|
Election Manifestos
by N. Pradeep Kumar*
Cite as : (2004) PL WebJour 13
We hear of election manifestos, generally, at the time of elections only; but, after the victory in the elections, the party which gets the mandate from the electorate to rule for a term, normally of five years, forgets to put into practice what it promised before the elections. As such, there should be a mechanism to deal with this sort of infraction and a fraud on the people.
Election manifestos, as is commonly known, are drafted before the elections, with a view to capture the imagination of the voters. The present state of putting no obligation on the part of the ruling party for its implementation has reduced the election manifestos to a mere rhetoric of political parties to hoodwink the credulous and gullible electorate.
That is why, implementation of the election manifestos presented to the voters before the elections must be made either constitutionally or legally binding on the ruling political party/combination of ruling political parties which emerges victorious and comes to power who must also be made accountable to the public in general and the voters in particular. In other words, what is now looked upon as a mere moral responsibility must be made legally enforceable.
A specious reasoning advanced to shirk the duty of its (measures presented by the political parties in their election manifestos to improve the lot of the public and various promises made to them in their respective election manifestos) implementation or explain away their failure to implement it is that if the party in power at the time of election fails to implement the promises made in its election manifesto it would be voted out of power in the coming/next elections. However, those who advance this seemingly reasonable argument, appear to be quite conscious and confident of the fact that they can easily delude the electorate placed in a country like India, with all its concomitant advantages/disadvantages; advantages to the political parties and disadvantages to the poor people/electorate, who/which can be easily cheated by the political parties because of their ignorance, illiteracy and incapacity to assess the performance of the political parties during their earlier reign when they were in power and in respect of other political parties, which could not get a chance to be in power, to turn around and say that they could not see to it that the plans/programmes contained in their election manifestos were implemented because they were not in power/the ruling parties.
Otherwise, there does not appear to be any explicable reason as to why the contending political parties or the contesting parties should make tall promises before the elections and immerse themselves in amassing wealth for the members of their own parties thereafter with impunity and without compunction, once the formality of election is over. It is true that there are some parties, which sincerely try to implement at least a fraction of the plans announced in their election manifestos. But yet the zeal with which they are propagated prior to elections is very much lacking at the time of their implementation during their terms of office. Otherwise, how can we take such highly tempting promises like “We will eradicate poverty”, “We will eradicate unemployment” and “We will root out corruption”, while in fact and indeed, they are growing, or more precisely, have reached alarming proportions?
The seemingly divine principle that if the party in power fails to implement the promises, it is up to the people to vote it out of office in the next elections, does not suit a country like India. Since ours is a country, where, because of their economic indigence and illiteracy, intellectual poverty, abject religious attachment, wanting in discernible faculties (to a large extent), people or the public in general and a vast majority of the voters in particular, and who are afflicted with the aforementioned ailments allow themselves to be carried away by the temporary and temporal temptations flung at them.
People, or more precisely, the voters are sought to be won over by the wherewithal purveyed by the rich contesting political parties, barring a few exceptions. As is well known, ours is a country where money, religion, ignorance and economic insecurity are all-pervasive!
