In school, every good teacher promotes a student to ask
question. Asking a question is a good practice. But can we follow this practice
in INDIAN democracy?
Unlike many other nations that gained independence from
colonial rule but descended into dictatorships and military rule, India has
remained a democracy, despite its size and diversity. The credit goes to
diversity and institutional structures of India.
One of the institutional structures is Election Commission. Election
commission has done a tremendous job to empower citizen of India and promote
them to take part in festival of democracy by exercising their right to vote.
The power of RIGHT TO VOTE has strengthened the Indian democracy. The ideas of
constitution & democracy which we inherited from our forefathers have
survived and prosper in the form of right to vote.
The process of election which we inherited, with time has
seen lots of changes & challenges. Challenges
like involvement of vast unaccounted money, influencing the election process
for special interests by sponsoring high-spending misleading campaigns are a threat
to democracy. Democracy is a process where voices of a common are herd. But few
people having lots of money & ability to fund the political campaign and
mislead the crowd, are threats to democracy. There is a need for electoral
reform.
Recently Indian government announced the electoral reform
1)
Receive donations more than ₹ 2,000 in check or in digital
transaction
2)
Political parties file Income tax return with in
time frame
3)
Claimed to follow the advice of election
commission in proposing a cap of ₹
2,000 on the amount of cash donation that a particular political party
can receive from one person in a year.
4)
Scheme of electoral bonds
Criticism of electoral reform
These reforms have some criticism like receiving of
donations in check/digital transaction or filing of income tax in prescribed
time is not much different from what existing laws says. Before these reforms,
political parties used to receive money in check/digital transaction but in
fewer ratios as compare to cash. As there is no cap in receiving the amount of
money by check or digital transaction, or political parties can receive
donations only in check or digital transaction, so I think there was no need to
make a new law which is equivalent to rewrite of previous law.
Delay of single day in Filing income tax return by
individual or corporate sector result in the penalty, but the new financial
bill section 13 A clause (d) of income tax act 1961 does not have a provision
for penalty for late submission of income tax return by political parties. No political parties will get penalised for
non-compliance. Tax exemption may or may not drive political parties to file
income tax return with in time limit.
The existing limit of anonymous cash donation (₹20,000) as per section 23 A of
REPRESENTATION OF PUBLIC ACT (RPA) has been untouched. And a new clause has
been added, that limit the anonymous cash donation from one source to ₹2,000 in one year. There is no
maximum limit to amount of anonymous cash donation received by a political
party. The proposal by election commission of receiving ₹20 crore or 20% of overall donations from
anonymous source is not accepted by the government.
The attempt of bringing transparency in the account books of
political parties has failed as the most political funds will remain in the
bags (political funds are large amount, that can’t be stored in pockets, to
keep this heavy amount political leaders need bags!) of political leaders and
small amount will go in the coffers of political parties which will be used for
expenses which cannot remain invisible.
Now the question raises that huge amount of money paid to
political parties is voluntary contribution or donation. This is very difficult
to digest that some business men have voluntary contributed crores of rupees to
any political parties, as the businesses are done on the principle of making
profits. So, are these donations an investment for a return? Or are these
anonymous funds are black money generated by political leaders? This new proposed law for accepting anonymous
₹2,000 will only ensure
more account book entries and tiring work load to cross check there account
books.
The secrecy of electoral bonds will not help income tax or
election commission. They will not be able to know about donors or
beneficiaries, but the donor will enjoy 100% tax benefit by purchase of
election bonds.
So, this is
not the end of road for election reforms, this is only an initiation for a
series of reforms.
RIGHT TO ASK QUESTION
So, this is not the end of road for election reforms, this
is only an initiation for a series of reforms. Now we can propose a new law in
which the resident citizen of India can directly ask questions from its
government in parliament or in assembly (like in Panchayati raj system). In
parliament we have QUESTION HOUR, where MPs ask question from ministers
similarly we can have CITIZEN’s HOUR where resident citizen of India can
directly ask questions from minsters, MP and oppositions which constantly
disrupt the house. These questions will be recorded like other proceedings of
house.
This will promote transparency; pressurize the MPs to let
the house function smoothly, accountability of MPs & ministers will rise,
and the tax payer will be able to know about the application of his tax. A tax
payer has a right to know, what happens to his tax or why allotted budget was
not expenditure for the purpose which it was allotted.
An ordinary voter has a complaint that after elections ends,
the new government forget their citizens. Now after this law, these ordinary
voters can directly ask questions from their government in every session of
house.
We have RTI, which work for transparency in the system and
provide valid information about government and its work, but the rise in
pending cases of RTI in information commission and delay in transfer of
information has not served its purposes.
Now the biggest problem with this provision is how to choose
few question from 120 crore of populations of India.
Eligibility: to ask question in parliament or assembly
i)
Should be a resident citizen of India
ii)
Should have voted in previous 5 year
elections(including parliamentary, assembly, panchayat or municipality
elections) and exemption to first time voters
iii)
Should have filed previous year income tax
return (exemption to students and homemakers/housewives). Tax payer has a right
to ask what happens to his tax money.
First the individual have to fulfill these eligibility
criteria, and a lottery system can be used to choose few questions from crores
of questions. And there should be strictly no repetition of question or
individuals i.e. if an individual has asked question then that individual will
not be able to ask question again in that financial year term of that
government and once a question asked the same question cannot be repeated by
other individual of same nature.
This RIGHT TO ASK QUESTION can provide a mechanism to ensure
that citizens’ voices counterbalance a legislature unresponsive to peoples’
interests. The time has come to recommit ourselves to a deeper and more
participatory democracy; a democracy with greater alignment between public
policy and people’s interests.
Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their
choices are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy,
therefore is education- Franklin d, Roosevelt
The wise man does not give the right answers, he poses the
right questions- Claude Levi-
