Winnability or credibility?

The shameful act of most political parties to field candidates with dubious credentials, and sending law breakers to become law makers is an extremely dangerous trend and should be a matter of serious concern to Goa's aware electorate. 

The controversy over fielding of sitting MLA Antanasio Monserate in Panaji over Utpal Parrikar, son of former defence minister of India and Goa"s former chief minister late Manohar Parrikar, should refuse to die down among the literate electorate of the politically vibrant capital city. 

Why? Because a party like the 

Bharatiya Janata Party BJP), which has the distinction of being the largest political party in the world, with a strong cadre base, prefers to field an imported politician from an exactly opposite ideology, most importantly with criminal antecedents (alleged rape of a minor). And because the party has stooped such low in Goa that it has preferred winnability over credibility. 

Though this case has come to haunt the state after wide local and national publicity to Utpal's outburst, it is needless to say that almost all parties are guilty of this act. The question then is why do they do so? And most importantly, why do voters elect such tainted politicians?

Noted political scientist Milan Vaishnav who has been studying links between crime and democracy in India for many years, in his book 'When Crime Pays' states that the "rising cost of elections and a shadowy election financing system where parties and candidates under-report collections and expenses means that parties prefer "self-financing candidates who do not represent a drain on the finite party coffers but instead contribute 'rents' to the party". 

Dr Vaishnav further states that "crime and politics will remain inextricably intertwined as long as India doesn't make its election financing system transparent, parties become more democratic and the state begins to deliver ample services and justice."

In this context, it is interesting to note that earlier this month, in a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court of India, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay sought directions to the Election Commission of India to de-register political parties which fail to publish details regarding criminal cases of its candidates. 

The PIL sought directions of the apex court to take steps to ensure that every political party publishes the details regarding criminal cases of each candidate along with the reason for such selection on its official website within 48 hours as per the Supreme Court's judgments in Public Interest Foundation's case and Rambabu Singh Thakur's case.

It may be recalled that only last year, the Supreme Court had held eight political parties guilty for contempt of court for breach of the directions relating to the publication of criminal antecedents

The Supreme Court had directed all political parties to publish the details of criminal antecedents of their candidates in the Lok Sabha and Assembly polls within 48 hours of selection of the candidate or within two weeks of nomination, whichever is earlier.

It may be recalled that the Supreme Court has come up with a series of landmark judgments on addressing this issue. For starters, it removed the statutory protection of convicted legislators from immediate disqualification in 2013. In 2014, directed the completion of trials involving elected representatives within a year. In 2017, it asked the Centre to frame a scheme to appoint special courts to exclusively try cases against politicians, and for political parties to publicise pending criminal cases faced by their candidates in 2018. 

The top court has time and again appealed to the lawmakers to take steps for bringing out necessary amendments so that the involvement of those with criminal antecedents in politics is prohibited. But all these appeals have fallen on deaf ears. 

And with no party seen walking the talk yet, enhanced voter awareness and increased democratic participation may help create the right conditions for decriminalising politics.