Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2023, First Prize (shared) – Krishna Kalal

Kodaikanal Gandhi Prize 2023

First Prize (shared)

Essay Topic: How might Gandhi have responded to the way elections are conducted today, looking at one or more of the following: (1) election financing; (2) campaign rhetoric; or (3) the election commission.

Gandhi vs. the Election Circus

by

Krishna Kalal

DPS Bopal, Ahmedabad

Mahatma Gandhi, a towering figure in the Indian independence movement, left an enduring legacy that extends beyond the realm of political freedom. Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence and his vision of democracy, often referred to as "integral democracy," offer insights into

how he might have responded to the contemporary challenges in the conduct of elections. In exploring this, we will examine three key aspects: election financing, campaign rhetoric, and the role of the election commission.

To understand how Gandhi might respond to modern elections, we must first delve into his conception of democracy. Unlike the Western liberal view of representative democracy, Gandhi's integral democracy envisions a society without representative government, capitalist greed, and social hierarchies. His emphasis on citizenship duty, ethical renewal, and enlightened citizenship sets his model apart from conventional notions of democracy.

Gandhi's democracy is not merely a political institution but a form of "shared sovereignty," where ethics play a pivotal role in governing society. Rejecting the individualistic and materialistic nature of Western liberal thought, Gandhi advocates for a moral and ethical foundation for political life. His philosophy of non-violence becomes a transformative dynamic, offering an ethical solution to the pervasive issues of injustice and inequality.

A well-functioning democracy requires vibrant political parties and competitive elections. Political parties perform several crucial functions, including: ‘‘1) the integration and mobilisation of citizens; 2) the articulation and aggregation of interests; 3) the formulation of public policy; 4) the recruitment of political leaders; and 5) the organisation of Parliament and government.’’ In order to function effectively and to fulfil these roles, to run for and win office, or to serve as an effective opposition, political parties and their candidates need significant financial resources. India has had a mixed record in coming to terms with this reality.

Gandhi, a fervent advocate of simplicity and moral integrity, would find the elaborate and often opaque nature of election financing deeply troubling. In his vision, the means to achieve political ends must align with ethical values, a sentiment that sharply contradicts the prevalent trend of massive financial contributions, corporate sponsorships, and the influence of money in shaping political outcomes.

Gandhi's integral democracy hinges on the active participation of citizens in political processes, with an emphasis on decentralised decision-making. In contrast, the current state of election financing often fosters a system where a select few wield disproportionate influence through financial contributions. This clash amplifies the ideological dissonance, as Gandhi envisions a democracy where the voice of every individual, irrespective of financial standing, holds equal weight.

Gandhi's critique of modern civilization's materialistic values finds resonance in his clash with election financing. The lavish spending on political campaigns, the commodification of candidates, and the prioritisation of economic interests over ethical considerations starkly contrast with Gandhi's vision of a society grounded in moral values, simplicity, and self-sufficiency.

Election financing, with its reliance on corporate donations and vested interests, becomes a battleground where the spirit of democracy faces a formidable adversary in the Gandhian narrative. The drama unfolds as Gandhi's principles challenge the very foundations of a system where financial prowess often dictates political success, raising questions about the legitimacy and morality of such power dynamics. How much of that money is actually put to good use? Is there actually no nexus between black money and political fundraising? What is the strategy behind the expense utilisation? Questions that are never addressed.

Gandhi, an apostle of truth and non-violence, envisioned a political landscape where integrity and sincerity prevailed. The drama unfolds as his unwavering commitment to honesty clashes with the intricate web of exaggerations, half-truths, and at times, outright falsehoods that characterise much of modern campaign rhetoric. At the heart of Gandhi's ideology is the belief in the transformative power of dialogue and constructive communication. His commitment to open, respectful discourse contradicts the confrontational and divisive nature of contemporary campaign rhetoric. The drama intensifies as Gandhi's vision of political dialogue as a means of understanding and cooperation faces off against the bombastic, polarising language that often dominates election campaigns.

What are the current elections even about? Language and civility are two prime victims of this vicious poll campaign. Hate speech makes a minority cower even as a vast section of the majority is made to feel insecure and besieged. Many Hindus are driven by religious fervour and nationalism. Their feeling are magnified many times by the slavish TV channels, newspapers and social media.

These days, there is no level field in these elections as the ruling party is spending many times more money on propaganda than all other parties combined. The dark money amounting to more than half the funds circulates freely as the donors remain anonymous.

Mahatma Gandhi's opinions about the election commission, if he were to express them in the context of modern democratic processes, would likely reflect his broader principles of ethical governance, transparency, and the empowerment of the people. Transparency and accountability would be paramount for Gandhi. He would likely advocate for an election commission that operates with complete openness, providing the public with clear information about the electoral procedures, campaign financing, and the decisions made. Gandhi's vision of democracy involves an informed and engaged citizenry, and he would expect the election commission to facilitate this through transparent practices.

However, the recent attempts of the Government to curtail the independence of the Election Commission would really dishearten Gandhian ideology. The Union government introduced a Bill which proposes that election commissioners will be selected by a panel led by the Prime Minister, with the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union cabinet minister as members. The bill also eliminates the Chief Justice of India from the Election Commission of India’s chief selection panel. If this bill passes, it’s very obvious that the only independent body that is in force right now will also lose its power and be forced to work under the Executive.

Gandhian ideology was about ethical principles but politics now has just turned out to be a furious battle for power. The prominent amount of corruption, intricate web of exaggeration, half-truths and at times outright falsehoods that characterise modern politics in no way is capable of achieving the kind of future that Gandhi had dreamed of.

As we witness this clash of ideologies, it raises profound questions about the future of democracy. Can a system that thrives on financial prowess, divisive rhetoric, and political manoeuvring truly fulfil the aspirations of a just and ethical society? The drama leaves us pondering the true cost of political victories achieved through questionable means and the long-term impact on the democratic fabric.

Will we continue down a path where the pursuit of power eclipses ethical considerations, or can we, inspired by Gandhi's principles, usher in an era where democracy is a true reflection of the collective will, grounded in truth, non-violence, and the shared sovereignty of an enlightened citizenry? I end this essay with a question mark as the current state of politics in our country has not really been able to mark a full stop on any sentence in my mind.

Thank you.