june 22, 2013

CICs Nudge
Transparency and accountability of political parties will only strengthen democracy.

he Central Information Commission (CIC) ruling that all

political parties are public authorities under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act and that those currently designated as national parties should not only appoint mandatory information authorities but also disclose information under relevant
sections of the Act within six weeks is a landmark decision. It
has, not surprisingly, visibly shaken some political parties. It
has also divided public opinion about its implications. The practical difficulties of implementing the order notwithstanding,
studies on party democracy, regulation and finance inform us
that there is considerable merit in the spirit of the ruling.
The general atmosphere which probably encouraged the CIC
intervention may have been, as has been correctly observed, a
result of a pervasive climate of distrust of political parties in general
and politicians specifically. Yet, this widespread trust deficit is not
something specific to India but is shared with most other democracies where large proportions of the citizenry find political
parties more corrupt as compared to other institutions. Consequently, the demands for greater and constant public scrutiny of
politicians and political parties have been steadily rising.
The new institutional literature in political science informs
us that regulation can be used to manoeuvre political parties to
successfully serve societal needs and public interest. Most recently,
the European Union (EU) was involved in a long-drawn-out discussion on regulating the functioning of European political
parties. In this connection, the Giannakou report of the European
parliament not only covered funding aspects but also examined
issues relating to internal party democracy.
In the academic literature, the calls for greater transparency,
accountability and consequently regulation and scrutiny of
political parties have been advanced primarily on three grounds.
The first could be called the public good argument. From a
distinctively anti-party tradition, there has been a complete
reversal in the discourse in party studies. E E Schattschneiders
much-cited assertion that modern democracy is unthinkable
save in terms of political parties is emblematic of the central
position of parties in representative democracies today. Parties
are, in this public good perspective, seen as necessary and vital
institutions in a democracy which not only link citizens to the
government but also provide them an important space to
express their opinions and interests.
Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

june 22, 2013

vol xlviII no 25

This argument is amply evident in the CIC order in numerous

places where it recognises the critical role of parties and their
remarkable impact on the lives of citizens. The ruling echoes
Schattschneider when it says, no political party, no democracy
and then goes on to place high expectations on political parties.
In its understanding, parties are not only the building blocks of
a constitutional democracy but the lifeblood of our polity.
Furthermore, the CIC also earnestly holds that parties are engaged
in performing a public duty. Implicitly, the CIC believes it is this
public good or duty that allows parties to receive public funding.
The order, drawing from various judicial pronouncements,
argues that government funding, albeit indirectly in the form
of subsidised land and building, income tax exemptions, free
airtime on All India Radio and Doordarshan during elections
and so on, supposedly helps achieve a felt need of a section of
the public or to secure larger societal goals. Consequently, it is
the same public good that expects political parties to exercise
greater transparency in their functioning.
The equality and fairness argument is the second reason
often advanced in favour of greater regulation of political parties.
The literature notes that regulation of party functioning will
allow for greater transparency which not only ensures fair competition bet ween different parties but also helps maintain a
level playing field.
The third reason is that openness in political parties increases
the confidence and trust of the people in public institutions, and
consequently strengthens democracy and reinforces the legitimacy
of the system. At the same time it is held that regulation also checks
misuse/abuse of power and helps maintain the integrity of the
democratic process.
The concerns that the provisions of the RTI Act could be used
unfairly by rivals and that providing information may take up
substantial resources in terms of staff and time need to be
addressed. The substantive public interest criterion could be
used to open up specific areas and sectors to greater public scrutiny. This could include finances, membership registers and the
constitution, and rules and regulations. It should be made mandatory for political parties to provide requisite information in
these three areas in an intelligible form on a regular basis. The
Election Commission could become the repository of this data,
freeing parties from any so-called unfair use of the RTI.
7

EDITORIALS

The answers to questions as to what political parties are, what

they are expected to do, and how they are managed have not
only varied from society to society and also from time to time but
there have also been different voices within a society. There are
clearly no objective answers. Every system needs to evolve
according to its own requirements and build rules and regulations

which would define the role and contribution of political parties. The spirit of the CIC ruling is only a gentle nudge towards possibly renewing our democratic commitment and cleansing its
fabric. Even if this order is not agreeable in its present form, the
idea of greater public accountability of the financing and functioning of political parties is one whose time has come.

june 22, 2013

vol xlviII no 25

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly