Democracy is about peaceful change. If that hope of peaceful transformation is extinguished, all that is left is anarchy or violent upheavals. President Abdul Kalam’s courageous act in returning the patently unconstitutional Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance 2002 for the reconsideration of the Council of Ministers is a great morale booster for all those who seek peaceful change. This act of diligence and statesmanship helps uphold the letter and spirit our Constitution as few official actions have done in recent times.

The recent sting operations exposing sleaze of MPs certainly stirred the nation. These exposés pose a formidable challenge to the legitimacy of our political system. But the Government’s frenetic efforts to provide state funding for elections, is a classic prescription of placebos for a deep-rooted political malaise.  Public funding in itself, like placebos or vitamins, is harmless, even desirable. But this knee-jerk response does not address the underlying crisis. Two issues need elaboration.

On July 30, the Election Commission (EC) sent several proposals for electoral reforms to the Prime Minister, Dr.Manmohan Singh. The EC sent a total of 22 proposals. It is important for all thinking citizens to be informed of these proposals, and to participate in the public debate on the subject.

By the time this article appears in print, General Elections would have been completed and the new government would have taken the reins. Some of you have would be reflecting on the recently concluded elections and probably somewhere in the corner of your mind a question might have cropped up: “Is too much of democracy good for our country?” Well, you are not the only one thinking on those lines.

The sorry episode of Shibu Soren has once again focused the nation’s attention on criminalization of politics. The problem of criminalization goes well beyond the political fates of a few individuals. We need to understand the law and its limitations.

dir="ltr">

dir="ltr">The recent enforcement of a ban on political advertisements on television raised some controversy. The Election Commission (EC) and the Union Government are busy throwing blame on each other for this ban. Irrespective of who is right, or wrong, this ban raises several fundamental questions about our democracy and nature of political campaigning. We need to address and resolve them speedily.

dir="ltr">A recent vital piece of legislation relating to political funding went largely unnoticed in media and political circles. The Election and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2003 (Bill No. 18 of 2003) was approved by both Houses of Parliament in August 2003, and became law in September with the assent of the President. In any other functioning democracy, such a law would have been hailed as a major reform, and dominated public discourse for months. The deafening silence on the subject in India is a sad reflection of the quality of public discourse.

Since the run-up to the elections for the five state assemblies four months ago, we have seen the emergence of a variety of colourful political advertisements on the TV.  But recently, the Election Commission (EC) had, very curiously, ordered that paid political advertisements should not be aired on cable and satellite TV channels.

The March 13 verdict of the Supreme Court (SC) on candidate disclosures declaring Section 33B of the Representation of the People (3rd Amendment) Act, 2002 (Amendment Act) illegal, null and void, and reiterating its earlier judgment on May 2, 2002, generated a serious countrywide debate on the jurisdiction of courts.