Crime but No Punishment in Indian Elections

Source: Getty
Article
Summary
In India, politicians with criminal records are supplying what voters and parties demand: candidates who are effective and well-funded.
Related Media and Tools
 

Elections in India are known as a one-of-a-kind festival of democracy, replete with colorful pageantry, flamboyant personalities, and very large numbers. The size of the country’s electorate when India heads to the polls for parliamentary elections later this spring is expected to reach nearly 800 million. According to census data, an estimated 150 million people are eligible to vote for the first time—a figure larger than the total number of voters that took part in the 2012 U.S. presidential elections.

Elections certainly bring out the best in India’s raucous democracy, but they also expose some of its blemishes. Consider this extraordinary figure: 30 percent of members of parliament have criminal cases pending against them. And that is an increase from the previous election in 2004, when “only” 24 percent of MPs were similarly situated.

In the fight to curb these figures, there have been some positive developments and valiant efforts to raise awareness. The Supreme Court of India recently decided that sitting politicians who are convicted of criminal acts should be removed from office upon conviction—a new practice in India. And for the first time, an anticorruption party vaulted to victory in Delhi’s state assembly. These are certainly bright spots, but, if recent state elections are any indication, efforts thus far have barely scratched the surface.

Real change will take significantly more sweeping measures to get to heart of the crime-politics nexus. In India’s electoral marketplace, as in any market, there are underlying supply and demand factors that facilitate exchange. And in this case, politicians with criminal records are supplying what voters and parties demand: candidates who are effective and well-funded.

The Nature of the Phenomenon

A wellspring of information about India’s political class was tapped in 2003, introducing a new level of transparency about India’s electoral aspirants and elected officials. In response to landmark public interest litigation filed by civil society watchdogs, the Supreme Court of India ruled that any person standing for elected office at the state or national level must submit, at the time of nomination, a judicial affidavit detailing his or her financial assets and liabilities, education qualifications, and pending criminal cases.

The disclosures are not without their shortcomings. Crucially, the information is self-reported, which means that in the case of financial details in particular, the accuracy of the affidavits can be questioned. In addition, the data on criminality refers to ongoing cases rather than convictions; due to the vagaries of India’s justice system, it can take decades for an indictment to produce a conviction, if at all.

Nevertheless, the data—taken as a whole—gives a reasonable snapshot of the biographical profiles of India’s most influential lawmakers. And the picture isn’t pretty.

The 15th Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament), whose term expires at the end of May 2014, is home to 162 MPs with pending criminal cases. These cases involve a diverse array of charges, both large and small, ranging from mischief to murder and nearly everything in between. If one were to focus only on serious charges—those unrelated to electioneering or a politician’s daily vocation such as those involving murder, kidnapping, and physical assault—approximately 14 percent or 76 MPs face pending cases.

The situation at the state and local levels, though lacking comparable scrutiny, is similar. Roughly one in three members of state assemblies (31 percent) is involved in at least one criminal case. Again about half, roughly 15 percent, face serious charges.

There has been no systematic analysis of panchayats (village governments) and urban local bodies, but there is evidence that local tiers of governance are hardly free of criminality. Based on data collected by the Association for Democratic Reforms, 17 percent and 21 percent of municipal corporators in Mumbai and Delhi, respectively, declared involvement in criminal cases.

Why Parties Supply Criminal Politicians

In one sense, the answer to why political parties in India nominate candidates with criminal backgrounds is painfully obvious: because they win (see figure 1). In the 2004 or the 2009 parliamentary elections, a candidate with no criminal cases pending had—on average—a 7 percent chance of winning. Compare this with a candidate facing a criminal charge: he or she had a 22 percent chance of winning. Granted, this simple comparison does not take into account numerous other factors such as education, party, or type of electoral constituency. Nevertheless, the contrast is marked.

In India, politicians with criminal records are supplying what voters and parties demand: candidates who are effective and well-funded.

Of course, the real question is what makes these candidates winnable. At least part of the answer comes down to cold, hard cash—an area in which those who break the law often have a leg up. Election costs in India have grown considerably over the years thanks to a host of factors, including a growing population, a marked increase in the competiveness of elections, and elevated voter expectations of pre-election handouts.

Money does not buy elections in India; what a well-financed campaign buys is viability. Indeed, there is a strong correlation between a parliamentary candidate’s personal assets—a good proxy for financial capacity—and the likelihood of election (see figure 2). Drawing on data from 2004 and 2009, the poorest 20 percent of candidates, in terms of personal financial assets, had a 1 percent chance of winning parliamentary elections. The richest quintile, in contrast, had a greater than 25 percent shot.

In India, politicians with criminal records are supplying what voters and parties demand: candidates who are effective and well-funded.

Beyond the draw of a higher likelihood of success, parties value “muscle” (criminality, in Indian parlance) because it often brings with it the added benefit of money.

