A reticent of ficer's anguish

N D Sharma

O P Rawat Election Commissioner O P Rawat surprised his admirers and detractors alike by his outburst at the blatant use of money and misuse of government machinery in the elections.
This was not the Rawat I had known from his days in Madhya Pradesh, where he served in various important positions in the government; he was never known to speak publicly, and that too, in a harsh language, about what he was thinking on an issue. His detractors had, in fact, dubbed him as a 'ghunna' (one who keeps his strong feelings about something or somebody within himself).
That even Rawat should have lost his calm can only mean that the electoral process has reached such a low as to require immediate drastic measures to keep the people's faith intact in the elections. Democracy thrives, Rawat observed, 'when elections are free, fair and transparent'. Rawat shared his distress in his keynote address at the consultation on electoral and political reforms organised by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) in New Delhi in August.
He said, 'it has come to the notice of the (Election) Commission that paid operators run by PR firms are being actively deployed to shape public opinion online. It appears to a cynical common man that we have been scripting a narrative that places maximum premium on winning at all costs to the total exclusion of ethical considerations. In this narrative, poaching of legislators is extolled as small political management; strategic introduction of money for allurement, tough-minded use of State machinery

Rawat pointed out that 'although money was necessary for political parties and candidates, experience has shown that there is a real and present risk that some parties and candidates, once in office, will be more responsive to the interests of a particular group of donors rather than to wider public interest. Policy capture occurs when the interests of a narrow group dominate those of other stakeholders to the benefit of that narrow group'.

for intimidation, etc, are all commended as resourcefulness'. He said, 'the winner can commit no sin; a defector crossing over to the ruling camp stands cleansed of all the guilt as also possible criminality. It is this creeping new normal of political morality that should be the target for exemplary action by all political parties, politicians, media, civil society organisations, constitutional

authorities and all those having faith in democratic polity for better election, a better tomorrow'.
Rawat pointed out that 'although money was necessary for political parties and candidates, experience has shown that there is a real and present risk that some parties and candidates, once in office, will be more responsive to the interests of a particular group of donors rather than to wider public interest. Policy capture occurs when the interests of a narrow group dominate those of other stakeholders to the benefit of that narrow group'.
Referring to the Election Commission's objection to the Electoral Bonds introduced by the government, he observed that it might lead to the use of black money in electoral politics. Rawat said, 'the recent amendments in the election and income tax laws make it clear that any donation received by a political party through an Electoral Bond has been taken out of ambit of reporting in the Contribution Report which political parties have to submit to the EC. Implications of this step can be retrograde as far as transparency is concerned.
Furthermore, where contributions received through Electoral Bonds are not reported, a perusal of contribution reports will not make it clear whether the party in question has taken any donations in violation of Section 29B of the Representation of the People Act, which prohibits political parties from taking donations from government companies and foreign sources'.
The Election Commission had, he said, expressed apprehension that the abolition of relevant provisions of the Companies Act of removing a cap of 7.5 per cent of profit for political donations can lead to money laundering 'by setting up of shell companies for diverting funds for donations to political parties.
Rawat's plain speaking came apparently in the light of the developments during the Gujarat Rajya Sabha elections in which blatant use of money, government machinery and intimidation was witnessed. BJP president Amit Shah was hailed as the 'manager' of the election strategy.

Rawat is the first person, holding a constitutional position directly related to the conduct of elections, to spell out publicly in a strong language the ills vitiating free and fair elections. Politicians have for long been voicing their concern at the use of money and muscle power in the elections and demanding electoral reforms – but only when they were in the opposition.

Narottam Mishra Shah did not take note of Rawat's speech at ADR event directly.
But he reacted to Rawat's observations in his own way. During his three-day visit to Bhopal a few days later, he opted to have his lunch at the house of Narottam Mishra to the exclusion of all other party leaders. Narottam Mishra, Minister of Public Relations, Legislative Affairs and Water Resources in the Shivraj Singh Chouhan government, is on a stay after he was found guilty of 'paid news' by the Election Commission in June and disqualified as well as barred from contesting elections for three years.
The stay against the Election Commission's order did not come to him easily.
only when they were in the opposition. A classic example is that of Lal Krishna Advani. As BJP president in the 1980s, Advani scarcely opened his mouth in public without making three demands – Electoral Reforms, amendment of the Police Act of 1861, and surprise commando action to destroy the training camps for terrorists in the Pak-occupied Kashmir. The last was a complicated issue because of international implications.
But a decision on the other two, Electoral Reforms and amendment of Police Act of 1861 was, and is, within the powers of the Government of India. However, when Advani became Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in the Atal Behari Vajpayee government, he did not, even once during his entire tenure, remember the two demands which he had made vociferously as an Opposition leader.



