Criminalization of Indian Politics: Can it be curbed?

What we see around us today is fallen nation, a nation whose primitive greatness today lied buried in ruins. Yes I am indicating about the greatness in terms of spiritual integrity, social conscience and inquiry to decide about just and unjust. Our national integrity and consciousness has been in shambles and desolation. We have forgotten to uphold our character in difficult times. We lost faith in judiciary, governance and bureaucracy. The result is maligning in the corrupt and criminal practices by our leaders to exploit unethically the poor, needy and deprived and vulnerable section of society. The greater pie of the resources is snatched away by none other than the political leaders in the name of our true democratic representatives to rescue us from difficult times and give us a prosperous period.

India’s burgeoning criminalization in politics has been a menace in last three decade. The need for cleansing politics of criminal influence has been flagged once again. The primary sacrifice at the altar of criminalization is that of governance, along with transparency and accountability. Recently, the Supreme Court agreed to examine a proposition made by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ask political parties to not give the ticket to those with criminal antecedents. Over the years, the Supreme Court has passed many judgements that sought to curb criminalization of politics, but the extent of the problem has not been eliminated.

The recent report by the Association for Democratic Reforms has highlighted the urgency of the issue. The report stated that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. Similarly Current Lok Sabha MPs have the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors.

The biggest confounding factor in the political environment of business is criminalization of politics: people with criminal backgrounds becoming politicians and elected representatives. Around 20% of the members of the current Lok Sabha have criminal cases pending against them. The charges in several of these cases are of heinous crimes such as murder, robbery, kidnapping, and not just violation of Section 144, or something similar.

It is well known that all parties take the help of criminal elements to dominate the election scene in India. But this process is influencing the mind and the will of the people both to gain the majority to rule the country according to their will. The system of democracy is now changing into the dictatorship of some. Because the democracy of India are now in hands of the criminal who are not capable any way to hold the post if legislature.

Criminalization of Politics means that the criminals entering the politics and contesting elections and even getting elected to the Parliament and state legislature.It takes place primarily because of the nexus between the criminals and some of the politicians.

The criminals need the patronage of politicians occupying public offices to continue with their criminal activities and the politicians need the money and muscle power that the criminals can offer to the politicians to win elections. In course of time, the nexus led the criminals themselves to contest elections.

In India, it is not a new phenomenon; the first instances of “booth-capturing” were reported in 1957, and involved hired goons who would mobilize or suppress turnout, or vote on behalf of disenfranchised voters. In return for their work, politicians would protect these criminals from prosecution.

Until the late 1960s, the re-election rates of incumbents were high. Hence goons were relatively assured of political favours after they helped a politician win the election. As political competition increased, the uncertainty around re-election of incumbent candidates also increased. This led to the entry of criminals in politics in order to maximize control over their own survival and protection.

Indira Gandhi banning corporate financing of elections in 1969 which eliminated the most important legal source of campaign finance and pushed financing underground.At the same time, the costs of contesting elections kept increasing due to a rising population, increasing political competition—the number of political parties increased from 55 in the 1952 general election to 464 in 2014—and the trend of giving freebies for votes.This led parties to a competitive search for underground financing, and they played into the hands of criminals and racketeers who had the means to acquire and dispose of large amounts of cash without detection. Thus, parties fielded tainted candidates because they could contest an election without becoming a burden on the party’s limited coffers.

Data from the last three general elections shows that the strategy was an electoral success as candidates with criminal cases were three times more likely to win than a “clean” candidate.17 per cent of 5,380 candidates contesting the Lok Sabha election 2014 have declared criminal charges in their affidavits submitted to the Election Commission; 10 per cent have declared serious criminal charges such as murder and rape charges.

In every election all parties without exception put up candidates with a criminal background. Even though some of us whine about the decision taken by the parties, the general trend is that these candidates are elected to office.

By acting in such a manner, we fail to realize that the greatest power that democracy arms the people is to vote incompetent people out of power. The evident link between criminality and the probability of winning is further reinforced when we look at the winnability of a candidate. While any random candidate has one in eight chances of winning a Lok Sabha seat, a candidate facing criminal charges is twice as likely to win as a clean candidate.

The political parties and independent candidates have astronomical expenditure for vote buying and other illegitimate purposes through these criminals or so called goondas. A politician’s link with them constituency provides a congenial climate to political crime.

