Democracy: Government off the People, fool the People and buy the People?

The write up is to be situated in the context of the election that was held in Manipur, a north eastern state of India, on 28th January 2012. The election was probably the most corrupt eonein the history of Manipur's democracy. There would have been not a single candidate that did not use unfair means to get votes. At then end it was the Congress that emerged victorious. And the reasons are many, but one key reason was that no one else could match the money power of the Congress party.

It has become a kind of a set pattern to buy voters. There were candidates who did not visit their constituency due to threats to their life. ( I am not going to get into that now.) But even such candidates got elected. How was that possible? They sent in their workers to the constituency with bundles of money. And voters were purchased. All candidates used money power to purchase voters. And buying voters likewise is illegal. And it is immoral too. It is immoral because election are supposed to be fought on the basis of candidates' merits. And distributing money distorts the very definition of democratic election. Candidates who purchased voters , therefore, are using unfair means to get elected. Period. 

The voters who took money in exchange for her vote too is wrong. Even if the money was distributed, the voter need not take it. So the voter too was a party to the malpractice. And I appreciate those voters who were able to say NO to money. And this refusal to take money in exchange for vote is something we all need to copy.

I would further say that even if money has been taken by a voter from a candidate, there is no valid reason to be obligated to vote for the candidate. As of now if voters have taken money from Mr. A, they are obligated to vote for Mr. A. So the the one who offers more money will get more votes! But such obligation will perpetuate the ongoing corrupt practice. And if we have to blunt the power of money to purchase voter, we have to do away with the obligation. Therefore, to achieve an end which is good i.e making the power of money to buy voter redundant, I believe it is okay not to be obligated to vote for the person from whom one has taken money. 

This is not to say "take money, but don't vote for the who gave you the money". It is rather saying "don't take money; but even if you take money you don't have to feel obligated to vote for the one who gave you money".  So the actual emphasis is on "don't give money & don't take money". The third punchline is to provide additional cushion to fight unfair way of using money power during election.