In view of the SC directions in its September 2018 judgment asking parties and their candidates contesting elections to declare their criminal antecedents by advertising them thrice in widely circulated newspapers and also in electronic media, ADR analysis found that National political parties collectively spent Rs 1.51 cr or 0.062% of the total expenditure on publishing criminal antecedents of the candidates while 25 Regional political parties spent Rs 2.08 cr or 0.37% under the same head during Lok Sabha elections 2019. 122 MPs elected to Lok Sabha last year spent a total of Rs 1.06 cr. Despite this move by SC to ensure that voters should have all information about antecedents of candidates to enable them to make an informed and competent choice, whether the publication of this information had any impact on the quality of the candidates elected to the 17th Lok Sabha is questionable. 

As per ADR’s analysis, 29% of the winners had declared serious criminal cases while 43% winners had declared criminal cases (risen from 30% in 2009). The average assets of winners amounted to Rs 20.93 crores and 475 or 88% (from 58% in 2009) out of 539 winners analysed were crorepatis. The chances of winning for a candidate with declared criminal cases in the Lok Sabha 2019 was 15.5% whereas for a candidate with a clean background, it was 4.7%. The chances of winning for a crorepati candidate in the Lok Sabha 2019 was 21%, whereas for a candidate with assets less than Rs. 1 crore was 1%. The Delhi State Assembly elections presented an even more grim picture. The newly elected assembly has 53% MLAs with declared serious criminal cases, 61% MLAs with criminal cases and 74% crorepati MLAs. 

There is also a lack of discernible positive outcome of the 2002 landmark Supreme Court judgment that directed for a compulsory disclosure of the candidates’ financial, educational and criminal background while contesting elections. From 2009 to 2019, there has been an increase of 109% in the number of MPs with declared serious criminal cases. For the same period, there is an increase of 850% in the number of MPs with declared cases of crimes against women. It can be seen that increasing information dissemination through media and awareness created through civil society initiatives have not prevented election of tainted or rich candidates to the Parliament or State Assemblies. 

In this context, it becomes pertinent to ask whether access to candidates’ background information enables voters to use this knowledge in voting decisions and achieve the intended outcome. Milan Vaishnav in his book, ‘When Crime Pays: Money and Muscle in Indian Politics’ observes how average voters in many regions in India make no qualm about a candidate’s criminal background while exercising their franchise. He argues that they are making a calculation based on the tangled relationship between political effectiveness and criminal strength. This is found especially true for constituencies where social divisions driven by caste and/or religion are sharp and delivery of public services fail. According to Prof K.C. Suri of University of Hyderabad, ‘Powerful people, even if criminals, offer a kind of parallel system of redressal’. 

Will it then be fair to say that other factors such as caste identities, religion, Robin Hood figure, nationalism, a strong party face, extravagant election campaigns can supersede the concerns against growing criminality and expensive election campaigns of rich candidates? Do the voters, armed with information, often support candidates with criminal (and financially superior) reputations not in spite of their criminal bona fides, but because of them?
As political parties continue to field tainted candidates, questions must also be raised on the criminal-politician nexus which leaves voters with little or no choice.

The story of Vikas Dubey is a case in point that reiterates the long history of nexus between politicians and criminals. Despite a deplorable background of several criminal charges including murder of a state minister, Dubey enjoyed political patronage, and he and his family members held political positions at the village level. It is alleged that he was also meaning to contest for an MLA seat. What does one make of this? That joining politics is no more about public service but serves as a refuge for criminals to continue their activities under the cover of political impunity. And he is not the only one, as the aforesaid figures reveal. To make matters worse, many State governments after winning elections, withdraw criminal cases against politicians on the pretext that they are politically motivated. Notably, the UP government in 2017 withdrew 20,000 cases involving politicians including those against the present CM Yogi Adityanath.

In February this year, the SC passed another set of directions to ensure that the September 2018 order is implemented in letter and spirit. The Election Commission told the SC that its erstwhile order has not helped curb criminalisation of politics and suggested that parties should be asked not to give tickets to tainted candidates. This time the court also ordered the parties to publish/upload reasons for selection of such candidates and as to why clean candidates could not be selected. The upcoming Bihar Assembly elections would be the first test of the SC order where criminal-politician nexus has been the dominant narrative. Whether this step would alter the quality of elected politicians or result in cleaner campaigns depends on its enforcement and the actions taken against non-compliance. At the same time, it is crucial that political parties use this opportunity to nominate clean candidates and voters exercise their franchise to punish parties that decide to do otherwise. Else, it is a never-ending spiral. 