Majority of the voters are manoeuvrable, purchasable. Most of them are individually timid and collectively coward. To gain their support is easier for the corrupt.The voters, political parties and the law and order machinery of the state are all equally responsible for this. There is very little faith in India in the efficacy of the democratic process in actually delivering good governance. This extends to accepting criminalization of politics as a fact of life.

Toothless laws against convicted criminals standing for elections further encourage this process. Under current law, only people who have been convicted at least on two counts be debarred from becoming candidates. This leaves the field open for charge sheeted criminals, many of whom are habitual offenders or history-sheeters.

The root of the problem lies in the country’s poor governance capacity. On the one hand, India has excessive procedures that allow the bureaucracy to insert itself in the ordinary life of people; on the other hand, it appears woefully understaffed to perform its most crucial functions.

The scarcity of state capacity is the reason for the public preferring ‘strongmen’ who can employ the required pulls and triggers to get things done—someone who can enforce contracts, deal with the police when they get into trouble, handle the government babus while procuring a licence or help get admission to a government hospital for treatment.

Sometimes these politicians align on communal lines as well, promising to serve the interests of a caste or religious community. Criminality, far from deterring voters, encourages them because it signals that the candidate is capable of fulfilling his promises and securing the interests of the constituency.

So it is high time to curb the criminality in Indian politics by taking some stringent measures. It can be a holistic approach to cleanse the criminality in Indian politics. The steps like bringing greater transparency in campaign financing are going to make it less attractive for political parties to involve gangsters.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) should have the power to audit the financial accounts of political parties, or political parties’ finances should be brought under the right to information (RTI) law. Broader governance will have to improve for voters to reduce the reliance on criminal politicians.Fast-track courts are necessary because politicians are able to delay the judicial process and serve for decades before prosecution.The Election Commission must take adequate measures to break the nexus between the criminals and the politicians. The forms prescribed by the Election Commission for candidates disclosing their convictions, cases pending in courts and so on in their nomination papers is a step in the right direction if it applied properly.

Now the question arises can all these measures can break the criminal and politics nexus . Definitely some sceptics about the result as representation of the People Act, 1951, deals with disqualification of candidates against whom charges have been framed in court for serious offences. Therefore, in order to curb criminalization of politics, Parliament needs to bring an amendment in the Act. However, there has been an unsaid understanding among the political parties which deters Parliament to make strong law curbing criminalization of politics.

Another aspect which can be brought into notice that is legal aspect of disqualification of politicians. Indian constitution does not specify as to what disqualifies a person from contesting elections for the Parliament, Legislative assembly or any other legislature. The Representation of Peoples Act which mentions the criteria for disqualifying a person for contesting an election of the legislature. Section 8 of the act, i.e. disqualification on conviction for certain offences, according to which individual punished with a jail term of more than two years cannot stand in an election for six years after the jail term has ended.

The law does not bar individuals who have criminal cases pending against them from contesting elections therefore the disqualification of candidates with criminal cases depends on their conviction in these cases.

With cases dragging in courts for years, a disqualification based on conviction becomes ineffective due to low conviction rate. Use of muscle and money power: Candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties.

Apart from that as some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their community interests by hook or by crook. At the same time sometimes voters are left with no options, as all competing candidates have criminal records. Relatively weak and half-hearted governance and delivery of public goods, which has allowed voters to elect candidates despite their dubious credentials.

After disusing a lot of criminalization of p[politics and why it is unavoidable  and unethical  , we must revisit the critical consequences  of criminality  in Indian politics. The major problem is that the law-breakers become law-makers; this affects the efficacy of the democratic process in delivering good governance. It also leads to increased circulation of black money during and after elections, diluting probity in public life. It introduces a culture of violence in society and sets a bad precedent for the youth to follow. These unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of India’s state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.

Former President Dr Rajendra Prasad held that “If the people who are elected are capable and men of character and integrity, then they would be able to make the best even of a defective constitution. If they are lacking in these, the Constitution cannot help the country”.

While judicial pronouncements on making it difficult for criminal candidates to contest are necessary, only enhanced awareness and increased democratic participation could create the right conditions for the decriminalisation of politics.

The need for cleansing politics of criminal influence has been pennant once again. The primary sacrifice at the altar of criminalization is that of governance, along with transparency and accountability. Expensive election campaigning favours candidates with strong financial background. Such candidates, when elected, seek to recover their expenses besides securing a corpus for the future election as quickly as possible, especially in the era of coalition governments with tenuous stability.