Implement State Funding of Parties & Elections like FRANCE
Implement State Funding of Parties & Elections like FRANCE
The Issue
Mr Narendra Modi
Prime Minsiter of India
Petition: Please implement ‘State Funding of Elections and Parties with strong regulatory framework’ to minimize corruption in elections- Fountainhead of all Corruption.
Dear Sir,
As you know, more than 70 countries in the world have accepted partly/ fully 'State Funding of Elections and Parties', we Indians urgently need complete state funding of elections and parties like FRANCE to stop corruption and conflict of interest in the bud.
This discourse is going on for the last 40 years. Though UPA-1 had approved a bill in this regard in the Union cabinet, it expired untimely, as it couldn't come for discussion in 14th Lok Sabha.
With Regards,
Laxminarayan Kanungo
(A journalist and social activist, Bhubaneswar)
M- 99371 99942
Shrinibas Rout
(An Indian software professional based at US)
M-9137104511
NB- 46 points in support of state funding of elections and parties with strong regulatory frameworks
1. Elections themselves have become the fountainhead of corruption.
2. The decisive role money plays in polls is creating a vicious c Iycle of corruption.
3. Corruption not only looted the country, but most importantly has spoilt the work culture.
4. Elimination of corruption is not only a moral imperative but an economic necessity for a nation aspiring to catch up with the rest of the world.
5. Political parties funding comes from 3Cs: Criminals, Corporate houses or Contractors with promises of quid pro quo or favours in return.
6. ‘State funding of Elections and Parties’ is badly needed to stop allegation of ‘conflict of interest’.
7. To stop quid pro quo or crony capitalism complete ‘State Funding of Elections and Parties’ is very much needed like FRANCE, which can create a level playing field for real social servants.
8. Out of 180 countries, 71 nations have the facility of giving state funds based on votes obtained.
9. This includes 86% countries of Europe, 71% of Africa, 63% of the Americas and 58% of Asia. (Source: International Institute of Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), Stockholm, Survey: 2012)
10. If it works well in so many countries, there is no reason why it cannot in India!
11. To implement ‘State Funding of Elections’ a ‘regulatory framework’ is needed with stringent measures like more number of courts to deal with violation in election rules.
12. UPA-I (2004) had promised in its manifesto to implement ‘State Funding of Elections’.
13. The Union Cabinet had approved in principle the law ministry's proposed bill for state funding of elections in 2005. (December 23, 2005).
14. On October 16, 2011, GoM (Group of Ministers) headed by former Finance Minister Pranab Mukharjee had also decided to adopt Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi's proposal to implement state funding of elections. But nothing happened in reality. (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/state-funding-of-elections-gom-pranab-mukherjee-rahul/1/155112.html
15. Due to lack of political will, that bill never came up for a vote and died with the 14th Lok Sabha.
16. For the last four decades, as part of electoral reforms, ‘State Funding of Elections and Parties’ is on agenda of every successive government.
17. Many of the government panels on electoral reforms have expressed their ideas on State Funding issue.
18. The most important of all them are: Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Elections (1998).
19. Law Commission Report on Reform of the Electoral Laws (1999).
20. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2001)
21. Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008)
22. Here is a brief detail about these committee's / panel's stand on the issue:
23. Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Elections (1998)
(A) State funds should be given only to national and state parties allotted a symbol and not to independent candidates. In the short-term state funding should only be given in kind, in the form of certain facilities to the recognised political parties and their candidates.
(B) The state funding depends upon the economic condition of the country. At the time of report (1998) the economic situation of the country only suited partial and not full state funding of elections. Thus, as per this committee, only partial state funding was possible given the economic conditions of the country at that time.
24. Law Commission Report on Reform of the Electoral Laws (1999):
(A) Total state funding of elections is "desirable" so long as political parties are prohibited from taking funds from other sources.
(B) The Commission concurred with the Indrajit Gupta Committee's stand on partial funding. Appropriate regulatory framework be put in place with regard to political parties (provisions ensuring internal democracy, internal structures and maintenance of accounts, their auditing and submission to Election Commission) before state funding of elections is attempted.
25. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2001)
(A) Did not endorse state funding of elections but concurred with the 1999 Law Commission report that the appropriate framework for regulation of political parties would need to be implemented before state funding is considered.
26. Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008)
(A) Recommended partial state funding of elections for the purpose of reducing "illegitimate and unnecessary funding" of elections expenses.
27. Though Atal Bihari Vajpayee government had set up Indrajit Gupta committee, it had failed to implement the recommendations taking a plea that it will require enormous government money.
