[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Performance based Politics



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
    Wow, the freedom of information Act. Whose freedom are we talking about?
Are you trying to tell us that people are physically prevented from getting
or obtaining information? I am trying to compare "freedom of information"
with "freedom of expression". "Freedom of Expression" means that Govt.
cannot impose restrictions on expression (either written or verbal) of
private citizens. So, when we have a "freedom of expression" in the
constituition what exactly does "freedom of information" means? I guess what
you want to say is "provision of information by the Govt. Act". That means,
Govt. should make available certain information about its activities (like
budget, accounts of various ministries and departments, and several other
documents). If that is the case, then it is Okay.
    I am little bit concerned by the provision that all candidates should
submit a CV and EC should verify it. I think it is very dangerous! Imagine
what a politically biased EC can do to the election process. It can simply
start rejecting candidates giving excuses like CV is not proper. It could
not verify it and so on .... I think it is an attempt to take the
decision-making power of the ordinary people and replace it by giving
extra-constitutional powers to the EC.
    When we have accepted that people are the ultimate arbitrators in the
election process, what role can EC possibly play in evaluating the
candidates?
>          Whether the candidate is accused of any offence(s) punishable
> with imprisonment? If so, the details thereof.
>
I think the above information can be easily be obtained from various police
records. Why is this burden being placed on the candidates? Isn't it the
duty of the police and various judicial authorities including EC to bring
all the facts which are in the posession of the Govt. about the candidates?
>          Assets possessed by the candidate, his or her spouse and
> dependent relations.
>
Again I don't get it. Why should a candidate declare his/her assets? And
even if he declares, what if there is a dispute about the assets? Who is
going to resolve that? The income tax department must be in posession of the
Income Tax Returns of the candidates. Why shouldn't Income Tax Department be
forced to publish Tax Returns of the candidates? We have a free press in
this country. A truly devoted Newspaper or media organization should have an
easy access to the Income Tax Returns of the candiates and must publish it.
Similarly, the Income Tax Returns of nearest relatives and dependents of the
Candidates can also be placed in public. And Income Tax Department can
always prosecute the candidate if he or his relative is found to be "living
beyond known source of his/her income".
>          Facts giving insight to a candidate's competence, capacity and
> suitability for acting as parliamentarian or legislator including details
> of his/her educational qualifications.
>
Which facts will give insight into a candidates's competence and capacity? I
bet EC will have a field day deciding on this. A politically biased EC can
make mockery of the whole democracy using this provision.
>          Information which the election commission considers necessary
for
> judging the capacity and capability of the political party fielding the
> candidate for election to Parliament or the State Legislature."
Wow, I would love to be on EC! Man, I will be most powerful man in India. I
will be the gateway to the political power. Anybody who want's to get
elected (or even stand for an election) will have to rease my hands. I am
sure after this we will have to form another committee or body which will
check corruption in EC. And then another body to monitor this body and so on
... Some people just don't know when to give up!!!

I think giving beaurocrats arbitrary powers will only shift the corruption
from politicians to bureacrats. I think the simples answer to corruption is
to reduce to role of Govt. in the society. That will automatically reduce
the corruption. If the elected representatives have the powers ranging from
allocating petrol pump, gas, telephone connection, deciding on rates of
electricity, etc. etc. then no matter what system of checks and balances you
put in place, the corruption will always be there. I will bet on this. And
remember the price of freedom is eternal vigilance!! No amount bureacratic
procedures can replace that!!!!
Regards,
Ashish
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anant Trivedi" <anant_t@hotmail.com>
To: <debate@indiapolicy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: Performance based Politics


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Excellent idea, but there must first be yardsticks for entry to the
> legislators, just like any recrutiment process. You cant expect a crook or
> incompetant to suddenly start delivering. You cant sack the legislators
and
> they are not accountable.
>
> For these reasons we have an initiative which targets precisely these
> issues. We ask each candidate seeking election to submit a CV, get EC to
> veirfy this and then place the contents in  public domain via print and
> electronic media. Under the freedom of information act, the voters then
> have an INFORMED CHOICE.
