New Delhi, March 31 -- Recent news reports suggest that three days before the Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme on February 15, the Union Finance Ministry had approved the printing of 10,000 electoral bonds each of Rs 1 crore by the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India. However, it was only by the end of the month, on February 28, that the ministry directed the State Bank of India to put a hold on the printing of the bonds. Thanks to this delay, majority of the directed bonds were already printed, overlooking the Supreme Court's verdict. It may also be recalled that the Centre had earlier vehemently defended the Electoral Bonds scheme. The defence posturing makes sense as the ruling party at the Centre has emerged as the biggest, if not only, 'beneficiary' of electoral bonds. The scheme, ostensibly, was very much close to the heart of the BJP, with certain high functionaries of the party highlighting the necessity of money to fight elections. Given the high stakes involved in the General Elections, the idea, it seems, was to make the most of the opportunity presented by electoral bonds, even as it was deemed unconstitutional.
Two related issues surface here. First, the monetary needs of the political parties to fight elections. And second, how legitimate, rational, and proportional the expenses of political parties have been vis-a-vis election campaigns.
Coming to the first issue, money is undoubtedly vital for fighting elections. However, the Supreme Court's judgement declaring the Electoral Bonds Scheme unconstitutional, shed light on the profound chasm between the professed objectives and the actual outcomes of political financing in the country. Instituted with the aim of cleansing the electoral system of black money, the scheme was touted as a transformative step towards greater transparency and integrity in political funding. However, the reality presents a starkly different picture, one where the scheme not only failed to curb the use of illegal funds in elections but also potentially exacerbated the influence of unaccounted money in politics. The electoral bonds scheme was predicated on the belief that by facilitating anonymous contributions to political parties, it would mitigate the reliance on under-the-table transactions. Yet, this anonymity became its Achilles' heel, creating an opaque facade that obscured the sources of political donations, thus shielding vested interests and diluting public accountability. Critics argue that the scheme, far from democratising political funding, has further entrenched the influence of a wealthy elite over policy-making, thereby exacerbating the disenfranchisement of the marginalised and the underprivileged. Data indicating that companies under regulatory scrutiny or those securing significant government contracts were among the purchasers of electoral bonds further exacerbates concerns over the scheme's misuse as a channel for 'legalising' quid pro quo transactions.
On the second front, while there is a need to cleanse the political funding system in India, one aspect that doesn't merit to be overlooked is the disproportionate and reckless spending by political parties on frivolously glittering activities to lure voters who have, in large parts of India, been accustomed to voting either on the lines of caste and class or hollow narratives painted by political parties through the use of money. This overshadows the core principle on which any representative government should run. For democracy to thrive, it is imperative that the sanctity of electoral processes is safeguarded against the corrosive influence of unaccounted wealth, ensuring that governance remains, in essence and practice, 'of the people, by the people, and for the people'.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.