The Moral Texture of Money Distribution in Election

The article is to be situated in the context of the general election being held in the country. As the election process progresses, there emerges news items from different parts of the country about different political parties indulging in various immoral and illegal practices to garner votes to be in power. Liquor, cash, unlicensed guns etc. are seized from almost every major political parties. There is no party that is holy; every party has fallen short of the standard set by Election Commission of India (ECI). It is just a matter of common sense that only a few of the sins are caught and exposed. Like an iceberg, the bigger chunk of the load of illegal and immoral activities are hidden from the public view. 

Election in a state such as India is a necessary and an ambitious exercise. To that end ECI has recently raised the expenditure limit to Rs. 70 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs for parliamentary constituencies and assembly constituencies respectively for a state such as Manipur. Unfortunately, the money spent by candidates of almost all the parties would easily crossed the limit far far more. This is true of both the parliamentary election as well as assembly election. This excessive use of money is one of the chief reasons that has damaged the reputation of politics in general and election in particular. It has become a kind of a set pattern to buy voters. Everyone knows that buying votes is illegal and it goes against the basic ethos of electoral politics. Yet, hardly any party major political parties are clean. The more money a party has, the wider it casts its monetary net to gain voters. Buying voters is immoral too. It is immoral because election are supposed to be contested on the basis of candidates' merits and what the party could fulfil in term of governance in case it comes to power. And distributing money distorts the very definition of democratic election. Candidates who purchase 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. This is a knotty situation specially for those voters who live from hand to mouth. It is quite comprehensible if one is tempted to take the money thinking that one vote may not matter much given that there are several lakhs of voters. And particularly when all the potential winners are going to be equally inefficient for the society at large, a poor peasant might contemplate taking a few hundred rupees from a candidate or from the candidate who gives the most and then act on it in form of voting for the same candidate. However, the thrust of the legal and moral demand would imply that the voter too is a party to the malpractice.  Given this kind of reality one must appreciate those voters who were able to say no to money. And this refusal to take money in exchange for vote is something that the larger section of society must learn to replicate.

The question that demands attention at this point of rampant practice of buying votes is to ask if those who have taken money from a candidate are morally obliged to vote for the one from whom they have taken money. In a given society, if a person has borrowed money from a friend or a relative, then there is a moral obligation to return the money in due course of time. Does this kind of  moral binding press upon a voter who has taken money from a candidate?  The answer is no. In the former case there is a written or an unwritten contract between the two parties that the money would be returned in due course of time. There is thus a moral obligation to honour the explicit or implicit contract. Moreover, failure to honour the contract would lead to a breach of trust and social discord. Therefore, in the greater good of the society, the moral obligation to return the borrowed money has to be in place. In the latter situation – where a voter is 'purchased' by a candidate – there is no explicit contract to vote for the candidate. Even if there is an implicit contract, there is no ground to suppose that violation of the contract would lead to greater social disorientation. In fact, giving money to the voters has led to greater social disorientation and corruption. On the contrary, if there is a widespread practice of violation of such implicit contract, the candidates would eventually be compelled to think that money cannot win over the voters' heart and mind. The candidates would in fact be compelled to perform and deliver the moral duty due of him or her. Therefore, given this negative effect of giving money to the voters and the positive effect that would emerge if voters refuse to vote for the candidate from whom they have taken money, it is more rational and morally prudent to underscore that a voter is not under moral obligation to vote for the candidate from whom he or she has taken money.

This is not to say "take money, but don't vote for the one who gave you the money". The actual emphasis is on "don't give money & don't take money".  But there is an additional line –  "don't take money; but even if you take money you don't have to feel obligated to vote for the one who gives you money" – to provide  as cushion to fight the  unfair way of using money power during election. It is rather to achieve an end which is good , which is to make the power of money to buy voter redundant.

NB: This article appeared on the 20th of April 2014 at Hueiyen Lanpao. The link is available here.