>
> The problem is that the Union is not very supportive of our proposals -
35%
> of legislators are of dubious credentials! A PIL was launched in Delhi
High
> Court (via Association Of Democratic Reforms of AIIM, Ahmedabad). We won
in
> the High Court, but the Union and EC launched a SLP in the Supreme Court.
> This has a final hearing on about 10th July. We understand the PM is
> supportive. We know that the President is supportive - he has said so. We
> know also that Manmohan Singh is supportive and Congress is also launching
> an initiative against corruption in politics which he is chairing. But
> these politicians alone cannot act till their hands are strengthened by
the
> citizens asking for the Delhi High Court  directive to be implemented.
>
> So for the sake of our democracy, all of you who agree with our
objectives,
> should write in to the President with copies to PM etc as suggested below.
> Further down I have given a text of the DHC judgement and PIL progress. A
> LARGE NUMBER OF CITIZENS NEED TO WRITE IN IMMEDIATELY ASKING THE SLP TO BE
> WITHDRAWN. TIME IS RUNNING OUT,IMMEDIATE ACTION IS NECESSARY.
>
> There are details below on the initiative.
>
> regards
>
> Anant Trivedi
>
> --------------Suggested Draft as
> below-------------------------------------------------
>
> To : President of India,K R Narayananji,Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi
110004
>
> cc : Prime Minister of India,Vajpayeeji,7 Race Course Road,New Delhi
110011
>
>  cc : Attorney General of India,Soli J Sorabji,Ministry of Law, Justice &
> Company Affairs,
>
>      Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001
>
>  cc : Chief Election Commissioner,Nirvachan Sadan,Ashoka Road,New Delhi
110001
>
>  cc : Dr Manmohan Singh,43 Parliament House, New Delhi 110001
>
>  Respected President Narayananji,
>
>  Subject : 2001(57)DRJ(DB) High Court of Delhi CWP No.7257 of 1999-
> SLP(C)No.737 of 2001 Union of India Vs Association for Democratic Reforms,
> c/o IIM, Ahmedabad 380015
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> For democratically seeking credentials and CV's of aspiring Legislators,
> there is a landmark Delhi High Court judgment,which the goverment is
> stalling. To be supportive of its implementation, you need to write as
under:
>
>  Without prejudice, we write this letter, to strengthen your and PM
> Vajpayeeji's hands. Both of you  have been repeatedly expressing concern
> and keeness to check criminalisation in politics, curbing electoral
> corruption, and having persons of ethical values to govern our nation.
>
>  We are totally supportive of implementation of CWP No.7257 of 1999
> immediately & Union of India withdrawing SLP (C) No.737 of 2001.
>
>  Supportive of your thinking. We are for checking criminalisation of
> politics & misuse of money and muscle power. Judgment Delhi CWP No. 7257
of
> 1999 is an excellent starting measure for corrective action.
>
>  In the larger interest of India, whose future is our utmost concern, this
> to extend to you our support, for implementing Delhi CWP judgment. In our
> view there is no need for debate or delay. This is a landmark opportunity
> not to be missed.
>
>  With sincere respect
>
>  Yours faithfully
>
>  ---------------------------PIL Judgements and
> progress----------------------------
>
>
>
> 1. High Court
>
> The Association of Democratic Reforms launched a PIL in Delhi High Court
> with the Union and EC as the respondents. On 2nd November 2000, the High
> Court delivered a judgment allowing the petition. Below is an extract from
> the judgment.
>
> "Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is required to act
> as a sentinel on
>
> the qui vive to guard against the violation of the fundamental rights to
> the citizens. It is the obligation of this Court to enforce their
> fundamental rights. In this view of the matter, in discharge of our
> constitutional duty to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed to the
> citizens to seek and receive information for casting intelligent and
> rational votes certain directions need to be given by us. Accordingly, it
> is directed that the Election Commission shall secure to the voters the
> following information pertaining to each of the candidates standing for
> election to the Parliament and to the State Legislators and the parties
> they represent:-
>
>          Whether the candidate is accused of any offence(s) punishable
> with imprisonment? If so, the details thereof.