28. Partial funding leaves scope for the party to use its funds for campaigns of individual candidates and would fail to prevent the use of black money.
29. State funding would succeed only when it is total and not partial, because there is no guarantee that even after it was introduced, rich parties and candidates would not pump black money into campaigns to boost their chances of victory.
30. Following a strong Lokpal and regulatory framework to deal with cases of violation in election rules, the parties have to maintain transparency in every financial transaction and have to come under RTI.
31. Though former Chief Election Commissioners of India viz. Dr. S Y Quraishi was a critique of ‘State Funding of Elections’, later he has changed his stand and advocated for ‘State Funding of Elections’ after CII (Confederation of Indian Industries) demanded to keep secret of their political donations to parties.
(Article of Dr. S Y Quraishi : State funding of parties can help end political corruption, Times of India, Dt. Nov 30, 2013).
33. Former Chief Election Commissioner Navin B Chawla has also endorsed it in his latest writings.
(Article of Navin B Chawla: Indian government must consider State funding of polls, Hindustan Times, Dt. Feb 10, 2014)
35. Former Chief Election Commissioner of India (CEC) N Gopalaswamy supports state funding of parties and elections. In 2013, he said a system of State-funded elections has become inevitable in the country, which has become a victim of the ill-effects of money power in elections.
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/331437/state-funded-elections-inevitable-former.html
36. West Bengal Chief MinisterMamata Banarjeeis a strong votary of ‘State Funding of Elections and Parties’. Miss. Banarjee said in 2014: "There are some who are indulging in corruption and using black money in elections. That's why I have been fighting for state funding of elections. If countries like US, Britain, Austria, Japan can have state funding for elections why can't we," she asked. (“Mamata Banerjee wants state funding of elections”, Zee News March 5, 2014.
37. Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has of late in 2019 urged all to consider for state funding of elections, when he found BJP received 13 times more donations to rest 6 national parties in 2017-18.
38. Most of the Countries have introduced State Funding of Elections though most of them have adopted ‘proportional representation’ system of elections, where the electioneering is generally in the hands of party rather than its candidates, viz. Germany (1959), France (1965), Sweden (1966), Italy (1974), part of USA (1976), Japan (1976), Australia (1984) and South Korea (1989).
39. There was ban on corporate donations in India within 1969 to 1985. But, due to lack of proper monitoring of circuitous financial transactions, it was again resumed.
40. Following a spate of scandals in the 1980s and 1990s, FRANCE adopted a mechanism where bulk of the political funding is incurred by the State. Business houses, corporations and other legal entities are prohibited from making donations. The introduction of state funding, subsidies, strict disclosures legislation, robust reporting by the media of donations made to political parties and the ban on corporate donations have made a sea-change in the public image of the political class in FRANCE.
( http://www.makingdemocracyreal.org/state-funding-elections/
41. It is worth noting that in the Constituent Assembly, Prof. K.T.Shah had moved an amendment that election expenses should be borne by the State. The Government did not oppose the principle underlying the amendment, but maintained that it would impose an intolerable burden on the exchequer.
42. In the last 25 years, an unbelievable Rs 73 lakh crore is believed to have been siphoned off by hawala transactions. (Source: Corrupt netas LOOT India!http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-corrupt-netas-loot-india-of-rs-73-lakh-crore/20140106.htm#4
43. A possible way out is state funding of political parties. This can be solved by state paying a fixed sum to a party for every vote secured. It can be Rs 100 per vote obtained, as suggested by former CEC Dr S Y Quraishi. Example: If a party garners, say, 1 crore votes it can get Rs 100 crore (Rs 100 per vote).
44. In the 2009 LS polls, 42 crore votes were cast. At Rs 100 a vote, total state funding would come to Rs 4,200 crore. Taking state elections, bye-polls and mid-term elections into account, the figure may double and it may rise to say Rs 10,000 crore in five years. This roughly corresponds to funds parties (reportedly) raise collectively in five years through all means, including dubious ones, argues Dr. S Y Quraishi, Ex-CEC. (State funding of parties can help end political corruption- Dr Quraishi, ToI/Nov 30, 2013)
45. An expense of about Rs 2,000 crore per annum can reduce the very scope of looting the country with a rate of nearly Rs 3 lakh crore per annum by Hawala transactions apart from the web of corruption inside the country!
