stuff around the next without attracting notice.

The friend then comes up with a brilliant idea. "Let's start a political party," he says. And explains his thinking thus: "Once we start a party, we can start a bank account in its name and, every two weeks or so, deposit a few lakhs claiming that the cash has been contributed by supporters. We can then use part of this money to buy a grand house which we can call the party office, and fancy cars which we can say are for political work, and so on. With another part of the money, we can buy supporters who will take out huge rallies and shout slogans and all the rest of it. Once we generate that kind of support, we can contest elections and win. And then we can make even more money."

When the morning papers headlined the fact that Uttar Pradesh Governor Vishnu Kant Shastry has recommended President's rule in the state, this storyline came immediately to mind.

Consider this: According to the Election Commission's data, the recent Uttar Pradesh elections were contested by 90 parties, not counting Independents. Count them - n-i-n-e-t-y!

Ever heard of the Trilok Shakti Congress Bharat? The Sirpanch Samaj Party? The Shoshit Samaj Dal? Netaji Subhash Party? Manuvadi Party? Akhil Bharatiya Ashok Sena? Akhil Bharatiya Ram Rajya Parishad (Prem Vallabh Vyas)?

The break-up of this alphabet soup is revealing. Six of the 90 parties are recognised as 'national parties'. One -- the Samajwadi Party -- is recognised as a 'state party'. A further nine have been labelled 'state parties (other states)'.

And 74 parties are labelled 'Registered Unrecognised Parties'.

A reader recently wrote in suggesting I stop commenting about politics because I am 'politically naïve'. Today, I find myself agreeing with that reader -- I am naïve. Naïve enough to think, for instance, that if a party has not been recognised by the EC, then the EC has no business permitting it to contest an election. Naïve enough to imagine that the object of contesting an election should be to form a government; that a party that does not contest a majority of seats on offer does not have any such intent; that the real if unstated objective is partly to do a Mammootty, and partly to try and win one or two seats which can then be offered to the highest bidder. Naïve enough to think that by weeding out the Agar Jan Party, the Gondvana Gantantra Party, the Momin Conference and such, the EC will take an important first step towards political consolidation.

Time and again, the country -- read, the taxpayer -- pays massive amounts for elections. Incredible amounts of money are spent by the parties and their candidates -- enough to make a significant dent in poverty levels in the concerned state. At the end of it all, we have a 'fractured verdict'. And President's rule is imposed -- with another round of elections to follow.

And each time this happens, we -- as in, Joe Citizen -- wonder if it is time to reform the electoral process. Yes of course, Central governments down the years have told us, it is indeed time. Electoral reform is needed urgently. We will appoint a commission to look into all this. When the commission submits a report we will appoint a Parliamentary committee to study that report. When the Parliamentarians submit their report, we will appoint a Cabinet committee to study both reports and come up with a third report. And by then, we will lose the elections, some other bunch of blokes will form the government, and then the whole process can -- and will -- start all over again.

Come to think of it, there is a National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution in place right now. It has been studying elections in this country, underlining various lacunae, and suggesting solutions. The committee has looked at electoral rolls and how they are manipulated; election expenses and how it breeds criminality and corruption; the problem of criminals contesting elections and how to solve it... In other words, the review is thorough, and wide-ranging.

And slow. 'A preliminary report is being prepared, once it is studied a final report will be readied and submitted to the government', is the official statement. Sounds familiar?

Delay, they say, is the deadliest form of denial -- and when it comes to electoral reform, every single political party, every successive government, drags its feet. Could this be because the parties, and governments, see benefits in preserving the status quo?

Take the case of criminalisation of politics. Historically, politicians encouraged local hoods in their respective areas, shielded them from the police. Come election time, the hoods repaid the favour by putting their muscle at the disposal of their patrons, and ensuring their victory.

Then some criminal got smart and asked himself, why in heck am I taking so much trouble to get someone else elected? Why not contest on my own behalf, and use my muscle to win?

And so the criminals began contesting -- and winning -- in ever greater numbers.

Now consider this: in the Uttar Pradesh assembly election just ended, the Bharatiya Janata Party promised good governance and the stemming of terrorism and POTO and Ram Rajya. The Samajwadi Party promised the uplift of a certain section of society. The Bahujan Samaj Party promised the uplift of another section. The Congress promised Sonia Gandhi.

The electorate refused to give a single one of these parties a majority. In the aftermath, the 'secular' SP, BSP and Congress refused to support the 'fundamentalist' BJP. The two 'samajwadi' outfits hate each other's guts and won't go to bed together. The Congress with its 25 MLAs in a house of 403 isn't supporting anyone because its support won't make a difference anyway.

But there is one category of politician who is in a position to form the government -- namely, the criminal. As per figures compiled by the Uttar Pradesh police, 206 of the winning candidates in UP have criminal cases against their name. In other words, the criminals have a majority.

Now all it takes is for one savvy person to figure out the implications -- and the final step. Namely, bring all those with criminal records onto one common platform, create an umbrella party, approach the governor, show him the numbers, and get the mandate to form the government.

It didn't happen this time -- but it will, soon, if this trend keeps up. First in one state, then in others. And finally, at the Centre. Foreign dignitaries today visit Parliament House -- the time could come when they will be driven to Tihar Jail to meet the prime minister and members of his Cabinet.

And meanwhile, in an obscure room in some government building, a review committee will be examining the Parliamentary committee's report on the review committee recommendations on the electoral reforms commission's report....

More From Prem Panicker

Elections 2002: The complete coverage