The buoyant mood in the Congress following Sonia Gandhi's decision to campaign for the party is understandable. Since political communication in India is disproportionately dependent on a party's ability to sell imagery, the Congress naturally feels it is on to a good thing. The party is still not the odds-on favourite, but Sonia's presence at least ensures a spirited contest. Unfortunately, that is where the optimism ends. It is one thing for a 112-year-old party to work itself into a frenzy, it is a separate matter to make that enthusiasm contagious. Regardless of the national appeal of the Nehru-Gandhi name, the mystery over what Sonia stands for is unresolved. She has taken an active interest in charities, been a good custodian of her family's interests and her strong views on the circumstances of Rajiv Gandhi's death are well known. But this election is neither about an unfortunate murder that took place in 1991 nor about a family's heritage; it is about governance. If Sonia is the public face of the Congress and enthusiastic veterans are calling on her to lead the party, it is important for the voters to know where she stands on actual issues. Rajiv was a general secretary of the Congress and an understudy to his mother for at least three years before he became prime minister. Sonia's political experience is more imaginary than real. It is this shortcoming, rather than her earlier nationality, that is of concern.

To win the approval of the electorate and legitimise her claim to be a political force, Sonia can no longer afford to remain an enigma. The demands of public life are taxing. Apart from following a punishing schedule, politicians have to maintain a pretence of accountability. India may still retain its dynastic fascination, but it is also deeply committed to democracy. Dynasty and democracy come into conflict only when accompanied by imperious aloofness. If Sonia wants votes, the people must know what she is all about. She must either lead from the front or not at all.

Cost of Democracy
Politics needs accountants but it also merits a medium.

The Election Commission (EC) and the Union Cabinet have shown good sense by raising the ceiling on a candidate's poll expenses to Rs 15 lakh.Although the distinction between a candidate's own expenditure and that incurred by a political party leaves room for colossal violation of the EC's limits, it is heartening that a beginning has been made in defining a realistic level of poll spending. Of course, almost every MP will begin his term in the 12th Lok Sabha by signing a patently false declaration, but at least it will be a smaller lie than before. However, even this attempt at half-truth will be rendered meaningless unless the EC evolves mechanisms to monitor spending by parties.

Assuming a national party fields 300 candidates and meets two-thirds of their campaigning costs directly, it will mean a budget of Rs 30 crore. This is not including the expenditure incurred on the travel of star campaigners. Obviously this money is coming from somewhere. The EC must make a determined effort to identify the source of funding -- not as a deterrent, but as public information -- and ensure proper audit. It is only when political finances are streamlined that the larger issue of corruption can be tackled.

It is important to be practical rather than moralistic in dealing with the question of political funding. Democracy may be a necessity rather than a luxury, but it is hideously expensive. The long-term way to cut costs is not merely better policing, but better facilities for the dissemination of a party's message. A 14-day campaign period is inadequate for door-to-door canvassing by the candidates. Constituencies are simply too big. If the electronic media, both at the local and national level, were more sensitive to its role as a channel of public information and debate, elections would end up costing less. If parties spend less, they will accumulate less.

Write to us | Subscriptions

© Living Media India Ltd