>
>          Assets possessed by the candidate, his or her spouse and
> dependent relations.
>
>          Facts giving insight to a candidate's competence, capacity and
> suitability for acting as parliamentarian or legislator including details
> of his/her educational qualifications.
>
>          Information which the election commission considers necessary
for
> judging the capacity and capability of the political party fielding the
> candidate for election to Parliament or the State Legislature."
>
> The Union opposed the judgment in the Supreme Court with a Special Leave
> Petition, taking the plea that electoral reforms were still under
> examination and had not yet been debated in Parliament. On Monday 12th
> March the Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court's judgment. The court
> gave the attorney general a four week period to file the response from the
> Center to various suggestions issued by the EC and to the directives of
> Delhi High Court to achieve the objective of checking criminalisation of
> politics and misuse of money power in election.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> 2. Supreme Court
> Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No 737/2001 SLP(C)No. 737
> OF 2001
> UNION OF INDIA
> Petitioner (s)
>  VERSUS
>  ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR
>  Respondent (s)
> (With Appln(s). for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned Judgment and
> impleading party )(With prayer for I.R.)
>
>  Date : 08/05/2001 This  Petition  was  called on The petition was called
> for hearing and the proceedings are summarised below (without prejudice):
> At an earlier hearing on 12th March, the bench which included Hon'ble
Chief
> Justice, had directed the petitioner , Soli Sorabjee for the Union, to
file
> a response for consideration at today's hearing. This had not been done.
> Neither the counsel for EC or the Indian National Congress had filed their
> responses.
> The Hon'ble Judges expressed their dissatisfaction at the lack of progress
> and asked the counsel for the petitioner to explain the delay.
> The Solicitor General for the petitioner, argued:
> The subject matter was one for the Legislators (and was under
> consideration), and not for the Courts.  The Courts juridiction in the
> matter is disputed.
> It was not clear who would implement the Delhi High Court's directive.
> Lack of educational qualification was not a valid ground for rejecting a
> candidate.
> This argument was rejected by the Hon'ble Judges on the grounds that the
> petitioner (Union) had shown no progress in the matter of checking the
> criminalisation of politics and no compromise remedy was submitted.
> The petitioner(s) were given another four weeks to submit their response,
> for hearing in July. For the respondents, Ms Jaiswal expressed concern
that
> the petitioners had not made any fresh submissions were clearly delaying
> the implementation of the Delhi High Court directive ( dated 02/11/200 in
> CWP 7257/99).
>
>
>
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: SATHYAKUMAR
> Reply-To: debate@indiapolicy.org
> To: debate@indiapolicy.org
> Subject: Re: Performance based Politics
> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 13:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> THIS IDEA IS EXCELLENT / WHY NOT PUSH THIS TOPARIVARTAN ?
> VAJPAI MAY EVEN APRICIATE THIS. !
> ---------------------------------------------
> Krishnan Kandasamy wrote:
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Think for a moment that all our netas are involved in politics to
"serve"
> > people. How do you determine how well the politician has "performed" in
> > serving people. How do you compare one politician with other?.
> >
> > I suggest that there be performance based incentive for a person to
enter
> > politics.
> >
> > Lets say that when an MLA takes office there were 100 children in his
> > constituency out of school, if at the end of first year he is able to
bring
> > that number to 50, he gets paid a bonus..
> >
> > Similarly performance can be judged by an independent agency on areas
like
> > education improvement, employment generated, pollution abated,
industries
> > opened etc in an politicians constituency..
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This is the National Debate on System Reform. debate@indiapolicy.org
> > Rules, Procedures, Archives: http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the National Debate on System Reform. debate@indiapolicy.org
> Rules, Procedures, Archives: http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
> Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------