Times of India: New Delhi:
Saturday, August 03, 2013.
Engulfed in
scams and in the midst of a growing credibility deficit of the political
establishment, the government's move to amend the Right to Information (RTI)
Act to keep political parties out of its ambit is most unfortunate and
injudicious. This step will deepen the chasm between the political system and
the people. It is especially unwise at this juncture as it's another setback to
expectations of responsible and fair governance.
The dilemma
lies in the fact that democracy is the only system that promises equality but
its institutions continue to systematically deny it. The history of the
national movement, the Gandhian commitment to simplicity and frugality in
politics, could have set the standards and tone of a new India guided by
non-negotiable principles of public ethics and thrift. The doublespeak
therefore needs to be questioned.
The Central
Information Commission (CIC) decision to classify political parties as public
authorities and bring them under the RTI Act has kicked up a storm in our
democratic polity. It is a pity that the opportunity provided for the
politician to transform into a statesman is lost in the muddle of apprehension
and self-interest. This was an opportunity for enforcing greater transparency
amongst the political class, but also to expand direct coverage of the RTI to
all institutions and organisations who spend public funds. There is every good
reason for all public bodies those who collect money from the people and claim
to work in public interest to be directly answerable to the people.
There is
broad agreement that money and finances are at the root of all political and
electoral corruption in elections and governance; even muscle power is
invariably bought. At the very least a consensus should be reached on ensuring
transparency of finance. Currently donations from corporate and private
interests heavily influence government decisions, policy and legislation. The
yawning gap between "statements submitted" and real expenditure
during elections is no secret. Recent statements by politicians have exposed
dramatically what real election spending to "secure" a seat means.
This does not end with party issues but also determines key appointments in
government. Is it surprising that the citizen wants to know where money comes
from and goes?
In this
atmosphere rife with mistrust, amendments to exempt the political establishment
from the RTI Act are patently arbitrary and unfair. Political parties and the
government had recourse to the CIC order through an appeal to the courts.
Government made a commitment on the floor of the House in 2009 that amendments
will follow broad public debate. So the unseemly haste in bringing amendments
to Parliament, eschewing a more inclusive and textured conversation, raises
many questions.
The silent
and opaque process by which amendments went to the Union cabinet is curious.
Ordinary people had to rely on leaks and unconfirmed news reports to learn that
amendments were being brought. Was this done to prevent people from raising
voices of protest against the amendments?
There is an
even more specific objection to this case. The political class, whose vested
interests may be hurt, cannot become the petitioner, court and judge in its own
case. There could be legitimate concerns that the amendments might negatively
affect political activity. Not bringing these questions into the public domain,
and arbitrarily deciding on blanket self-exemptions, is politically and
democratically unacceptable. We should take a look at the nature of the primary
objections.
Many parties
and leaders have reiterated that they are committed to financial transparency
and accountability, but only to the Election Commission and Income Tax
Department. This argument is problematic because it avoids having to directly
answer the people even on financial matters. In fact, the Election Commission
and Income Tax Department badly need to be assisted by public monitoring, to
address basic challenges of accountability. The RTI, on the other hand, has
evolved into a decentralised process that allows an ordinary person to
interface at her own expense and with her constitutional legitimacy as a
sovereign citizen.
Even
legitimate questions raised by political parties interference in internal
affairs and management, protecting competitive interests like the selection of
candidates, and matters of strategy can be understood better through debate and
discussion. Polarised and simplistic projections of issues need to be unpacked,
for defining the road map of a working democracy.
The current
Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have so far failed to enact the much needed Lokpal
Bill, the Whistleblowers' Protection Bill, the Grievance Redress Bill, and the
Judicial Accountability Bill. So the threat to undo a sure but nascent
enforcing of financial transparency in the political sphere bodes ill for
India's democratic future. A struggle must continue to ensure the transparency
of the political system as a foundation of governance. Meanwhile, the political
class can ill afford to further damage its public credibility at this time.
The hope lies
with more committed and progressive political leaders, who could utilise this
opportunity to help rescue politics from the negative influence of money and
power. And by standing with their electorate, these leaders may understand that
the demand for equal accountability is intrinsic to every public debate, going
much beyond the mere casting of a vote.
Aruna
Roy & Nikhil Dey
The
writers are with the National Campaign for People's Right to Information.