Trusteeship in politics

Elections are the most crucial and celebratory part of a democracy. Three key players—political parties, the Election Commission, and voters—shape the success of elections. Amid concerns over the brazen use of money power during polls and the means adopted by political parties to raise funds for meeting their election expenses, an important issue that needs to be addressed relates to ethical practices in the electoral process. Three questions arise:

How fair and free is the conduct of elections?

How do political parties raise funds to meet the expenses of contesting elections?

How freely can voters exercise their franchise? 

The Election Commission has, by and large, ensured that elections are conducted in a free and fair manner, i.e., in terms of the administrative process: preparation and updating of electoral rolls, arrangements for holding the polls across the country, casting of votes through EVMs, prevention of malpractices by voters such as impersonation and bogus voting, and counting and declaration of results.

Additionally, it is expected to scrutinise the activities of the political parties and candidates to make sure they don’t indulge in malpractices such as wooing voters through offering cash, gifts, or other means, spreading rumours or false information, or speaking derogatively about the rival candidates.

Despite the EC’s best efforts, it has failed to eliminate the use of money power by political parties that use ingenious ways to influence voters. Nor has it succeeded in ensuring the election expenses of candidates stay within the limits prescribed under the law.

While it is imperative for political parties to raise funds to finance elections, what is at issue is the means employed and the extent of the funds raised. Are the means used ethical, and is the amount raised limited to or
beyond their requirements? What are the sources of funding? How transparent is the process? Is there any accountability mechanism?

A survey conducted following the 2009 general elections revealed that corruption for both electoral and inter-electoral activities is largely due to the sheer venality in a system where accountability mechanisms for public funds are very weak, and hence the risk of getting caught and convicted is very low. Sources of funding include voluntary contributions from big corporations, with quid pro quo arrangements or, at times, purely voluntary, and big or small businesses such as real estate, construction contracts, etc.

Raising funds through electoral bonds introduced by the present government has come under the scanner of the Supreme Court, which declared the scheme illegal and called for disclosure of all details relating to the sources. Basically, the process has been held to lack transparency.

Another issue that has attracted attention is the arrest of AAP leaders, including the chief minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal. This action comes in the wake of alleged irregularities relating to the liquor policy introduced by the Delhi government, allegations of corruption in awarding contracts for the sale of liquor, and the misuse of money for electoral purposes.

A number of reforms have been suggested from time to time to deal with the problem of funding elections. Most of them pertain to changing systems and procedures, and politicians always find ways of circumventing rules. It is time to tackle the root cause of corruption, electoral or otherwise. Inevitably, it leads us to the idea of trusteeship propounded by Gandhiji. Trusteeship places responsibility on the individual to act in a manner that is to the benefit of others or society rather than one’s own. Gandhiji explains:

“Suppose I have come by a fair amount of wealth—either by way of legacy or by means of trade and industry—I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community.” It may be difficult to accept this formula in these days where accumulation of wealth is extolled and the richest and wealthiest persons — the likes of Elon Musk, Adani, and Ambani — are cheered more than those who toil in unfavourable conditions to earn their livelihoods and contribute to the wealth of the nation.

The idea of trusteeship may be dismissed as impractical, but it was exemplified by none other than JRD Tata. Declaring that he would do his best to follow Bapuji’s teachings and ideals and live up to them in a true spirit of trusteeship, he said in an interview in 1978: “...The Tatas are in fact a trust and an institution more than just a business house…The best way to apply the spirit of trusteeship is to act as trustees and to consider major problems of the country in connection with the operation of the firm as trustees and not as businessmen merely trying to make money for the firm. Incidentally, we want to make money, because that is the only way to make funds available for charitable trusts.”

Can the theory of trusteeship be applied to politics? Should not those who get elected in the name of the people exercise their power for the people? On the other hand, they are enlarging their privileges and increasing their wealth. How come even the declared incomes of our elected representatives increase multifold between two elections?

While CSR (corporate social responsibility) is aimed at sharing the wealth of businesses for public good, should there not be PSR (political social responsibility)? In keeping with the trusteeship principles, MPs and state legislators should hold office and exercise their power as trustees of the people whom they represent. This would imply that the salaries and other monetary benefits they receive from the state must be limited to their actual requirements and the surplus used for public good. Even for election purposes, parties or individuals should not raise more funds than necessary. Their actions must be transparent, and they must render an account for the money they raise and spend.

On the part of the voters, voting should not be viewed merely as an instrument to elect a person but also as adding value to the democratic process. ‘We the People’ must hold those we elect accountable for the trust we place in them.

Let there be a debate on the subject.

(The writer is a former chief secretary, Government of Karnataka)