As election costs have soared, parties have struggled to find legitimate sources of funding, which is a partial reflection of the general decline in their organizational strength. As a result, they place a premium on candidates who can bring resources into the party and will not drain limited party coffers. The quest for private funds is further propelled by an ineffectual election finance regime, which is marked by numerous loopholes and a lack of transparency.

When it comes to campaign cash, candidates accused of breaking the law have a distinct advantage: they both have access to liquid forms of finance and are willing to deploy it in the service of politics. In the last two parliamentary elections, roughly 6 percent of candidates in the lowest quintile of candidate wealth (or poorest one-fifth) faced criminal cases compared to nearly 20 percent of candidates in the top quintile (see figure 3).

In India, politicians with criminal records are supplying what voters and parties demand: candidates who are effective and well-funded.

Voter Demand for Criminal Politicians

Money is an important part of the story but, on its own, is an insufficient explanation—if only because parties have access to wealthy candidates who are not linked to criminal activity, from cricket heroes to film stars and industrialists. It is also not immediately clear why voters would prefer a wealthy, “tainted” candidate to an equally wealthy, “clean” alternative.

As the deputy president of the state unit of one major party confided to me back in 2010, candidates with criminal records thrive because they have “currency.” It turns out that this “currency” is also figurative.

While many have suggested that voters in India unwittingly support tainted politicians because they are ignorant about the biographies of their political representatives, there is an affirmative explanation that is consistent with rational, well-informed voters. In contexts where the rule of law is weak and social divisions are highly salient, politicians often use their criminal reputation as a badge of honor—a signal of their credibility to protect the interests of their parochial community and its allies, from physical safety to access to government benefits and social insurance. The “protection” on offer is often grounded in the language of caste or religious empowerment and can be readily justified in defensive terms. One member of Maharashtra’s Shiv Sena party with a reputation as a strongman explained his “hands-on” approach to the scholar Thomas Blom Hansen: “If someone enters my house and runs away with my roti [bread] then what should I do? I have to slap him and take the roti away because it is my roti and not his.”

The appeal of candidates who are willing to do what it takes—by hook or crook—to protect the interests of their community provides some intuition for why the odds of a parliamentary candidate winning an election actually increase with the severity of the charges, with slightly diminishing returns in the most severe instances (see figure 4).

In India, politicians with criminal records are supplying what voters and parties demand: candidates who are effective and well-funded.

The Rhythm of Elections

Elections in India have acquired a sort of customary rhythm over the years. Part and parcel of this rhythm is the spate of news headlines before elections about the sordid biographical details of aspirants to higher office. Once voting is completed and the results are announced, a second wave of stories about the criminal antecedents of those who are actually elected pours forth. Recent judicial action is a positive step, but interrupting this rhythm requires deeper institutional change.

The unexpected victory in Delhi of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which campaigned on an avowedly anticorruption platform, is also a positive sign of popular frustration with malfeasance, but it is unlikely to be a game changer. The AAP proved a party could win without heavily resorting to candidates with lengthy rap sheets, but that did not seem deter the party’s rivals. According to the Association for Democratic Reforms, 21 percent of the ruling Congress Party’s candidates and 46 percent of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party’s candidates were involved in criminal cases, compared to 7 percent for the AAP.

If the high levels of criminality in politics could be attributed to a lack of information about candidates’ biographies, a public awareness campaign might make a significant dent in criminality rates. Alas, the situation is far more nuanced.

India needs a credible election finance regime with real teeth to rein in under-the-table funding. And the state’s ability to impartially deliver benefits, physical safety, and timely justice has to improve. Unless an investment in institutional change is made, parties—as well as many voters—will continue to view a candidate’s criminal reputation as a potential asset rather than a liability.

Danielle Smogard provided excellent research assistance for this article.

End of document

About the South Asia Program

The Carnegie South Asia Program informs policy debates relating to the region’s security, economy, and political development. From the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan’s internal dynamics to U.S. engagement with India, the Program’s renowned team of experts offer in-depth analysis derived from their unique access to the people and places defining South Asia’s most critical challenges.

 

Comments (8)

 
 
  • Divaker V Vittal
    Well made article, the piece also probes those common reasons for fielding candidates with criminal charges in the election. One peculiarity in Indian society is sectarian mindset due to agrarian economy, where farm land is protected at all costs from other sects (castes), since the farm land is considered as a family respect rather than a mechanism which can earn income. This bounds a sectarian community into a more united bunch of self helping sect.

    A political election contender can earn browny points and of course the "AWE" from his/her sect by harming a sect which is opposing them, these feudal activities would promote similar incidents on the lines of "The harsher the better" which usually would be unlawful according to the Indian government. These incidents becomes a regular affair in the rural heartland of India, where election is fought on the name of caste/community and not development & governance.

    India had these kind of divisive political opportunists from a long time who have been dividing the community in the lines of religion mostly in urban India and sect(caste) usually in rural India. These opportunist politicians grow with an affinity of their own sect and political parties strategically field them on those areas where their sect is in large numbers to gain / woo naive voters. As the author has cited, there is a very high chance of winning for any election contender with criminal charges in the local election what is called as vidhana sabha (Provincial government). But the same is not true for national elections (Union Government), candidates with criminal background consistently fail to win in national elections.

