Why political parties did change their stand on RTI and Transparency?

After central information commissions (CIC) decision on Right to Information (RTI), regarding applicability of it to political parties all the parties' unanimously opposed the decision.Interestingle parties' earlier singing song of transparency and accountability suddenly changed their tune. Many of them were scared of disclosure of names of donors. Actually though direct or indirect funding was important factor in bringing political parties under ambit of RTI. To me major role is played in this decision by preamble of constitution of India and preamble of RTI.

Para 86 of this decision says "We may also add that the preamble to the Constitution of India aims at securing to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; and, EQUALITY of status and of opportunity. Coincidentally, the preamble of RTI Act also aims to promote these principles in the form of transparency and accountability in the working of the every public authority. It also aims to create an ‘informed citizenry’, to contain corruption, and to hold government and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. Political Parties are important political institutions and can play a critical role in heralding transparency in public life. Political Parties continuously perform public functions which define parameters of governance and socio-economic development in the country." moreover, it was also said that the Political Parties are the building blocks of a constitutional democracy.

It seems that political parties were confused while dealing with this case. I guess there was very much importance to argument on confidentiality, transparency, and public interest in this case .It was difficult for political parties to openly defend confidentiality, and with this obligation, they were helpless and unable to oppose transparency and public interest. In addition, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Communist Party of India (CPI) had almost replied to application under section 6 of RTI.

Chandan Bose, PRO, Nationalist Congress Party, in his letter dated 27th November 2010, had informed the complainant “It is very important to mention here that NCP is a non-government organization. Hence, we do not have much more resources nor surplus staff to expedite unusual work, However, I would like to inform you that ours is a National Party duly recognized by Election Commission of India and that from the day of inception of our party, we have been regularly filing our returns to the Income Tax authorities and also to the Election Commission of India along with whatever voluntary contributions received. It is pertinent to mention here that our all obligation towards authorities are up to date. If you feel like, you may collect all the information you desired, from the above said authorities." In other words NCP had agreed that even though it is non - governed organisation it is covered under section 2 (h) (d) (ii) of RTI.

CPI had earlier replied and provided names of top 10 donors to applicant and On the other hand,  A.B. Bardhan, General Secretary, CPI, in letter dated 21.3.2011addressed to applicant  Anil Bairwal has stated that CPI is a Public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The relevant portion of his letter is extracted below :- “(a) Yes, we are Public Authority under section 2(h)(d)(ii) “non-government organizations” substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government. In addition (b), we have our internal Appellate Authority “Central Control Commission.”

Later on all the parties including NCP and CPI changed their stand in CIC. Why this happened?. why political parties are scared of disclosing their funding? As per Transparency International, Money may come into conflict with the democratic principles of civic equality and fair competition in elections and can undermine political representation.

For example

1) When the availability of resources becomes a decisive factor in winning elections instead of candidate proposals.

2)When money contributed to electoral campaigns safeguards private interests and inhibits political parties and candidates representing collective interests to communicate their ideas.

3) When a party in office uses the system and the resources of the State for the benefit of the electoral campaigns of its candidates.

4) When companies contribute to electoral campaigns in exchange for future favours from elected representatives.

5)When illegal groups, such as organized crime, drug-trafficking or other armed groups, support candidates who in performing their duties will represent illegal interests.

6) When resources used to fund electoral campaigns are raised individually by candidates and not by their parties, thereby creating the risk of personal commitment on the part of the candidate to the donor.

7) When candidates use financial resources for inappropriate purposes, such as vote purchasing or other forms of unfair competition.

8) When elected representatives have, in general, a greater commitment to donors than to the public.

9) When representatives use their post and attendant government resources to gain re-election.

10) When civic equality, reflected in the principle of each individual having one vote, is undermined by the unwarranted ability of some to contribute money to politics.

These conflicts affect the legitimacy of elected representatives as well as their ability to develop rules aimed to benefit the public. The negative impact of such on the quality of life of the people multiplies and the democratic system as a whole stands to lose credibility.

Shining a light on political financing is the best way to clean house. When parties and candidates disclose information about funds used to finance their activities, both during electoral campaigns and generally, scrutiny of illegal funds and influence peddling in politics is facilitated.

All politicians as well as the parties and groups that support them are either legally or morally required to report to the public. The accuracy and usefulness of reports will increase to the extent that they are fully disclosed to the public and to the media. Reports should be clear, complete, presented on time and reliable.

However, this is not happening in India only. Since last few years, many countries worldwide are trying bring legislation on political funding and expenditure. Many developed countries already have such legislations and control over funding and expenses of political parties and they make them public.