THE CONTEXT: The State Bank of India and the Election Commission have released a list of those who purchased electoral bonds compelled by the Supreme Court notice recently. It is a big step in the right direction to remove the secrecy around electoral funding in India.
MORE ON THE NEWS:
- Supreme Court issued a notice to the SBI on the question of a fuller disclosure of the list of those who purchased electoral bonds to provide greater clarity on the questions of who paid whom, when they did so and why.
- The information reveals major buyers, including industrialists like Lakshmi Mittal, Sunil Mittal’s companies, Vedanta, ITC, and Mahindra and Mahindra. Future Gaming and Hotel Services, under ED scrutiny, bought bonds worth over Rs 1,350 crore. Vedanta Ltd, Sunil Mittal’s companies, and others also made significant purchases.
- The BJP, Congress, and several other parties received donations through these bonds, aiming to enhance transparency in political funding.
- At one level, it is deeply symbiotic the list points to the possibility of some donations being linked to entities securing lucrative contracts or licences at both the central and state level.
- A significantly large number of donors are from sectors that are more tightly controlled, more regulated by the government.
- These sectors such as mining, telecom, infrastructure, real estate and construction are where clearances and licences are required, and where contracts are awarded by governments. Instances of donations by those in sectors lightly regulated by the government are few.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOVE:
- Transparency and Accountability in Political Funding: This move tend to ensure transparency and accountability in political funding. In addition to the details of the purchasers, SBI has also provided the EC with information regarding the date of encashment of the electoral bonds and the names of the political parties that received the donations.
- Close the nexus of business and politics: The revelations of donor names will help close the nexus of relationship between big business and politics.
- Right to know: The move is a watershed moment for transparency, and the citizen’s right to know which lie at the heart of the democratic governance.
ISSUES RELATED TO ELECTORAL BOND:
- Anonymity of electoral bonds: Critics argue that the one of the major issues related to electoral bond is anonymity of electoral bonds. This is contradictory to its basic idea that is to bring transparency to election funding.
- Democratic principles: Another issue faced by electoral bond is that it is against the democratic principles and representative democracy. As in a representative democracy, citizens cast their vote for the people who will represent them in Parliament. However, in case of electoral bond voters could not know which individual, company, or organization has funded which party, and to what extent.
- Affect Free & Fair Elections: As the anonymity does not apply to the government, which can always access the donor details by demanding the data from the SBI. This can affect free and fair elections.
- Crony Capitalism: The electoral bonds scheme removes all pre-existing limits on political donations and effectively allows corporations to fund elections subsequently paving the way for crony capitalism.
- Skewed benefits: There are also indications of a severely skewed system of election finance that the ruling party at the Centre and in several states, has evidently benefitted from the electoral bonds.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Revelation of code: The State Bank of India should provide the unique alphanumeric code on the electoral bonds which it had to. This code would allow the matching of each and every donation by the donors to the political parties.
- Regulation of Donations: There should be regulation on donations in both the terms who can and to what extent. It will ensure that a party is not captured by a few large donors whether individuals, corporations, or civil society organisations.
- Balancing Transparency and Anonymity: One of the most prominent solution is to balance legitimate public interests in transparency and anonymity. Many jurisdictions strike this balance by allowing anonymity for small donors, while requiring disclosures of large donations.
- Pre-determined criteria: The most commonly used method is to set predetermined criteria. For instance, in Germany, parties receive public funds on the basis of their importance within the political system.
- Limits on Expenditure: There should be limit on expenditure to safeguard politics from a financial arms race as it parties from the pressure of competing for money even before they start to compete for votes. Therefore, some jurisdictions impose an expenditure limit on political parties.
THE CONCLUSION:
Electoral bonds data raises troubling questions around secrecy and citizen’s right to know and, in this case, more disclosure is needed to ensure the same. Therefore, Court’s judgment striking down the electoral bonds scheme and its subsequent order pushing the SBI to submit the data are immensely welcome.
UPSC PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS
Q.1 The Right to Information Act is not all about citizens’ empowerment alone, it essentially redefines the concept of accountability.” Discuss. (2018)
Q.2 Whether electoral bonds are effective in ensuring fair, just and open elections? Discuss the various concerns regarding electoral bonds. (2022)
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTIONS
Q.1 The Court’s judgment striking down the electoral bonds scheme, and its subsequent order pushing the SBI to submit the data is watershed moment for transparency, and the citizen’s right to know. Critically analyse the statement.
SOURCE: https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/the-bond-trail-9216861/
Spread the Word