THE CONTEXT: India’s vibrant multi-party democracy often faces a paradox. Political parties, while integral to the democratic framework, frequently struggle with internal democratic processes, often being driven more by individual charisma than collective decision-making. This raises an important question about whether the Election Commission (EC) can play a role in ensuring that these parties maintain democratic structures internally, balancing the need for oversight with the risk of overstepping into political processes.
THE ISSUES:
- Internal Democracy Deficiency: Many Indian political parties lack robust internal democratic processes, often relying on individual charisma rather than structured democratic practices. This raises concerns about their ability to uphold democratic values.
- Election Commission’s Role: The EC registers political parties and ensures they adhere to their constitutions and by-laws. However, a 2002 Supreme Court ruling limits the EC’s power, preventing it from intervening in internal party processes or deregistering parties for not holding periodic elections.
- Debate on EC’s Authority: There is an ongoing debate about whether the EC should have more authority to enforce internal democracy within political parties. Some argue that increased powers could politicize the EC, while others believe that voters should determine party discipline.
- Legal Framework and Compliance: Political parties are not legally required to hold internal elections beyond compliance with their constitutions and by-laws. This compliance is often superficial, with leadership remaining unchallenged despite formal elections.
- Challenges in Regulating Internal Democracy: The EC faces challenges in regulating internal democracy, as seen in its rejection of a proposal to make a party leader a permanent president. Such interventions may not change the reality of personality-driven politics within parties.
- Public Perception and EC Credibility: Maintaining high credibility and public trust in the EC’s decisions is crucial. Objective decision-making processes, such as assessing legislative support during party splits, help preserve this trust without entangling the EC in political disputes.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Statutory Regulation of Internal Party Democracy: The Law Commission’s 255th Report suggested amendments to the RPA to enforce internal democracy by mandating regular elections for party leadership and executive committees. This would ensure that parties operate democratically at all levels. Statutory regulation would provide a legal basis for enforcing internal democracy, reducing the influence of personality cults and dynastic politics currently dominating many parties.
- Empowering the Election Commission: Empowering the ECI to impose penalties or even de-register parties that fail to adhere to democratic processes could be considered. This would require legislative changes to expand the ECI’s mandate. Strengthening the ECI’s oversight capabilities would enhance accountability and ensure political parties adhere to democratic norms, fostering greater public trust in political institutions.
- Leveraging Technology for Transparent Elections: Platforms like Right2Vote offer online voting solutions that can make internal party elections more transparent and cost-effective. These platforms can facilitate broader participation among party members spread across different regions.
- Reforming the Anti-Defection Law: Reforming the anti-defection law would strengthen party discipline and integrity while ensuring legislators remain accountable to their party’s democratic processes.
- Enhancing Voter Awareness and Accountability: By making informed choices, voters can pressure political parties to adopt more democratic practices Public awareness campaigns can highlight the significance of internal democracy in maintaining a healthy democratic system.
- Comprehensive Study and Reform of Political Party Systems: A detailed study of the current state of internal democracy within political parties can inform targeted reforms. This involves understanding how democratic structures are implemented across different levels within parties.
THE CONCLUSION:
The debate on internal democracy in political parties reveals a complex interplay between regulatory oversight and electoral accountability. While the Election Commission maintains a crucial role in overseeing parties’ adherence to their constitutions, the responsibility for fostering true internal democracy ultimately rests with the electorate. The consensus suggests that imposing additional regulatory powers on the EC could risk politicizing the institution, emphasizing instead that democratic accountability should be driven by informed voter choice.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:
Q.1 Discuss the procedures to decide the disputes arising from the election of a Member of the Parliament or State Legislature under The Representation of the People Act, 1951. What grounds on which any returned candidate’s election may be declared void? What remedy is available to the aggrieved party against the decision? Refer to the case laws. 2022
Q.2 Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India considering the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct. 2022
Q.3 There is a need to simplify the procedure for disqualifying persons found guilty of corrupt practices under the Representation of Peoples Act”. Comment. 2020
Q.4 On what grounds can a people’s representative be disqualified under the Representation of People Act, 1951? Also, mention the remedies available to such a person against his disqualification. 2019
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q.1 Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in ensuring internal democracy within political parties. Evaluate the legal and constitutional challenges it faces in this regard.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word