The article was originally published on The Logical Indian.
Creative Credit: Vijay S Hegde

I sometimes wonder whether we can ever hope to realise the aspirations of our freedom fighters, who sacrificed so much to gain independence from colonial rule. Sadly, foreign domination has been replaced in some measure by our home grown oligarchy that possesses both “money power” and “muscle power”.
– Navin B Chawla, 16th Chief Election Commissioner (2017)

The 17th Lok Sabha elections were not only a resounding victory for the BJP but a victory for money and muscle power, with 43% (233) of elected MPs having declared criminal cases against them (an increase of 44% since 2009), 88% (475) MPs having assets worth Rs. 1 crore and more, and the average assets per winner being Rs 20.93 crore. Crime and money are seen ever so strongly linked with electoral success. According to ADR analysis, a candidate facing criminal charges had 15.5% chances of winning Lok Sabha 2019 elections against a 4.7% chance for a clean candidate. Speaking of winning based on assets, there were 21% chances of winning for crorepati candidates contesting elections against a 1% chance of candidates with assets below Rs 1 crore. This is the grim reality of world’s largest elections, popularly referred as the dance of democracy. One may then ask, ‘dance to whose tune?’

According to a Centre for Media Studies (CMS) study, a whopping Rs 55,000-60,000 crore is estimated to have been spent during the 2019 Parliamentary elections, making them the costliest elections ever. 40% or Rs 24,000 crore have been spent by candidates while parties spent an estimated Rs 20,000 crore (35%). On further analysis, we see that nearly Rs 100 crore were spent per Lok Sabha constituency which, on an average, comes down to Rs 700 per voter (India has approximately 900 million eligible voters).

Throughout the election campaign, media frequently reported about instances of money being spent and distributed to bribe voters. The Election Commission of India (ECI), beginning March 26, 2019, published seizure reports highlighting the amount of cash, liquor, drug/narcotics, precious metals, freebies etc. seized during the campaigning period each day. The total seizure reported by the ECI at the end of elections was a monstrous Rs 3475.76 crore (in contrast to Rs 299.943 crore seized in 2014 elections) with drugs/narcotics topping the list at Rs 1279.90 crore followed by precious metals (gold etc.) at Rs 987.11 crore. 10%-12% voters admitted receiving cash for votes, another two-third acknowledged that voters around them were also bribed. A considerable amount of the total poll expenditure is unaccounted cash which remains outside the purview of the formal system.

Moreover, as political strategizing and campaigning continues to become more sophisticated and competitive, we see crores being spent on political advertising, especially on social media, making it difficult to monitor the indirect expenditure with precision. These elections also witnessed the highest ever anonymous funding (through Electoral Bonds) in the months preceding the general elections; March and April 2019 accounted for purchase of bonds worth Rs 3622 crore – 62% of the total bonds purchased till date and 2.5 times the amount purchased in earlier phases.

While money has definitely grown in prominence, crime is not far behind. As elections grow costlier, so does the demand for wealthy candidates, and accompanying these candidates, are often their dubious reputations blurring the lines between the politician and the criminal. Despite the Supreme Court judgment of 2018 that mandated political parties and candidates to declare the criminal antecedents of every contesting candidate in print and electronic media, at least three times after filing the nomination, 159 MPs with declared serious criminal charges (an increase of 109% since 2009) have been elected to the 17th Lok Sabha.

The reality of tainted candidates fighting for political power is expansive across party lines. This was also true for elections this year. BJP and INC fielded 175 (40%) and 164 (39%) candidates with declared criminal cases respectively, while the proportion of such candidates fielded by CPI (M) and NCP was at 58% and 50% respectively. ADR reports define constituencies which have 3 or more candidates with criminal cases contesting elections as ‘Red Alert constituencies’. Interestingly, there were 265 (49%) such constituencies during Parliamentary elections 2019.

Evidently, crime and money remain the indomitable winners that continue to enjoy stranglehold on India’s electoral politics and solicit immediate attention. In the light of the above, it is very critical for an Indian voter to reflect upon the factors behind the continuing victory of the two ‘Ms’ and how their ever increasing role damages the democratic integrity of our elections. It is important to examine how sturdily these factors will continue to dominate in future.