In some cases, of course, money and religion only were not allowed by the voters to be swayed away by the evil and reprehensible acts of the political parties to somehow or other get their candidates elected to the legislature, be it Central or State, trampling upon all the ideals to which our Constitution dedicated itself. But, such instances are very few and rare. The majority of the voters remain the same old ones, like falling a prey to the temporal and terrestrial temptations due to the causes as mentioned above. It is quite possible, of course, that the voters generally lack the dissective faculties to assess the relative merits/defects of the contending or contesting political parties. The voters are also likely to succumb to the fiscal allurements. This sort of intellectual indigence, coupled with pecuniary temptations, is likely to land the entire country in troubled waters. In other words, what in the present day circumstances happens is, that the illiterates, who are in a vast majority, decide who should be our rulers and the wishes of the literates and the more enlightened people get drowned in the vehement voice (as expressed through their votes) of the illiterates, who admittedly lack the intelligence of evaluation. The vast majority of our population being uneducated and ignorant of the political philosophies/ideologies, we have to educate them on a large scale on a war footing to thwart the evil effects of this anathema and to ensure that only good Governments are installed after all the elections are over, to make the people feel happy that they have seen to it that only those deserving to rule us are put on the throne. Hence, the vocal sections of the people, or more precisely, those we can correctly assess, whether plans set out in the election manifestos are being implemented or not, are not getting any say, and hence, whatever the vast majority of uneducated, innocent, ignorant and intellectually indigent people say, becomes the voice of the people. I would like to state in no uncertain terms, at this point, that whatever views I have expressed in the preceding lines, are intended to present the full facts, with due regard to the real situation obtaining, and not to condemn or disapprove the universal adult franchise, which is a basic ingredient of any sound democratic system. Also, I wish that the mere expression of a man’s feelings on a vital matter, so important to the democratic functioning of our Governments, should not be misconstrued, as a downright disregard for the verdict of the majority of the people as expressed through the ballot. On the contrary, the views reflect my deep distress and anguish at the gulf between the promise and action in its fulfilment thereafter, once the ritual of elections is over.
To prevent making tall promises before elections, and any failure to implement them, thereafter, it should be made legally and constitutionally binding on the political parties to implement them and it should be made punishable; punishable in the sense, that the party failing to implement its own manifesto after getting the mandate of the people to rule in the election, should be banned/forbidden from contesting in the elections during the immediately following elections or for a period of six years. Well, the questions that arise then are: “Who is to decide?”, “How to decide?”, “How long should a political party, failing to implement its election manifesto should be banned from contesting in the subsequent elections?” and “What about the politicians switching their loyalties from one political party to another?”
This uphill task should be entrusted to the Supreme Court of India at the national level and the High Courts at the State level.
The mechanism to compel the ruling political parties, both at the Central level and States’ level to make them accountable to the public/voters should start its work at the appropriate time, in accordance with the procedure/formula being mentioned/propounded hereunder and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India at the national/Central level and the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts at the States’ level, should start their work on their own at the stroke of the appointed time/hour.
The mechanism should be worked out as under:
At the national level
At least a special five-Judge Court of the Supreme Court of India (this minimisation of the Supreme Court Judges to sit on the Bench to decide, as to whether the particular ruling party/combination of ruling parties really implemented its election manifestos to five Judges is only to ensure that the normal functioning of the Supreme Court is not adversely affected) should be given exclusive power to decide as to whether the political party, which is ruling at a particular point of time, did really implement the programmes or plans as set out in its election manifesto either completely or substantially. This project/gigantic exercise should be undertaken just one year before the coming general elections and if the Court (Supreme Court of India in this case) decides that the existing ruling party at the national level implemented the plans as set out in its manifesto, either fully or to a large extent, it can go ahead in the coming general elections, without any hindrance; and on the contrary, if the five-Judge Court of the Supreme Court decides that the ruling party failed to implement its election manifesto, that particular party or combination of ruling parties should be banned or forbidden from contesting in the next general elections or for a period of six years, at the discretion of the Supreme Court.
This proposition to start the judicial process to decide as to whether a ruling political party/combination of ruling parties implemented what it promised to the people in its election manifesto, one year ahead of the coming general elections is to ensure that the Court (the Supreme Court of India in this case) has enough time to pronounce its judgment/verdict, well before the commencement of the election process for the next general elections to the Lok Sabha and also to ensure that the ruling party does not feel that the Court had pre-judged the issues well before the completion of its full five-year term and the actual judgment of the Supreme Court and the initiation of the election process for the next general elections to the Lok Sabha are almost simultaneous and also if the Supreme Court’s enquiry and inquisition are started at a much later time, than one year ahead of the general elections, and if the Supreme Court’s judgment/opinion in this regard comes out, after the usual period/term of the Lok Sabha, which is normally five years, is over and the elections to the Lok Sabha are conducted as per the schedule then the judgment of the Supreme Court tantamounts to post-judging the issues and it will be infructuous and the whole exercise will be an idle formality!
