When a prominent politician and former minister in UP was arrested (in 2003) on charges related to the murder of a lady, he was unabashedly defended by the State’s chief minister. This incident exposed the crisis confronting our criminal justice system as never before. In fact, the accused politician had recently switched loyalties and played a significant role in the formation of the government, whose chief minister publicly supported him. Not surprisingly, the latter had felt obliged to come to the rescue of his new-found colleague. He went to the extent of saying that the accused politician had saved UP, and even the country, by defecting and supporting his government, and therefore, for this act of patriotism (!) his party would stand by the legislator accused of first degree murder!
Evidence strongly points to the fact that criminals are not only surviving but actually thriving in politics. Election commission records show that one in every seven legislators in our country has a criminal record. But all our shock and consternation at these cases will not yield any positive results. If things are to change for the better, we need to answer two questions candidly.
First, why are politicians with established criminal record (we are talking of serious crimes here) getting away with these heinous crimes including murder and anti-national activities? Why do state governments feel compelled to defend and protect such crooks in legislature? Surely, parties in power are aware of the damage they do to themselves! The answer is self-evident. A chief minister needs the continued support of his flock for his own survival in power. Excessive zeal in prosecuting crime and corruption will upset too many legislators, and the resultant mid-night coup will unseat the government. As long as the legislature in states determines the fate of the government, it is unlikely that rule of law will prevail. In our conditions, the parliamentary executive system does not allow durability of governments through honest governance. We need to separately elect the state executive, and insulate the government from the numbers game in legislature. The travails of the governments in UP, Jharkhand, Goa, Maharashtra and Karnataka in recent times show the compulsions politicians in power are subjected to in our system. At the national level, the political dynamics are different. Our diversity and fears of linguistic, religious and regional majoritarianism, coupled with the risk of authoritarianism necessitate the parliamentary executive. But in states no such compulsions exist, and direct election of the head of the government is vital to improve governance. All chief ministers and senior functionaries in governments are aware of the damage done by the legislators acting as disguised and unelected executives, interfering in all matters ranging from transfers and contracts to crime investigation.
Second, why do parties pick up known criminals as candidates? For instance, the criminal record of Krishna Yadav, and dozens of others, was exposed by Lok Satta movement in 1999 in AP in a transparent and credible process, applying objective and verifiable standards. And yet, the parties nominated and rewarded such persons with ministerial office! No major party is exempt from this behaviour. Krishna Yadav in AP, Raja Bhaiyya in UP, Shahabuddin in Bihar – the list is long. Again parties are helpless given the compulsions of our constituency-based first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, and lack of internal party democracy. In such a climate, “winnability” of the candidate is all-important. Whoever can spend more money, deploy muscle power, and mobilize his caste stands a better chance in gathering more votes than the rival candidates. No responsible party seeking power can afford to give up a seat, and therefore reduce the chances of legislature majority, just to make a political statement! S
In this vicious cycle created by the FPTP system misgovernance and criminalization grow and decent candidates are left with no chance of winning. Only a system of proportional representation (PR) can change this. There are many practical models which ensure best advantages of PR and minimize the risks of political fragmentation.
We need systemic solutions to combat these dangerous tendencies. Economic reform and political reform are two sides of the same coin, and can no longer be treated in isolation. That is the lesson the shameful events in UP, Maharashtra and AP offer us.
