Conviction politics - I

By P. Radhakrishnan

GOING BY its meaning, conviction is the act of convicting, to find or prove guilty of an offence or crime. It thus remains inconclusive until the guilt is proved ultimately with the accused having no more avenues for appeal. Not surprisingly, the rejection of some of the nomination papers for the Assembly elections on the ground of conviction has already added the ``disqualification row'' to the bluff and ballyhoo that are characteristic of our electioneering.

Conviction, however, has another meaning. That is, a strong opinion or belief. This is not without relevance to the conviction of political opponents and their charges that it is not law taking its own course but law taken to a set course with sinister motives. In our unhealthy, unprincipled, immoral, and competitive politics, both these meanings buttress each other and add yet another infamous terminology, ``conviction politics'', to our already infamous political lexicon.

From the perspective of the Election Commission (E.C.), conviction in the first sense may be part of its attempts to cleanse the electoral process. But from a larger national perspective, the related provisions seem to have only confounded the prevailing confusion and further vitiated the political atmosphere. To understand this, Tamil Nadu could be a good starting point.

The Chief Minister, Mr. M. Karunanidhi's electoral game plan is reminiscent of Napoleon' claim that all is fair in love and war. To the naive, Mr. Karunanidhi's claim, that while he is happy that his nomination papers were accepted, he is unhappy about the rejection of those of the ``other person'' (read AIADMK general secretary, Ms. J. Jayalalitha), as he likes to face his political enemy in the election battle and is not interested in tying (her) hands and then winning at the hustings, might have made him a knight in shining armour; and his praise for the former Chief Election Commissioner, Mr. T. N. Seshan, and his successor, Mr. M. S. Gill, for ``strict enforcing of election laws'' might have sounded oracular. But to the discerning public these are insidious, part of the fast evolving conviction politics, and yet another bout of charades and chicanery.

Given this background, and the claim that the rejection of Ms. Jayalalitha's nomination papers by the Returning Officers (ROs) was at the behest of Mr. Karunanidhi, the final verdict in the corruption cases involving her has yet to be delivered, and until then the E.C. cannot disqualify her, Ms. Jayalalitha's disqualification and the related charges pointing to the limitations and incongruities in our democratic polity, should raise at least eight issues of vital national importance involving the Executive, the Judiciary, and the E.C.

One, the lack of mechanisms independent of bureaucracy, Ministries and Ministers to detect fraud in flagrante delicto and punish the guilty. That India still has the dubious distinction of being a top ranker among the world's most corrupt nations, coming 22nd last year in Transparency International's annual index, has a direct bearing on this. If the findings of an exit poll conducted by the CMS in six cities a few months ago are any indication, of those responsible for corruption between one-third and two-thirds are politicians.

A social critic summarised the evil thus: ``Politicians enter politics in order to become corrupt. If they don't practise corruption, how will they support their roles as patrons? You will find that each of these politicians caught for corruption has his group of supporters, who rely on his patronage''.

In the absence of adequate and appropriate institutional mechanisms many of the corrupt go scot-free, those who get caught are few and far between; some are caught by the successor Governments not because of any genuine concern for cleaning up the system or presence of any institutional arrangements for the same but because of personal and political animosity deeply embedded in decades-old decadent politics. That explains the alacrity with which Mr. Karunanidhi pursued the corruption charges against Ms. Jayalalitha and associates. That also explains the repeated lamentation by, among others, the late Indrajit Gupta, about the threats to the nation posed by the strong nexus between corruption and criminality involving politicians, bureaucrats, and private interests.

Though the Centre has a Central Vigilance Commission as of now its performance is picayune. The State Vigilance Commissions, where they exist, are mere appendages of the parties in power, singing, as the adage goes, the songs of those whose bread they eat. If States were to have really vigilant and vigorous vigilance commissions, free from the thraldom of those in power, with sufficient independence and integrity, it is inconceivable how Ms. Jayalalitha would have landed in the kind of political and legal mess she is in now, and how Mr. Karunanidhi would have had the kind of euphoria he has been having ever since he assumed power, and especially now in the context of the elections, over his corruption-free governance, though the DMK has its own baggage of infamy of corruption scandals buried in recent history, to which Ms. Jayalalitha has added more recently.

Corruption might not have been as blatant during the DMK's rule as it was during the AIADMK's. But it is still pervasive, as for instance, in the continuing nexus between the builders, the Registration Department, the Chennai Corporation, the CMDA, the police, and so on; in the scandals involving these and other agencies over the repeated attempts at ``regularisation'' (whatever that may mean) of violation of building rules by the builders; in the refusal by the police to act on genuine complaints against intimidation and threats by members of the builders lobby even after the complaints were brought before the Police Commissioner, and the sudden police ``action'' when pressured from the top; in the harassment by the staff of the Registration Office when registered residents' welfare associations refuse to bribe them for accepting the annual returns, and in the callous and irresponsible attitude of the Inspector General of Registration, the appellate authority under the Societies Act, when complaints are brought before him with prima facie evidence (while on this it is pertinent to note that the Revenue Department of which the Registration Department is a part is still notorious as the most corrupt); and in the hush- hush talks (for fear of reprisal) about the rejection by Ministers of some of the valid tenders when contractors refuse to grease their palms with the usual ``cuts''. If corruption has not been too visible during the DMK rule it is because unlike Ms. Jayalalitha, Mr. Karunanidhi has not been amateurish; and if corruption charges against the DMK Ministry start tumbling down after the Assembly elections it will be either the result of disgruntled or defected DMK leaders spilling the beans or the DMK's probable successor, the AIADMK, repeating the witch-hunt.

Two, given its proximity to the BJP, a party representing pernicious and outrageous outfits of rabid Hindu communalism, but for which the BJP would not have found any political space in Tamil Nadu and cannot continue to expand this space as it is doing now, the DMK's claim of clean and good governance is spurious. For, among other things, despite Mr. Karunanidhi's repeated claims that the DMK will not allow any kind of communalism he did hardly anything to prevent Hindutva's atrocities against the religious minorities; and has done hardly anything to arrest the BJP's Vedic mania which has been spreading like gangrene through, among others, the MHRD's Nazi-type purge of the nation's cultural and intellectual heritage by purging its rich and varied history, education, and culture. Though the BJP gained only one seat in the 1996 Assembly elections, with the DMK allotting to it as many as 21 seats its gain in the present Assembly elections is expected to be in keeping with the Sangh Parivar's ``incremental politics''.

Three, the lack of judicial pragmatism, concern beyond the immediate, and built-in follow-up mechanisms to ensure that judicial decisions are enforced judiciously and expeditiously, without waiting for doomsday. These issues need elaboration.

(The writer is Professor, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : The election laws
Next     : Scrap the provision