46. This amount of Rs 2,000 crore is a very small amount to establish a transparent government and a clean nation.
Compiled by: Mr Laxminarayan Kanungo
Mobile: 99371 99942
Email: laxmkanungo@gmail.com
(Date: 19.01.2020)
73
The Issue
Mr Narendra Modi
Prime Minsiter of India
Petition: Please implement ‘State Funding of Elections and Parties with strong regulatory framework’ to minimize corruption in elections- Fountainhead of all Corruption.
Dear Sir,
As you know, more than 70 countries in the world have accepted partly/ fully 'State Funding of Elections and Parties', we Indians urgently need complete state funding of elections and parties like FRANCE to stop corruption and conflict of interest in the bud.
This discourse is going on for the last 40 years. Though UPA-1 had approved a bill in this regard in the Union cabinet, it expired untimely, as it couldn't come for discussion in 14th Lok Sabha.
With Regards,
Laxminarayan Kanungo
(A journalist and social activist, Bhubaneswar)
M- 99371 99942
Shrinibas Rout
(An Indian software professional based at US)
M-9137104511
NB- 46 points in support of state funding of elections and parties with strong regulatory frameworks
1. Elections themselves have become the fountainhead of corruption.
2. The decisive role money plays in polls is creating a vicious c Iycle of corruption.
3. Corruption not only looted the country, but most importantly has spoilt the work culture.
4. Elimination of corruption is not only a moral imperative but an economic necessity for a nation aspiring to catch up with the rest of the world.
5. Political parties funding comes from 3Cs: Criminals, Corporate houses or Contractors with promises of quid pro quo or favours in return.
6. ‘State funding of Elections and Parties’ is badly needed to stop allegation of ‘conflict of interest’.
7. To stop quid pro quo or crony capitalism complete ‘State Funding of Elections and Parties’ is very much needed like FRANCE, which can create a level playing field for real social servants.
8. Out of 180 countries, 71 nations have the facility of giving state funds based on votes obtained.
9. This includes 86% countries of Europe, 71% of Africa, 63% of the Americas and 58% of Asia. (Source: International Institute of Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), Stockholm, Survey: 2012)
10. If it works well in so many countries, there is no reason why it cannot in India!
11. To implement ‘State Funding of Elections’ a ‘regulatory framework’ is needed with stringent measures like more number of courts to deal with violation in election rules.
12. UPA-I (2004) had promised in its manifesto to implement ‘State Funding of Elections’.
13. The Union Cabinet had approved in principle the law ministry's proposed bill for state funding of elections in 2005. (December 23, 2005).
14. On October 16, 2011, GoM (Group of Ministers) headed by former Finance Minister Pranab Mukharjee had also decided to adopt Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi's proposal to implement state funding of elections. But nothing happened in reality. (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/state-funding-of-elections-gom-pranab-mukherjee-rahul/1/155112.html
15. Due to lack of political will, that bill never came up for a vote and died with the 14th Lok Sabha.
16. For the last four decades, as part of electoral reforms, ‘State Funding of Elections and Parties’ is on agenda of every successive government.
17. Many of the government panels on electoral reforms have expressed their ideas on State Funding issue.
18. The most important of all them are: Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Elections (1998).
19. Law Commission Report on Reform of the Electoral Laws (1999).
20. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2001)
21. Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008)
22. Here is a brief detail about these committee's / panel's stand on the issue:
23. Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Elections (1998)
(A) State funds should be given only to national and state parties allotted a symbol and not to independent candidates. In the short-term state funding should only be given in kind, in the form of certain facilities to the recognised political parties and their candidates.
(B) The state funding depends upon the economic condition of the country. At the time of report (1998) the economic situation of the country only suited partial and not full state funding of elections. Thus, as per this committee, only partial state funding was possible given the economic conditions of the country at that time.
24. Law Commission Report on Reform of the Electoral Laws (1999):
(A) Total state funding of elections is "desirable" so long as political parties are prohibited from taking funds from other sources.
(B) The Commission concurred with the Indrajit Gupta Committee's stand on partial funding. Appropriate regulatory framework be put in place with regard to political parties (provisions ensuring internal democracy, internal structures and maintenance of accounts, their auditing and submission to Election Commission) before state funding of elections is attempted.
25. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2001)
(A) Did not endorse state funding of elections but concurred with the 1999 Law Commission report that the appropriate framework for regulation of political parties would need to be implemented before state funding is considered.
26. Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008)
(A) Recommended partial state funding of elections for the purpose of reducing "illegitimate and unnecessary funding" of elections expenses.
27. Though Atal Bihari Vajpayee government had set up Indrajit Gupta committee, it had failed to implement the recommendations taking a plea that it will require enormous government money.
