India: Network of Activists and Orgs Aim to End Election of Criminal Politicians by Publicly Exposing their Crimes and Misdeeds
The Global Post reports that a network of activists and organizations known as the “National Election Watch” in India have dedicated themselves to making surecriminals do not end up in charge of the government. India’s middle class— which is still too small to be a decisive voice at the polls — is famous forpolitical apathy. Campaigns do not come down to issues, but instead oftenrely on mobilizing party workers to pass out free booze to voters in the slums.In some states, criminal gangs intimidate poor farmers into voting for theirleader, while in others party cadres allegedly harass and threatennon-sympathizers, sometimes confiscating their voter registration cards. Moneyand muscle have become so important that every major party relies on candidatescharged in criminal cases to deliver the vote. Nearly a quarter of thelegislators in India’s recently dissolved parliament had criminal cases pendingagainst them — and not just for white-collar crimes, but also murder and otherviolent offenses.
However, educated Indians are beginning to strike back. Itstarted in 1999 when Trilochan Sastry, then a professor at the Indian Instituteof Management in Ahmedabad, approached some of his colleagues with an idea fora guerrilla hit on the nation’s unresponsive political parties. Sastrysuggested filing a lawsuit demanding that candidates divulge their financialassets and criminal records when the parties file their nominations. In 1999, Sastry and colleagues, nowcalling themselves the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), filed thissuit in the Delhi High Court. In2000 the court ruled in favor of the ADR and mandated the Election Commissiongather information on candidates’ criminal backgrounds, assets, andliabilities, assess their suitability for holding public office, and widelypublicize the findings. In 2001the Indian Government appealed against the judgment in the Supreme Court andseveral political parties intervened in the case. In 2002 the Supreme Court affirmed and the ElectionCommission asked the Government to amend the Conduct of Election Rules toimplement the judgment. But theGovernment refused and instead introduced a new bill to overturn the judgment,which the President signed. In2003 the Supreme Court declared the amended act to be illegal, null, and void,and restored its earlier judgment. The rules came into effect in 2003 and even after they were required todisclose their criminal records, all the major parties fielded a host ofcandidates with pending criminal cases in 2004, with the result that 128 out of543 members of the last legislature faced ongoing criminal cases while theywere in office. At least two were serving life sentences for murder.
Because requiring politicians to divulge the most dubiousfacts about themselves didn’t stop them from running for office — or winning —ADR set up the National Election Watch to make sure that the press and thevoters know exactly how many robberies, kidnappings, and murders theirhonorable member of parliament is alleged to have committed. The grouphas mobilized 1,200 organizations and thousands of volunteers to track theactivities of dozens of political parties in the run-up to elections.Researchers comb through past affidavits to see whether the candidate hasdeclared criminal cases in the past, and whether there has been any majorchange in his or her financial assets. They lobby the press, hold public rallies, and plan to send weekly textmessages with details of politicians’ criminal records to voters. So far,results have been mixed.
In the last state election that ADR tracked, the number ofcandidates with alleged criminal pasts dropped to about 12% from 25 %, but thenumber of alleged criminals who actually won seats remained flat. TheCongress Party-led United Progressive Alliance government named Shibu Sorencoal minister, even though he was on trial for multiple murders (he was laterconvicted, then acquitted on appeal). And neither of the two party heavyweightshas managed to purge alleged (or even convicted) criminals from their ranks.But the man who started it all remains optimistic: “The parties have publiclyannounced that they’re not going to put up candidates with criminal records,”Sastry says. “They have not kept that promise, no doubt. But at least they havestarted reacting.”
SS