T here’s money to be made in elections. And there are voters who are willing to accept money in return for their vote. This is a hard fact of democracy. The Election Commission has tried to curb this practice, but candidates have found ways to deliver cash. The quantum of cash used by candidates in an election is a guesstimate, but the fact that it is used can be gauged by the statements made by AAP leader, Arvind Kejriwal and Union Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar. Kejriwal apparently told a crowd in Mapusa to accept the money handed out by candidates, but to vote for AAP. Parrikar acknowledged the use of money and literally stated that the BJP government would give the people more money through its schemes.
In a small State like Goa where the winning margin could be a few hundred votes, no leader is willing to go against this system of buying votes. No leader has the courage to openly discourage people from accepting money in exchange of votes for fear of antagonising this segment of voters. And why blame political parties alone, even the Church, which issues guidelines on the eve of an election refrains from urging its flock to desist from accepting money or gifts from candidates.
This does not always mean that the person with deeper pockets wins, but the fact that he or she has more money to spend certainly puts them at an advantage. The general perception is that it is the have-nots who are more willing to sell their votes for immediate gratification. Although there is no data to back this assumption, reports filtering from different parts of the State strengthen this hypothesis rather than weaken it. And the challenge before the Election Commission and society at large is how to break this nexus. There can never be a level playing field as long as some candidates have access to large sums of money. The Goa situation alone is an eye-opener. Of the 251 candidates who filed nominations for the Assembly elections, 27 per cent are crorepatis, that is 67 have declared assets valued above Rs 5 crore. Eighty-nine of the candidates have assets between Rs 1 and 5 crores. This does not mean all of them used money to buy votes, but it certainly throws light on how many are in a position to do so.
Since purchase of votes is a moral issue, the only way to curb it is through moral obligation. The EC could make it mandatory for every candidate to make an appeal to voters at every meeting – corner or public – to desist from accepting cash or gifts. Secondly, it must be made mandatory for all candidates to take a verbal pledge, preferably with their hand placed on their holy books (not the Constitution because no one cares about it), not to buy votes. Since politicians often invoke the Gods, it might be prudent for the EC to use the power of religion to cleanse the system.
