Cash-for-votes is a long existing menace in Indian electoral politics, a practice that has now become deeply entrenched in Nagaland state politics as well. An understanding of the factors driving this cash-for-votes culture and necessary reforms to address them are vital. Despite adequate provisions in relevant sections of law, electoral malpractices continue to persist – especially cash-for-vote, defeating the very idea of democracy. So, what necessitates money in elections?

 

The main reason for the need for money in elections is for mobilization. Flow of cash during elections is actually meant for mobilizing a campaign and not buying votes. In developed democracies, political parties raise funds through fundraisers to mobilize election campaigns. Whereas, over here, it is unrealistic to even expect political parties doing fundraisers. They are expected to mint money illegally instead.

 

Generally, political parties have weak organizations to mobilize votes at the local level for large or numerous constituencies and face heavy institutional constraints. It is here that cash is used to engage vote mobilisers or local individuals who will seek votes for a party or a candidate. Unfortunately, it ended up in buying and selling of votes instead. Cash is a necessary medium as it functions as a facilitator for smooth election campaign machinery but it is being misused by one and all.

 

There are laws and regulations governing elections. In India, the Election Commission (EC) allows only 14 days of official campaigning, which ends 48 hours before the scheduled day of polling. Practically last minute finalization on declaration of candidates and filing of nominations for most political parties in most constituencies puts pressure on candidates to mobilize votes as quickly as possible. This in a large way compels the candidates and political parties to hand out cash, liquor and other inducements as it becomes necessary for the candidate to mobilize an army of workers during the short campaign period.

 

Further, money has become an important symbol of power in our society. The show of money power during elections is now more socially approved, is a political necessity, and is born of cultural expectations. As a result, voters doubt the efficiency or capability of someone who is not powerful in monetary terms. This is evident with the fact that many bright independent candidates lose elections.

 

Competitive populism has led to the development of a culture in which political parties are forced to pump cash. This is amplified by weak party organizations, limited campaigning periods and a largely politically illiterate electorate. Given these factors, campaign finance reforms can consider increasing the duration of the official campaign period and educating the electorate. This is more likely to curb the negative influence of money in politics in comparison to putting a cap on the expenditure limit. Every candidate circumvents the expenditure limit rule anyway. There has to be some reforms. The problem of cash-for-vote will not go away on its own.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *