Internal democracy missing in political parties

The Tribune, November 13, 2012 OPED — GOVERNANCE http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121113/edit.htm#6 Internal democracy missing in political parties Political parties have evolved into fiefdoms, owned and controlled by a single individual or a coterie of persons GIVEN the increasing clamour against corruption in the recent years, and it being traced to the political system in the country, a question often asked is: what, if anything, can be done to correct the political system in the country? One possible response is to set up a new political party and then attempt to change the system by example, by putting pressure from within the system. This is the route chosen by a section of the Anna Hazare movement. Such attempts must be lauded and encouraged but the chances of their success are debatable as they amount to swimming against the current, the current being the existing system. There can, however, be another approach, that of putting pressure from the outside of the existing political system. Recognising that the most fundamental building block of the political system in a representative democracy such as India, consists of political parties, it is quite possible that if the behaviour and functioning of political parties can be improved, or corrected, the entire political system would also start functioning in a way that is productive for national and public interest. The main reason political parties tend to overlook national interest in their narrow, self-interest is that they neither consider themselves as public institutions nor do they behave like public institutions. The root cause of this behaviour is the evolution of parties into fiefdoms, owned and controlled by a single individual or a coterie of persons. Given this structure and constitution, it is no surprise that the interest of a particular individual or group of individuals takes priority over everything else, including national interest. Being a public institution This is also why the mere concept of being a public institution is an anathema to all political parties. It became clear, yet again, when in a recent hearing in the Central Information Commission, all political parties, except the CPI, argued spiritedly that they are not public authorities for the purposes of the RTI Act. Even the CPI, who had earlier sent a letter saying, “Yes, we are a public authority under section 2 (h) (d) (ii) ‘non-government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government’,” took a somewhat different stand in the hearing. One of its prominent leaders argued that while political parties do have a moral obligation to be accountable and answerable to the citizens, technically they should not be covered under the RTI Act. The solution to this doublespeak by political parties — when they say one thing and do its exact opposite, as when all of them claim to be the champions and defenders of democracy in the country while being completely undemocratic in their internal functioning — is to make them internally democratic by law. The Law Commission of India suggested this in 1999 in their 170th report, in the following words: “It is therefore, necessary to introduce internal democracy, financial transparency and accountability in the working of the political parties. A political party which does not respect democratic principles in its internal working cannot be expected to respect those principles in the governance of the country. It cannot be dictatorship internally and democratic in its functioning outside” (Para 3.1.2.1). Since it is the representatives of political parties in Parliament who make laws, the trickiest part is getting Parliament to enact such a law. That is where the citizens need to put pressure on the political system. — J. S. Chhokar