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.