And in case the span of the Lok Sabha is reduced, in case of its dissolution, well ahead of its full five-year term/tenure, then also again at least a five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India should be set up, for taking a “quick conspectus” to find out as to whether the immediately preceding ruling party implemented the points mentioned in its election manifesto at least pro tanto, if not in toto.
Before the midterm elections to the Lok Sabha, if the special five-Judge Court of the Supreme Court of India comes to the conclusion that the then ruling party implemented the plans or programmes mentioned in its election manifesto proportionate to the length of the period for which the ruling party/combination of ruling political parties was in power/office, then that ruling political party/combination of political parties can go ahead for trying its fortunes in the upcoming midterm elections to the Lok Sabha.
But, before the midterm elections to the Lok Sabha, if the special fiveJudge Court of the Supreme Court of India comes to the conclusion that the then ruling party/combination of ruling parties failed to implement what it promised in its election manifesto, at that point of time, that particular political party/combination of ruling political parties should be forbidden from contesting in the coming midterm elections to the Lok Sabha or for a period of six years, at the discretion of the Supreme Court.
At this stage, it should be made clear that as Head of the country’s highest judiciary or for that matter, as Head of the country’s entire judiciary, for the purpose of evaluating the performance/non-performance of the ruling party/combination of ruling parties at the national level, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India should have exclusive power to decide the composition/names of the five-Judge Court of the Supreme Court, and his decision shall be final.
Likewise, at the State level also, there should be a five-Judge Court/more than a five-Judge Court, having regard to the strength of that particular High Court, to decide as to whether the ruling party/combination of ruling parties at that time, at the State level, implemented what was set out in its election manifesto and if that five-Judge/more than five-Judge Court decides that the particular ruling party/combination of ruling parties ruling a particular State at that time implemented the plans/programmes as mentioned in its election manifesto during the last elections, either fully or to a substantial extent, then, it (ruling political party/combination of ruling parties in the States) can go ahead with its election-related rituals; otherwise, when the five-Judge Court or so decides that the ruling party/combination of ruling parties failed to keep its promises made in its election manifesto to the public in general, and the voters in particular, then that particular political party or combination of political parties should be prohibited from contesting in the next elections to that particular State Legislative Assembly for a period of six years.
This exercise also, as in the case of the Lok Sabha, should be undertaken just one year before completion of the full five-year term of any State Legislative Assembly, so that, by the time the verdict/judgment of the State High Court concerned comes out, the State Legislative Assembly concerned and also the State Government (“executive” part of the State Government) concerned complete their full five-year term and there is no question of prejudging/post-judging the issues by the State High Court concerned and the content as discussed in the relevant para in respect of the role of the Supreme Court with regard to the general elections to the Lok Sabha, in respect of the commencement of the inquisition/enquiry, one year ahead of the completion of the full five-year term/tenure of the Lok Sabha, will equally apply in respect of the enquiry/inquisition of the States’ High Courts, regarding implementation of the election manifestos by the various States’ ruling parties/combination of ruling parties would/will be equally applied, in respect of State Legislative Assemblies, as well, mutatis mutandis.
Again here also, when a State Legislative Assembly is dissolved, before completion of its full five-year term, then also, that particular High Court, having jurisdiction over the State, should make a “quick conspectus” to find out as to whether the ruling party/combination of ruling political parties at that time kept its promises made to the electorate either fully or proportionately. If the relevant five-Judge Court/more than five-Judge Court of a State High Court decides that the ruling party/combination of ruling parties at that time implemented its promises made to the electorate in its previous election manifesto during the earlier elections to that particular State Legislative Assembly, the ruling party/combination of political parties should be allowed to contest to the coming elections to the State Legislative Assembly without any obstacle.
And if the relevant five-Judge/more than five-Judge Bench of a particular High Court decides/finds that the ruling party/a combination of ruling parties failed to implement even a fraction or even an iota of its election manifesto, then that particular party/combination of ruling parties at that time should be prohibited from contesting either in the upcoming midterm elections or for a period of six years at the discretion of that High Court.
