Electoral Transparency – Empowering Citizens to Make an Informed Choice

The 12^th Lok Sabha ( Parliament) elections in Bangalore witnessed a unique, innovative and collective effort by citizens to cast informed votes. The rationale for transparency, accountability and proactive participation in the electoral process is now common knowledge and has been field-tested successfully in Bangalore by Public Affairs Centre during elections to the 11^th Lok Sabha and the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (city corporation) in 1996.

The city of Bangalore is divided into two Lok Sabha Constituencies, North and South, covering about 3 million voters; the effort covered both the constituencies. Out of a total of 27 candidates, only 11 were from national political parties and the rest were all independents.

Strategy

This exercise was a collaborative venture. Taking the lead along with PAC were CIVIC, Bangalore Environment Trust and a host of other city based NGOs and residents welfare associations .The scale of the city’s population and size was a very important consideration in planning the strategy. The Bangalore Citizens Joint Action Committee (BCJAC) was constituted as an exclusive body to conduct and co-ordinate the campaign. The BCJAC comprised of 16 organisations as members representing city based NGOs and residents welfare associations. All the activities were undertaken under the banner of BCJAC using a separate letter head which carried names of all the members. This was done to portray an image of neutrality and also to convey to the candidates that the programme was supported by organisations representing different segments of the city. Bangalore Times, a Friday weekly supplement of the Bangalore edition of the popular daily, Times of India, was roped in as a partner for city wide dissemination of information on candidates.

Conduct

A core group comprising of PAC and other city based NGOs conducted the interviews and also co-ordinated the dissemination. The questionnaire covered a wide range of relevant issues such as – educational background, occupation, whether residents of the constituency, criminal record, details of tax payment, public service record, frequency of changing party affiliations, plans and priorities for the constituency, information on how the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Fund of Rs. 1 crore would be utilised etc.

The candidates of the major political parties were personally interviewed, while the independents were mailed a copy of the questionnaire. Only two independents responded . Out of the 11 party candidates, 9 responded to the interview and two others refused to appear for the interview, despite concerted efforts. By and large all those who responded in the affirmative were also co-operative and supportive of the campaign.

Dissemination of Information

Many newspapers carried articles on the campaign preparing the citizens to expect background information on the candidates. The Bangalore Times, published information from both the constituencies three days prior to the polls in an attractive format which provided the reader a cross comparison of the different candidates across various issues. Efforts to rope in vernacular news papers didn’t succeed as most of them have state wide readership and devoting so much space for just Bangalore would not have been feasible. Leaflets in Kannada and English were printed on the same format numbering 5000 each for Bangalore North and South and distributed widely through the network of Residents Associations who are also members of BCJAC. Though fewer in number the distribution of leaflets was an interesting experience for the residents associations and is certainly a crucial component in the process of their empowerment. Publication of this information in the Times of Indiranagar, a neighbourhood weekly was a surprise bonus.

Did it Make a Difference ?

Most respondents in a study conducted by PAC in association with Gallup-MBA to assess the impact of the campaign agreed that the information published was both credible and useful. As much as 77% of them felt that it helped in making a choice while voting. Over half the respondents revealed that their choice of the candidates was on the basis of the credentials of the candidates and not that of the party which is a clear endorsement of the rationale of such information campaign. It is PAC’s fond hope that such campaigns will encourage more people to participate in the polling process, discourage criminals and the corrupt from contesting to a public office, while fostering elections of persons of integrity to become leaders.

