Context:
- With multiple State elections underway, concerns are rising about the increasing cost of elections in India and whether this is leading to a plutocratic tendency (rule by the wealthy).
- A significant indicator is that ~93% of MPs are crorepatis, raising concerns about equity in political participation.
Key Highlights:
Escalating Election Expenditure
- Official spending limit:
- ₹95 lakh (Lok Sabha)
- ₹40 lakh (Assembly)
- Actual expenditure often reaches ₹50–100 crore per candidate (unofficial estimates).
- Total 2024 election spending estimated ~₹1 lakh crore, far exceeding declared figures (~₹3,300–3,400 crore).
Uneven Playing Field
- Money has become a “necessary condition” (not sufficient) for electoral success.
- Smaller parties and independents struggle to compete with resource-rich national/regional parties.
- First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system favors consolidation of major parties.
Regulatory & Institutional Challenges
- Election Commission (ECI) monitors spending only during a limited period (~20 days).
- No cap on party expenditure, only on candidates.
- Large share of spending occurs via unaccounted cash (black money).
Electoral Bonds & Funding Issues
- Supreme Court struck down Electoral Bonds Scheme due to lack of transparency.
- Concerns:
- Allowed anonymous corporate funding
- Even loss-making companies could donate
Debate on Reforms
- Options discussed:
- Increase spending limits (to reflect ground realities)
- Cap party expenditure (UK-style model)
- State funding of elections (challenging to implement)
- Proportional representation system
Transparency vs Regulation Dilemma
- Strict caps may push spending underground.
- Greater transparency in funding seen as a key reform lever.
Relevant Prelims Points:
- Election Commission of India (ECI):
- Constitutional body under Article 324.
- Supervises elections and monitors candidate expenditure.
- Election Expenditure Limits:
- Fixed by ECI under Representation of the People Act, 1951.
- Applies only to candidates, not political parties.
- Electoral Bonds Scheme (2018–2024):
- Allowed anonymous political donations via banks.
- Declared unconstitutional by Supreme Court (2024).
- First-Past-The-Post System (FPTP):
- Candidate with highest votes wins, even without majority.
- Encourages two-party or dominant-party systems.
- State Funding of Elections:
- Proposed by committees (e.g., Indrajit Gupta Committee, 1998).
- Black Money in Elections:
- Refers to unaccounted, untaxed cash used for campaigning/vote-buying.
Relevant Mains Points:
- Are Elections Becoming Plutocratic?
- Rising costs create entry barriers, favoring wealthy candidates.
- Increasing role of corporate funding raises concerns of policy capture.
- Disproportionate representation of wealthy MPs indicates elite dominance.
- Structural Causes:
- Large constituency sizes → high campaign costs.
- FPTP system → intense competition, narrow margins.
- Weak enforcement → shadow financing and black money.
- Implications for Democracy:
- Undermines political equality and inclusiveness.
- Marginalizes grassroots leaders and smaller parties.
- Risks nexus between corporates and policymakers.
- Counter-Arguments:
- Money alone does not guarantee victory.
- Voter behavior, leadership appeal, and issues still matter.
- Presence of competitive democracy and electoral turnover.
- Way Forward:
- Enhance transparency in political funding (real-time disclosures).
- Consider partial state funding for level playing field.
- Impose caps on party expenditure with strict auditing.
- Strengthen ECI’s monitoring powers and duration.
- Debate electoral system reforms (e.g., proportional representation).
- Restrict government advertising before elections.
UPSC Relevance
- GS II (Polity & Governance): Electoral reforms, role of ECI, political funding.
- GS IV (Ethics): Transparency, accountability, corporate-politics nexus.
- GS III (Economy): Black money, regulatory challenges, political economy.