It should be kept in mind here that just as under this innovative scheme at the national level, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India decides the number of Judges to sit on that particular Bench and also composition of the five-Judge Court of the Supreme Court of India in the case of the Union of India’s performance or non-performance at that particular point of time, in the case of States also the Chief Justice of the respective High Court will have the discretion to decide the number of Judges and also the composition of the Judges of that particular Special High Court Bench to hear the case, and decide as to whether the ruling party/combination of ruling parties kept the promises it made to the electorate during the earlier elections. Also, the respective Chief Justice of that particular High Court shall have exclusive power to determine the composition of the intended five-Judge/more than five-Judge Court at the State level.
In a way this culture of accountability to the public that if a ruling party/combination of ruling parties implemented its election manifesto, it can go ahead for contesting in the next elections, and in the event of its failure to implement what was held out to the electorate, that particular party should be disallowed to contest in the next elections as mentioned above should be extended right from the Lok Sabha down to a ward member of a Gram Panchayat, on the same analogy, though the forum may be different in the case of local bodies, like, from the Municipal Corporation down to a ward member of a Village/Gram Panchayat.
It should be noted here, that any Lok Sabha member disqualified from contesting either in the next elections or for a period of six years should not be allowed to contest from any State Legislative Assembly as well and vice versa; and in a way any member disqualified at any level i.e. either to the Lok Sabha election or election to a State Legislative Assembly should be barred from participating in electoral politics for the abovementioned period of six years.
Here, a very unusual problem comes into the picture i.e. suppose, the political leaders, who were earlier in a party, but due to the ban on this party or that party for non-performance of the promises made in its election manifesto, switch over their loyalties to another political party, which at that point of time, was free from the black spot, what happens then? The immediate response should be, those leaders, who were at the relevant point of time, members of the banned political parties should be specifically prohibited from entering into another political party at least for six years. Any attempt at change of colours by the political leaders should be broken to smithereens by the Supreme Court of India, ultimately.
This principle of debarring the political leaders of a ruling party from contesting in the subsequent elections, either to the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assemblies, in case, that particular leader or leaders belonging to that party fails to/fail to implement the promises mentioned in its previous election manifesto should equally apply to the independent candidates as well, elected unattached to any political party in the event of their nonperformance in their constituency either in respect of the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assemblies. Pat comes the question, I am well aware, as to how the independent members’ performance either in respect of the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assemblies can be evaluated?
In such a situation, in case, the elected independent candidate presents any election manifesto as such, then that itself is sufficient to decide as to whether that independent member of the Lok Sabha or the State Legislative Assembly had made any diligent efforts to implement the promises made in his election manifesto during his previous or immediately preceding term. That independent candidate’s promises made to the public in general/voters in particular belonging to his constituency should be the deciding and guiding factor for either the five-Judge Court of the Supreme Court of India or five-Judge Courts of the different High Courts to allow or disallow that particular independent member of the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assemblies, to contest in the subsequent elections.
And in case there is no written document to show and decide as to whether any particular independent member of either the Lok Sabha or the State Legislative Assembly contributed either to implement his oral promises made to the voters or for overall development of his constituency the Court (i.e. either the Supreme Court or High Court) shall have its own mechanism to decide whether any particular member of the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly/Assemblies deserves to contest in the subsequent elections. Here, I would like to make a caution to the independent members and also to the deciding authorities (i.e. either the five-Judge Court of the Supreme Court of India and the five-Judge or more Judges’ Courts at the States’ level) formed to oversee the eligibility or otherwise of the political parties to contest in the next elections. That particular independent candidate, who was declared ineligible for contesting in the next elections, should also not be allowed to join any political party for another six years because otherwise, there is every possibility of the ineligible independent member to try and join any political party which has not been disallowed to contest in the next elections, be it general elections/midterm elections. That is why, even independent and disqualified members of the Lok Sabha/State Legislative Assemblies should not be allowed to join in any election fray/electoral arena, as members belonging to another blemishless political party.
And again, likewise, any member of the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly of any party, barred by the overseeing mechanism from contesting in the elections thereto, during the subsequent elections, should not be allowed to join the election fray as independent candidates as well. All efforts of the disqualified members of the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assemblies who earlier represented a political party to surreptitiously enter the legislative bodies should be frustrated.
Regarding provision for appeals, there should be provision for one appeal only both for the ruling political parties at the national level, as well as at the State level and also for independent candidates. The Supreme Court of India is the ultimate authority in respect of appeals for verification and review of the original judgments/opinions of the five-Judge Courts at the Supreme Court level and five-Judge/more than five-Judge Courts at the State level.
Since at the national level, five-Judge Special Court of the Supreme Court of India is visualised for finding out as to whether the ruling party/combination of ruling parties did really implement the provisions made in its election manifesto, the Chief Justice of India should, at his discretion, constitute a larger Bench/Court of the Supreme Court, maybe consisting of not less than seven Judges of the Supreme Court for hearing an appeal over the decision of the five-Judge Court of the Supreme Court of India and in the case of the ruling party/combination of ruling parties at the States’ level, to find out whether the judgment/opinion of a five-Judge/more than a five-Judge Court of the High Court concerned, the affected/aggrieved party can go in for appeal to the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India may constitute a three-Judge Bench/more than three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, at his discretion, and thereby a finality is reached in this respect. By this process, and by adopting this method, the judiciary will be making provision for only one appeal from the original judgment/opinion and the matter both at the national level and the States’ level should end there. Here, the Chief Justice of India should have the discretion to decide the strength of the Judges and also the composition of the Courts over which he presides. The Supreme Court of India should be allowed to devise its own procedures to meet the ends of justice and also for deciding/adjudicating the matter finally and once for all and for lifting aloft the Goddess of the Dharma, so as to ensure that, “dharma always prevails over adharma”.
No political party/combination of political parties ruling either the country or a State should be allowed to put forth lame excuses, like, the plans in the election manifesto could not be implemented because of the “unprecedented drought”, “severe cyclones”, “devastating floods”, “severe typhoons”, “whirlwinds”, “haunting and hunting hurricanes”, “ghastly famines”, and a thousand other impediments. Because one or two or all of them will occur/take place in one part or the other of the country or a State almost every year. It is a never-ending hideous prospect and hence the presence of at least some such natural calamities should always be taken into account while preparing and presenting election manifestos. Presenting a “rosy picture” in the election manifesto tempting the electorate with a “cosy life” if they are voted to power and the parties failing to implement the election manifestos would blame nature, as if it were there just to bear any amount of blame heaped on it!
In the light of what has been mentioned above, I request the political parties to be “realistic and pragmatic”, while preparing their election manifestos and promise only what they can really do for them.
The innovative suggestion made for prohibiting the party/parties failing to implement the election manifestos from contesting in the next elections should be given serious thought by all concerned and any step or measure taken in this direction would be gratefully remembered. I reiterate that no slight is intended, when references were made to the illiteracy and ignorance of our people or voters. My views as expressed above are intended for the betterment of my fellow citizens and the good of our country at large.
This sort of accountability to the public or voters has now become more and more important in view of the latest provision for members of the legislatures to get funds from/for the so-called local area development funds or some such thing and by whatever/whichever technical jargon it may be called. There are numerous complaints as to how these funds for the legislators have been the best source of swindling the public funds, cheating the country’s exchequer to the tune of several crores of rupees, apart from the various “vicarious advantages to get the things done or undone and bulging the bellies of several members of the unscrupulous political parties”.
This growing menace should be checked and there should be at least some “semblance of honesty and probity in public life!”
The objective of providing for punitive actions under the intended schemes in case of violations by the political parties is to see to it that the leaders of the ruling political parties and also independent candidates who earlier entered the legislative bodies somehow or other, displaying the magnificent promises in their election manifestos and “doing no service to the public thereafter, except self-service” is to see to it that they are forced to be accountable to the electorate, which believed their words, grandiloquent presentations and promises galore and the role expected for the “overseeing and corrective mechanism is like that of an able, astute and adroit advocate, who corners the accused in the dock from all sides so that there is no escape route for him and he has to face the music in case of his transgression”.
I hopefully wish and yearningly look forward for dawning of wisdom on the part of both the public in general and “politicians” in particular, so that our country shall earn a fair name, as one free from all sorts of “vices” in the electoral politics and become a model one for other countries to ape and emulate in their respective countries!
|
