The past week ended with the election commission. Announcement of 2024 general election schedule. It began with a Supreme Court order that marked a watershed moment for campaign finance transparency in the country.
Last Monday, the court rejected State Bank of India's request to postpone the release of data on electoral bonds until June 30. The court had earlier directed SBI to submit the data to the EC by March 6. Accepting SBI's request means accepting SBI's request. Information about who bought the bonds and who received them was supposed to be disclosed to voters only after national elections. This is published as an editorial in this paper (don't delay” (IE, March 7) pointed out that voters would have been deprived of important information before they could exercise their right to vote. The newspaper argued that SBI's petition should be dismissed as it contradicts the letter and spirit of the court order to abolish the electoral bond system, which is rooted in the public's right to know. As stated by CJI DY Chandrachud, “Information about political party funding is essential for the effective exercise of voting choice.”
As former election commission chairman SY Quraishi writes in these pages, instead of increasing transparency and helping to dismantle the dark world of campaign finance, the electoral bond system ended up having the opposite effect. Noda('Transparency is at stake”, IE, November 4). Many argue that this opaque system, which also fosters nepotism, has greatly benefited the ruling party. After all, the BJP received Rs 6,060 crore through these bonds. This exceeds the total donations received by his four political parties.
Political parties' election activities are centered on funds, so if there is a large flow of funds to a particular party, the competitive field may become tilted significantly. In democracies where campaign finance is highly transparent and candidates can track the money they raise, parties with larger war chests are seen as having an advantage in elections. In fact, the ability to raise resources tends to determine how effectively a candidate can wage a fight. This is especially true if he is an opposition candidate.
Concerns about the quid pro quo promoted by this scheme were clearly expressed by the court. As the five-judge court noted, “At the elementary level, political contributions…enhance access to legislators. This access also translates into influence over policy decisions. Money and politics go hand in hand. Because of this relationship, there is a good chance that funding to political parties could lead to quid pro quo agreements.”
In the eyes of many, the release of electoral bond data only reaffirms these concerns. Many donors come from sectors that rely on state discretion, where companies require licenses and permits (such as mining or telecommunications), or where they have favorable government contracts (such as infrastructure). There are many people. By comparison, there are fewer examples of donations by organizations and individuals in sectors that are less heavily regulated by governments, such as new-age technology companies. There's also a troubling pattern of donors buying bonds before and after government investigations, which seems to confirm concerns about government weaponization of agencies.
However, the issue does not end with the publication of the donor list. On Friday, the court issued a notice to the State Bank of India on the issue of disclosure of the unique alphanumeric code that allows each electoral bond purchased to be matched with the receiving party. This may perhaps provide a clue as to why they did it.
Campaign finance law is an area of intense debate around the world. In his Union Budget speech for 2017-18, then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley emphasized that transparency in funding of political parties was “crucial to a free and fair electoral system”. As new national elections begin, we must continue to work to increase the transparency of political party and election funding. Funding must not fall back to pre-2018 routes, as feared by some, including former finance secretary Suhash Chandra Garg.Pyrrhic victory”, IE, February 16).
There are several proposals in this country to wipe out political funding through public funding of political parties;There's no going back to square one', IE, March 15) Use only digital means to donate ('The name is electoral bonds.”, IE, March 16) — The next government must seriously consider this issue and ensure that the measures taken comply with the principles of transparency and accountability.
Until next week,
Ishan Bakshi