The spectre of caste continues to haunt the Indian polity even in the third decade of the twenty-first century. One would have thought that with increasing literacy and awareness, the influence of caste would wane, with educated voters resenting their compartmentalisation on the basis of their caste. But the genie of caste mysteriously comes out of the bottle the moment an election is announced.

The importance of caste in elections becomes apparent when one reads local newspapers carrying leading articles that give the caste composition of electoral constituencies, along with a detailed analysis of which percentage of a particular caste, would vote for a certain party. Such mumbo-jumbo could have been dismissed as a journalistic innovation because caste-wise enumeration was last done in 1931 and, secondly, it is almost impossible to decipher the composition of the votes polled by some candidate.

However, reliance of political parties on caste considerations in candidate selection and the promise of reservation on caste basis, in most party manifestos, lends credence to the dominant role of caste in elections. Faithfully following the earlier trend, none of the major parties has good governance on its agenda for the present elections.

Rather, manifestos of all parties promise targeted sops, and freebies, which range from free laptops, free electricity to free teerth yatras. Competitive populism, hyper-nationalism, hyper-religiosity, and a vote-gathering appeal to regional pride appear to be the mainstay of the election campaign, because of which the worst kind of fissiparous tendencies are being unleashed and political parties shamelessly try to create a ‘we’ versus ‘they’ binary.

An example is the current hullabaloo over the wearing of hijab, which snowballed into a major national issue, from a minor altercation, in a remote part of Karnataka. Perhaps, the hijab controversy would have soon died down had the incident not taken place in the midst of an election. Canvassing in the present elections has been marred by personal attacks, and threats by leaders of political parties, who are calling each other ‘mafia’ and ‘Pak agents’; such acrimony guarantees that democracy and the public would lose regardless of whoever wins at the hustings. This low level of electoral discourse has been encouraged by provocative posts in social media, which is almost impossible to monitor, and which was the only mode of canvassing allowed at the beginning of elections.

Sadly, the Election Commission has not dealt strictly with purveyors of hate speech. The alarming statistics of seizure of cash and liquor indicate that politicians are not averse to offering illegal allurements to purchase votes; according to estimates during the last General Election, about Rs 12,000 crore to Rs 15,000 crore cash was given to voters directly. Even otherwise, almost all candidates spend far beyond the limits laid down by the Election Commission, despite the presence of Expenditure Observers.

Taxpayers pay a heavy price for the privilege of voting; the Election Commission spent more than Rs 10,000 crore for conducting the last General Elections. Moreover, the Model Code of Conduct operates for longish periods, about two months for the present elections, during which normal government activities remain suspended, yet, the Model Code of Conduct does not deter wrongdoers because most election-related FIRs are withdrawn as soon as elections conclude. The role of the media during elections is not above reproach.

A large section of the media views elections as manna from heaven, translating into increased ad revenue, increased readership and TRP, not counting illicit earnings through paid and fake news. Election Surveys aired on many prominent TV channels are a case in point. After most elections, such Surveys were found to be far off the mark, with a suspicion of being commissioned by particular political parties.

The Election Commission would be well advised to examine election surveys in the context of its stated determination to act against spreaders of paid news. A flurry of defections has preceded the present elections, and if news reports are to be believed, defections are being arranged even before results are declared. In a sad commentary on our democracy, the same people cling on to power by representing different parties at different times.

One can only hope that the spectacle of large-scale floor crossings leading to change of government in a number of States would not be repeated. That said, legislators have their own compulsions; with the need to arrange resources to fight the next election, many of them cannot afford to remain out of power. Armed with an untrammelled right to increase their pay and perks (which they exercise frequently, Karnataka Assembly being the latest example), plus entitlement to a generous pension, our elected representatives do not work very hard; Parliament was in session only for 58 days in 2021, and many State

Legislatures sat for less than 20 days in the entire year. Reform of the electoral process is often constrained by the interest of political parties in continuing with the present, imperfect set-up. The Supreme Court has often tried to exclude criminal candidates, but Parliament has shown no eagerness to amend the Representation of the People Act.

In the celebrated Lily Thomas case, the Supreme Court ruled that a legislator convicted of an offence would be automatically disqualified, reversing the earlier position that legislators could be disqualified only after disposal of appeals at all levels.

Shamefully, the then Government tried its best to overturn this decision. Later on, in 2014, the Supreme Court directed that trials involving elected representatives should be completed within one year. In 2017, the Supreme Court oversaw the formation of Special Courts with exclusive jurisdiction over legislators, and in 2018, the Supreme Court directed political parties to publicise the criminal antecedents of their candidates. Sadly, Special Courts have not achieved their purpose; in September 2020, the amicus curiae assisting the Supreme Court reported that a total 4,442 cases were still pending against MPs/ MLAs in different courts. Almost no one had been convicted by Special Courts.

For example, of the 245 cases in Telangana, 73 had been disposed of with no conviction and the rest were still pending. The UP Government had done even better, by withdrawing serious cases against political personalities. Similarly, transparency in electoral funding is a desirable goal that has been made unachievable by the introduction of Electoral Bonds.

Also, the financial accounts of political parties are never audited by independent auditors. In a telling instance, after the Delhi High Court found that both the BJP and the Congress had illegally accepted foreign donations, both parties co-operated in retrospectively amending the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, to nullify the High Court judgement.

The internal working of all parties is fully opaque as all parties refuse to honour the Central Information Commission decision that political parties are “public entities” subject to the Right to Information Act. The matter was referred to Supreme Court, where it has languished for the last eight years.

Politicians defend the use of money and muscle power by pointing to the need to contact a large number of voters spread over a vast geographical area in a limited time. Voters say that they sell their votes because candidates would countenance them only during the elections. Obviously, constituencies need to be smaller so that there is a personal connect between the electors and the elected.

To reduce the importance of money power, the amount spent by a political party could be added to the candidate’s expenditure. Concomitantly, electoral spending limits should be reduced, to the level, that only door-to-door canvassing is possible during elections. Legislators changing parties should immediately lose their membership, and CAG should audit the accounts of all political parties. That said, despite all its flaws, democracy is the best form of government.

The solutions to most of the problems our polity faces lie with us ~ the voters. Since votes are to be had for caste, freebies and reservations, no party seriously pitches for real issues like good Government schools, good Government hospitals or good civic amenities. The common man is the ultimate loser because everyone needs basic facilities rather than a freebie which may or may not materialise. Finally, imperfect as it is, the electoral process, gives a voice to the public who are also responsible for the outcome.

As Abraham Lincoln had said: “Elections belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.”

(The writer is a retired Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax)