'Democracy cannot be taken for granted. It has to be fiercely guarded.'
"Political parties can take however much money from whoever, but they should disclose it," says Jagdeep Chhokar, former professor at the Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad.
Professor Chhokar is among the founding member of the Association of Democratic Reforms established in 1999.
ADR was one of the petitioners to challenge the electoral bonds scheme in the Supreme Court in 2017.
"Transparency is a value in itself so that people can make up their mind whether there is any quid pro quo or not," Professor Chhokar tells Rediff.com's Archana Masih in the concluding part of a phone interview.
- Part 1 of the Interview: 'There's concrete proof of corporate-political nexus'
Former Chief Election Commissioner Dr S Y Quraishi had proposed that every voter contribute Rs 100 to an election fund that would then be channeled to political parties.
Would such a scheme be feasible or is it too Utopian?
This scheme is not very different from what is often called State funding of elections. The word 'State funding' is a misnomer. Where would the State get this money from?
The State would get this money from the people.
Therefore, should it not be called 'public funding' rather than 'State funding'?
In India, unfortunately, we have a situation where people feel that anything done by the government is 'free' and funded by the State so let it be spent however the government wants.
But if it is called 'public funding', then people will realise that this is the public's money.
What Dr Quraishi proposes is like public funding because there is not much difference between the two schemes.
Secondly, let us say that it is agreed that public funds will be given to political parties. Should they then be allowed to accept money from other sources?
No, I don't think they should.
Will any political party then accept this condition?
No, I don't think so.
Then, where are we? [laughs] What will then happen is that public money will be given to political parties and they will pocket the funds and continue to get money from other sources.
Political parties are very good at making promises and even if they agree that they will not accept money from other sources, how will this be enforced?
And do we even know how much money should be budgeted for this? We need a base figure to start with, but does anybody know how much political parties spent in the last election?
It is estimated by a group that Rs 55,000 crores to Rs 60,000 crores (Rs 550 billion to Rs 600 billion) were spent on the 2019 election. But if you read the full report of that group, the report itself says that there are several activities that are not included in the estimates which means that the reports are not accurate.
Only political parties themselves know how much they have spent. There is no way to realistically estimate how much money should be provided for this purpose. Therefore, these schemes are not practical.
What is the solution then?
The only answer is transparency. Political parties can take however much money from whoever, but they should disclose it.
Transparency is a value in itself so that people can make up their mind whether there is any quid pro quo or not.
Do you think the electoral bond disclosure will impact the coming election?
We filed this petition in 2017 as soon as the electoral bond scheme was announced. The scheme was notified in 2018. Nobody questioned if this petition would influence the 2019 election?
We five gave applications to the Supreme Court to hear the case earlier which were not accepted. The Supreme Court decided to hear the case in October 2023 and reserved their judgment on November 2, 2023.
In their wisdom they gave the judgment in February 2024 which happens to be very close to the general election. Therefore, we did not file this petition to impact any election.
Secondly, in our petition we had only asked for the scheme to be declared unconstitutional. This disclosure has happened on the order of the Supreme Court which we appreciate very much.
Our intention was to bring transparency to political financing.
Therefore, I don't know whether this will impact elections because we are not in the business of forecasting elections.
We are in the business of improving democracy.
Several people are interpreting it that we did this to hurt or help a political party which was not our intention. We are neutral and don't even think about who will win or who will lose.
Do you think people will have the disclosures on their mind when they press the button on Election Day?
Our job is to help the voter make an informed choice. So I don't know if the voter will be influenced by this or not.
There is concern about India being increasingly described as an 'electoral autocracy'. Do you agree with this description?
Our democracy needs to be improved and we have been trying to do this for 25 years. We have been trying to improve our democracy since 1999.
Democracy is not a destination, it is a journey. There is no perfect democracy. We are on our own democratic path. This is so for every country.
We are trying to make the country move forward on the democratic path and this is something that can never be fully achieved.
IMAGE: Professor Jagdeep ChhokarAren't political parties hypocritical? For example, the Congress condemns the electoral bonds, but it was a recipient and did not spurn the money.
Every political party is hypocritical. Every party criticises something at one time and says it is good at another.
Opposition leaders have claimed this could be our last free and fair election. Do you share this concern that is felt in some quarters?
It is very difficult to say what could happen. Anything could happen. Democracy has to be fiercely guarded. Democracy cannot be taken for granted.
We have to be on guard that our democracy remains effective, healthy and efficient.
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff.com