28. Partial funding leaves scope for the party to use its funds for campaigns of individual candidates and would fail to prevent the use of black money.
29. State funding would succeed only when it is total and not partial, because there is no guarantee that even after it was introduced, rich parties and candidates would not pump black money into campaigns to boost their chances of victory.
30. Following a strong Lokpal and regulatory framework to deal with cases of violation in election rules, the parties have to maintain transparency in every financial transaction and have to come under RTI.
31. Though former Chief Election Commissioners of India viz. Dr. S Y Quraishi was a critique of ‘State Funding of Elections’, later he has changed his stand and advocated for ‘State Funding of Elections’ after CII (Confederation of Indian Industries) demanded to keep secret of their political donations to parties.
(Article of Dr. S Y Quraishi : State funding of parties can help end political corruption, Times of India, Dt. Nov 30, 2013).
33. Former Chief Election Commissioner Navin B Chawla has also endorsed it in his latest writings.
(Article of Navin B Chawla: Indian government must consider State funding of polls, Hindustan Times, Dt. Feb 10, 2014)
35. Former Chief Election Commissioner of India (CEC) N Gopalaswamy supports state funding of parties and elections. In 2013, he said a system of State-funded elections has become inevitable in the country, which has become a victim of the ill-effects of money power in elections.
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/331437/state-funded-elections-inevitable-former.html
36. West Bengal Chief MinisterMamata Banarjeeis a strong votary of ‘State Funding of Elections and Parties’. Miss. Banarjee said in 2014: "There are some who are indulging in corruption and using black money in elections. That's why I have been fighting for state funding of elections. If countries like US, Britain, Austria, Japan can have state funding for elections why can't we," she asked. (“Mamata Banerjee wants state funding of elections”, Zee News March 5, 2014.
37. Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has of late in 2019 urged all to consider for state funding of elections, when he found BJP received 13 times more donations to rest 6 national parties in 2017-18.
38. Most of the Countries have introduced State Funding of Elections though most of them have adopted ‘proportional representation’ system of elections, where the electioneering is generally in the hands of party rather than its candidates, viz. Germany (1959), France (1965), Sweden (1966), Italy (1974), part of USA (1976), Japan (1976), Australia (1984) and South Korea (1989).
39. There was ban on corporate donations in India within 1969 to 1985. But, due to lack of proper monitoring of circuitous financial transactions, it was again resumed.
40. Following a spate of scandals in the 1980s and 1990s, FRANCE adopted a mechanism where bulk of the political funding is incurred by the State. Business houses, corporations and other legal entities are prohibited from making donations. The introduction of state funding, subsidies, strict disclosures legislation, robust reporting by the media of donations made to political parties and the ban on corporate donations have made a sea-change in the public image of the political class in FRANCE.
( http://www.makingdemocracyreal.org/state-funding-elections/
41. It is worth noting that in the Constituent Assembly, Prof. K.T.Shah had moved an amendment that election expenses should be borne by the State. The Government did not oppose the principle underlying the amendment, but maintained that it would impose an intolerable burden on the exchequer.
42. In the last 25 years, an unbelievable Rs 73 lakh crore is believed to have been siphoned off by hawala transactions. (Source: Corrupt netas LOOT India!http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-corrupt-netas-loot-india-of-rs-73-lakh-crore/20140106.htm#4
43. A possible way out is state funding of political parties. This can be solved by state paying a fixed sum to a party for every vote secured. It can be Rs 100 per vote obtained, as suggested by former CEC Dr S Y Quraishi. Example: If a party garners, say, 1 crore votes it can get Rs 100 crore (Rs 100 per vote).
44. In the 2009 LS polls, 42 crore votes were cast. At Rs 100 a vote, total state funding would come to Rs 4,200 crore. Taking state elections, bye-polls and mid-term elections into account, the figure may double and it may rise to say Rs 10,000 crore in five years. This roughly corresponds to funds parties (reportedly) raise collectively in five years through all means, including dubious ones, argues Dr. S Y Quraishi, Ex-CEC. (State funding of parties can help end political corruption- Dr Quraishi, ToI/Nov 30, 2013)
45. An expense of about Rs 2,000 crore per annum can reduce the very scope of looting the country with a rate of nearly Rs 3 lakh crore per annum by Hawala transactions apart from the web of corruption inside the country!
46. This amount of Rs 2,000 crore is a very small amount to establish a transparent government and a clean nation.
Compiled by: Mr Laxminarayan Kanungo
Mobile: 99371 99942
Email: laxmkanungo@gmail.com
(Date: 19.01.2020)
73
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 19 January 2020