    Also, there is a growing teaser of electing candidates with criminal records in the local election - the definite trend is that people dont re-elect the same crime tainted politicians, if they are not responsive and responsible enough for their sects at the duration of their governance.

    The solace is, the recent amendment in law to dismiss any politician with proven criminal records from all positions of political responsibility. This law would force any politician to have a criminal charge only till the act is proven in the court of law, once the criminality is pronounced the politician has to step down from all the political responsibilities. This would become a very big hurdle for anyone with political aspirations to indulge or promote unlawful / criminal activities - @divaker01
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • Samir
    whatever you say dude, we love our elections! its carnival time! Jai Ho!
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • BackToReality
    Sorry to shatter popular belief, but party decision makers (The Supremo's) choose criminal candidates because they have personal interests / benefits off of such candidates... voters dont have a squat worth of part in choosing who shall be in the candidates list ... Even after knowing the Biographies of candidates , voters are left to choose lesser of the available devils.. I humbly mention, this research is incomplete ..
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • CV Madhukar
    Milan -
    There is a large scale study being conducted around our elections and voter behaviour. One of the questions being investigated is how voters look at candidates with criminal backgrounds. Is being 'criminal' a proxy for something in a voter's mind - ability to get speedy justice through a kangaroo court process, ability to use the candidate's goons to get ahead in the race for better public services such as getting a borewell near home, or piped water, etc. Let's see what the study says when it comes out later this year.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • DA
    Many of these cases are a result of "fixing the oppponent" politics. The numbers aren't really as bad as they look. Some parties do have a propensity for criminals - most notably the SP and RJD. Similarly, many far left parties may have cases against them for violent agitations - their cadre do not shy away from violence.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
    • mani parmar replies...
      U mean SP JDU,BJP,CONGRESS,BSP,trinmul and allthe other regional and South indian parties????
       
       
  • Mani,retired govt servant,kunnimpp@gmail.com
    1 Recommend
     
    Here z how not to look at an Indian voter through Statistics.The majority z not free to vote.They R either in the clutches of Priests or the village heads,under their debt n help extended tothem frm time to time or wise enough not to believe the politicians about their promises and accept a bribe/sell their vote,for a mere sum of 300 to 500/alcohol/clothes/food.They have been waiting for the promised water,roads,electricity,schools,hospitals for the last 67yrs and expect nothing from the govt.The govt's strategy z to keep the no of poor high so that they can make big policies to get big money sanctioned and be pocketed by the votebank holders(religious gurus/village heads) through a chain of benefiters. The corporate/politicos/religious gurus/beaurocrats nexus doznt allow the common man let alone the poor breath freely.Loss of character and corruption has been purposely injected from head to toe in govt machinery.Law abiders and honest suffer.Like Hitler had prepared his army with the jobless and worthless Uth,our politicos can call upon a big no of such ppl to gather in their rallies wth the help of Religious gurus and by spending money.Incarcerated in a devalued charactered society V hv started a revolution against all this.V do hope to succeed.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • MUKESH CHANDIRAMANI
    WHOM TO VOTE FOR ? I HAVE PROOF FROM THE LEADING NEWSPAPER BY REPUTED CHAIRMAN OF COMPANY WHOSE HAS CLOSE RELATION WITH RELIANCE GROUP FAMILY HALF THE POLICE FORCE IS APPOINTED BY RULING PARTY AND HALF THE POLICE FORCE IS APPOINTED BY OPPOSITION PARTY ALL PARTIES ARE SAME RULING PARTY AND OPPOSTION JUST SAVING EACH OTHER, WITH COMMON MAN BEING TARGETTED BEFORE ELECTION HUM AAPKE HAIN KAUN AFTER ELECTION HUM SAATH SAATH HAIN ALL THESE POLITICIANS ARE WORKING FOR CORPORATES LET ANY ONE GET POWER FOR 5 YEARS COMMON MAN IS FORGOTTEN WHAT CHANGE SHOULD BE VOTE FOR.POLICE IS BEING OPENLY USED AND APPOINTED BY POLITICIANS WHAT VOTE FOR CHANGE SHOULD BE VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO COMES TO POWER WILL FORGET COMMON MAN NEXT DAY.THEY ARE JUST MAKING SHOW OF CRITICISING AND ARE AGAINST EACH OTHER BUT ALL ARE CONECTED TO EACH EACH OTHER LEGAL SYSTEM IS WORKING ACCORDING TO THE POLITICIANS WISHES POLITICIANS SUPPORTER RELATIVES FRNDZ CAN COMMIT CRIME AND GET AWAY EASILY WHERE IS THE LAW IN OUR COUNTRY ?mmc_71@rediffmail.com
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/01/24/crime-but-no-punishment-in-indian-elections/gz9k

India Decides 2014

More from The Global Think Tank

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address in the field below to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。