PARLIAMENTARIANS & DISCRETIONARY PROVISIONS

INSIGHTS FROM A CASE STUDY

There is something inherently paradoxical in the way the State conducts itself in India. On the one hand, there is this deluge of jargons like open government, transparency, accountability, decentralised decision making and devolution of powers. On the other, there exist this inexplicable infatuation with discretionary provisions. Be it the high handed instances of transfer of officials in sensitive positions or the bewildering array of quotas and privileges enjoyed by our political masters, discretion is very much in vogue. A good case in point is the Member of Parliament’s Local Area Development Scheme or MPLADS in short. Inaugurated on December 23, 1993, the Scheme provides each member of parliament the discretionary privilege to suggest to the District Collector, works to the tune of Rs. One Crore per year in his/her constituency. Though the Scheme was largely advertised as an innovation in governance whereby, the legislature was given discretionary powers to directly involve in development works, political commentators and legal experts were quick to voice some concerns and apprehensions:

• The mandate of the Scheme dilutes the functions of a parliament legislator, which by definition primarily involves law making.

• The discretionary provisions of the Scheme violate the fundamental principles of governance as embodied in Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India. On this ground, COMMON CAUSE, an NGO based in New Delhi has filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court.

• Funds meant for local development are made available to the MPs totally outside the domain of the Panchayats. It was also argued that funds for the Scheme were siphoned off from rural development allocation, which following the 73^rd Amendment should have gone to the Panchayats. It is quite disturbing to note that while local governance institutions are starved of funds, MPLADS corner around Rs. 850 crores every year to address local development issues.

• The very fact that a sitting MP can spend Rs. 5 crores gives him/her an unfair advantage in subsequent elections. The sitting member can indulge in high visibility exercises which may undo all the good work done by the Election Commission to curb electoral expenses.

While these issues remain as question marks in the backdrop, very little information is available on the track record of the Scheme in operation. Of particular interest will be questions like:

What kinds of projects are selected? How do they operate? To what extent is the local community involved in the selection of projects? How much money has been utilised to meet local development needs? How are the funds being monitored? How different is the MPLADS from other development projects?

Public Affairs Centre, a not for profit NGO based in Bangalore, recently made an effort in this direction by studying how eight MPs in Karnataka have planned and implemented the MPLADS in the districts of Bangalore and Tumkur, during 1996-97. Though eight may look like a small sample to draw meaningful conclusions, it represents 20% of the total MPs from Karnataka. Some interesting findings from the study are discussed below:

• Profile of Projects Selected: Public Works ( Road repairs, Construction of drains etc.) account for 68% of the total works and more than 50% of the total funds proposed. A major chunk of this is targeted towards road improvement works. Given the fact that corruption is rampant in public works and the Scheme operates in the same manner as any other development work, apprehensions are not out of place regarding the chances of funds under MPLADS getting misused. Mini Water Schemes accounted for a quarter of the projects. Of the projects initiated in 1996-97, over two thirds were completed in Bangalore, while only 40 percent were completed in Tumkur.

• Low Impact: Twenty nine different projects in Bangalore, selected at random, were visited by the study team to ascertain how many were actually implemented. Out of the selected sample, only 42% of the projects were found to be operating at the original locations. While 24% of the sanctioned projects are yet to be implemented, 10% of the works were found to be dysfunctional. Interestingly, 14% of the works got re-located to a totally different locality, albeit the fact that the perceived need in the original locality still exist.

• Mostly Routine Works: The study did not find reveal even a single project that could be considered innovative. The only new feature is that routine works are now being undertaken through the initiative of the MP. Instead of improving the way public agencies function, what has been done is to create one more authority to direct and finance works that are already being done by various government agencies.

• Spreading the Cake Thin: From the consolidated proposals, it is clear that on an average each MP proposes nearly 50 independent works in his/her constituency, with each work costing under Rs. 2 lakhs. This not only increases the burden on the district administration, but also makes monitoring difficult as most projects are small and scattered. Further, divided responsibilities and weak supervision often leads to low accountability.

• Community Involvement & Awareness: The discretionary mandate accorded to the Scheme effectively cuts out any scope for peoples participation. A startling feedback that emerged from the site visits and discussions with the local community is that public awareness on this scheme is practically nil. There is also very little evidence that point to prior consultation with the community before the projects were identified. Evidence at the grassroots strongly indicates that local contractors and vested interests play the dominant role in identifying the projects.