		EDITOR'S MAIL MATTERS OF PUBLIC POLICY NIA ACTS LANDMARK VERDICT HISTORIC JUDGEMENT MODINAMA REALPOLITIK ECONOMIC SCENE FRANKLY SPEAKING JAYALALITHAA LEGACY JAYALALITHAA LEGACY CHANDIGARH DIARY AMERICAN DIARY MEDICAL ADVANCEMENT HITS & MISSES CRICKET DIARY BOOK BAZAAR BOOK BAZAAR SIGNS OF THE TIMES MISSING ROAD SENSE YOGA IN DAILY LIFE FILM-MAKING ART OF LIVING Issue:Sep' 2017 Subscribe Now	ELECTORAL MALPRACTICES A reticent of ficer's anguish N D Sharma O P Rawat Election Commissioner O P Rawat surprised his admirers and detractors alike by his outburst at the blatant use of money and misuse of government machinery in the elections. This was not the Rawat I had known from his days in Madhya Pradesh, where he served in various important positions in the government; he was never known to speak publicly, and that too, in a harsh language, about what he was thinking on an issue. His detractors had, in fact, dubbed him as a 'ghunna' (one who keeps his strong feelings about something or somebody within himself). That even Rawat should have lost his calm can only mean that the electoral process has reached such a low as to require immediate drastic measures to keep the people's faith intact in the elections. Democracy thrives, Rawat observed, 'when elections are free, fair and transparent'. Rawat shared his distress in his keynote address at the consultation on electoral and political reforms organised by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) in New Delhi in August. He said, 'it has come to the notice of the (Election) Commission that paid operators run by PR firms are being actively deployed to shape public opinion online. It appears to a cynical common man that we have been scripting a narrative that places maximum premium on winning at all costs to the total exclusion of ethical considerations. In this narrative, poaching of legislators is extolled as small political management; strategic introduction of money for allurement, tough-minded use of State machinery Rawat pointed out that 'although money was necessary for political parties and candidates, experience has shown that there is a real and present risk that some parties and candidates, once in office, will be more responsive to the interests of a particular group of donors rather than to wider public interest. Policy capture occurs when the interests of a narrow group dominate those of other stakeholders to the benefit of that narrow group'. for intimidation, etc, are all commended as resourcefulness'. He said, 'the winner can commit no sin; a defector crossing over to the ruling camp stands cleansed of all the guilt as also possible criminality. It is this creeping new normal of political morality that should be the target for exemplary action by all political parties, politicians, media, civil society organisations, constitutional authorities and all those having faith in democratic polity for better election, a better tomorrow'. Rawat pointed out that 'although money was necessary for political parties and candidates, experience has shown that there is a real and present risk that some parties and candidates, once in office, will be more responsive to the interests of a particular group of donors rather than to wider public interest. Policy capture occurs when the interests of a narrow group dominate those of other stakeholders to the benefit of that narrow group'. Referring to the Election Commission's objection to the Electoral Bonds introduced by the government, he observed that it might lead to the use of black money in electoral politics. Rawat said, 'the recent amendments in the election and income tax laws make it clear that any donation received by a political party through an Electoral Bond has been taken out of ambit of reporting in the Contribution Report which political parties have to submit to the EC. Implications of this step can be retrograde as far as transparency is concerned. Furthermore, where contributions received through Electoral Bonds are not reported, a perusal of contribution reports will not make it clear whether the party in question has taken any donations in violation of Section 29B of the Representation of the People Act, which prohibits political parties from taking donations from government companies and foreign sources'. The Election Commission had, he said, expressed apprehension that the abolition of relevant provisions of the Companies Act of removing a cap of 7.5 per cent of profit for political donations can lead to money laundering 'by setting up of shell companies for diverting funds for donations to political parties. Rawat's plain speaking came apparently in the light of the developments during the Gujarat Rajya Sabha elections in which blatant use of money, government machinery and intimidation was witnessed. BJP president Amit Shah was hailed as the 'manager' of the election strategy. Rawat is the first person, holding a constitutional position directly related to the conduct of elections, to spell out publicly in a strong language the ills vitiating free and fair elections. Politicians have for long been voicing their concern at the use of money and muscle power in the elections and demanding electoral reforms – but only when they were in the opposition. Narottam Mishra Shah did not take note of Rawat's speech at ADR event directly. But he reacted to Rawat's observations in his own way. During his three-day visit to Bhopal a few days later, he opted to have his lunch at the house of Narottam Mishra to the exclusion of all other party leaders. Narottam Mishra, Minister of Public Relations, Legislative Affairs and Water Resources in the Shivraj Singh Chouhan government, is on a stay after he was found guilty of 'paid news' by the Election Commission in June and disqualified as well as barred from contesting elections for three years. The stay against the Election Commission's order did not come to him easily. only when they were in the opposition. A classic example is that of Lal Krishna Advani. As BJP president in the 1980s, Advani scarcely opened his mouth in public without making three demands – Electoral Reforms, amendment of the Police Act of 1861, and surprise commando action to destroy the training camps for terrorists in the Pak-occupied Kashmir. The last was a complicated issue because of international implications. But a decision on the other two, Electoral Reforms and amendment of Police Act of 1861 was, and is, within the powers of the Government of India. However, when Advani became Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in the Atal Behari Vajpayee government, he did not, even once during his entire tenure, remember the two demands which he had made vociferously as an Opposition leader.