When the union government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party has moved the established parliamentary convention and forced radical changes to several laws by the finance bill in March, the opposition shouted.
Congress accused the BJP invalidates the importance of debates in the parliamentary process and undermine the authority of the Rajya Sabha, because the Treasury Bill the bill does not require the approval of the upper house.
In total, some 40 drastic changes were made to various laws in the budget law, which, as the name implies, was designed in the Constitution that deal only with financial matters.
One of the main changes was political funding. The Center has introduced the electoral system and the links provided by an amendment to the Law on the representation of people, the anonymity of companies to donate to political parties through this new tool.
The government’s argument was that bonds would be channeled through the banking system, which would help curb infusion of black money and generate revenue for banks.
The Electoral Commission of India, the constitutional body charged with holding free and fair elections, would be immediately and openly protesting against this movement.
The reason is simple. Reports in recent years on political finance models in India have established that at least 69% of all funds for large parties come from “unknown sources.”
If that were the case, the Union government, in the habit of improving transparency, pushed a mechanism that makes even darker political funding giving businesses complete anonymity while injecting money into the political system.
This has serious consequences in a democracy, especially the interest of trying to influence political decisions through financial means.
However, the Electoral Commission of India has opted for silence on the protest when major changes took place in March, despite the legal mandate to be consulted on issues affecting the electoral process.
However, with a few days to remove the Chief Election Commissioner, Nasim Zaidi, said Sunday that the commission had not been consulted on the electoral ties and that he had written to the EU Law Department about that.
The Commission has been given a degree of independence for a specific purpose. He had a duty to foster a transparent electoral process and to resist any movement that might affect the conduct of free and fair elections.
However, the constitutional situation does not seem to have affected the bureaucratic mentality that still prevails in the commission, avoiding any confrontation with the current government. Instead of taking the head of the Center during the passage of the financial account, the commission now crying the invasion of its territory.
Although it is extremely difficult to push a government with a majority to present as it deems necessary, the cause is completely lost when such efforts do not begin until the enactment of the law, but afterward. The first real criticism of the Election Commission came in May, a month after the law came into force.
However, the commission was attacked after opposition parties, for example, when questions were asked about electronic voting machines. The Committee has even sought as contempt to punish what it called “malicious accusations.”
By not following a critical issue that could radically change the mechanics of election campaigns, the Commission has clearly not measured its responsibilities.