• Sustainability of the Projects: Creating public assets is one thing, maintaining them is another. An MP is naturally more interested in starting new projects and his/her funds will be spent only for this purpose. Maintenance is being left to the government departments which already are under fire for poor maintenance and upkeep of the existing assets.

The findings of this exploratory study raises serious questions on the manner in which MPLADS is being implemented and its likely outcomes. And despite recent reports from the Department of Programme Implementation, Government of India which narrates that between 1993 and May 31, 1998, about 45% of the funds remain unutlised and CAG reports on the Scheme pointing to instances of corruption, it is surprising to note that the government is actively seeking to raise the budget for MPLADS. It is high time that a public debate on the Scheme forces a systematic review of its functioning to date.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION

LESSONS FROM A PEOPLE’S MOVEMENT

nformation is the lifeline in combating abuses of power and corruption. And the Right to Access to Information has become a rallying point for activists in South Asia. Especially so, in the prevailing environment of rampant corruption and diversion of funds. Right to Informtion is directly linked to the government’s accountablility to the citizens on one hand and people’s empowerment on the other. The State’s response to this demand has been rather weak; in India, for instance, the bill on the Right to Information has been shelved for quite some time now. However, grassroot initiatives which have attempted to bring in transparency and probity in the use of public funds have highlighted the need for a right to access information.

The work done by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakthi Sangathan (MKSS) in the state of Rajastan in central India has given a tremendous fillip to all those who have been campaigning for the Right to Information Act. Using the powerful advocacy strategy of Public Hearings or Jan Sunwai, MKSS brought to light a series of shocking scams and frauds involving funds allocated for rural development purposes. Armed with this evidence, MKSS launched a massive state level campaign for public access to government records. The Rajastan government finally issued a gazette on December 1996 to bring tranasparency in the functioning of panchayats and give people the right to obtain information about the various public works undertaken.

Jan Sunwai: A Profile

Jan Sunwai is an exercise in village democracy and their success derives from the culture of face to face panchayat democracy and the moral sense of the village community. During the Jan Sunwai, the villagers will have an opportunity to openly question the use and misuse of development funds in the area and to initiate action against any fraud that may be identified. This exercise has several objectives:

• Reclaiming development: Through the Jan Sunwai, people assert their right to the peoper use of development funds, and demand accountability from elected representatives and officials.

• Fighting corruption: The Jan Sunwai is a weapon to eradicate corruption at the village level.

• Building democracy: Jan Sunwai is a practical exercise in government for the people by the people, without inter-mediation of political parties or elected leaders. It is a small transition from representative to participatory democracy.

How Jan Sunwai Operates...

As a first step, a copy of all the accounts relating to development works in the selected area is obtained. These accounts are then carefully cross-checked through visits to the relevant sites, discussions with the villagers, and enquiries from laboureres employed on development works. Once the information has been verified, a publiv hearing is called involving villagers, government officials, elected representatives, media and independent panel members. The following steps are then initiated:

• Introduction by the NGO/public interest group, describing the malpractices that have been identified in different works

• Testimonies from laboureres employed on these works, and other witnesses

• Questions and statements from the public

• Cross examination from the panelists

• If government officials are present, attempts to work out a procedure to deal with the problems that have been identified.

Types of Frauds Unearthed

1. Purchase over billing: For instance, pay for and use 50 bags of cement, but get a bill for 100 bags from the supplier and claim the same.

2. Sale over billing: For example, selling inferior or adulterated material at the full price like selling low grade cement at the price of a high grade one.

3. Fake muster rolls: Enter fictitious names in the muster rolls (with forged finger prints or signatures) and appropriate the wages of the fictitious workers

4. Underpayment of wages: Pay labourers less than their due and appropriate the difference after securing the signature or thumb impression

5. Tinkering with labour-material ratio: Fake wage payments are often entered in the accounts in order to pay for extra material (without bills).