|
The changing electionscape in India
Abstract:
In recent years there have been significant developments in Indian democracy, in terms of civil society participation in the electoral process. Disclosure laws such as Right to Information Act and mandatory affidavits along with nomination papers detailing criminal antecedents, assets, liability, and education of contesting candidates, have made it possible for citizens to seek accountable governance from their elected representatives. Since the Supreme Court judgement of 2002 ensuring the right of the voter to know the background of the candidate one is voting for, as a fundamental right of the citizen, civil society organizations like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), have been active in creating citizens election watch bodies in various states. The objective of such monitoring bodies has been to aid the citizen voter in making an informed choice. After a long struggle, in Bihar assembly elections 2005, the work of citizens election watch bore some success. Despite having about 49% candidates with pending criminal cases in the assembly, the chief minister elect announced that anyone with even a single pending criminal case against him/her would not get a seat in the cabinet. This was not only a triumph of citizens’ vigilance, but also a wake up call for political parties putting up such candidates in the fray. Prior to UP, assembly elections in West Bengal, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Uttarakhand and Punjab had seen a down ward trend in candidates with pending criminal cases contesting and winning. But UP was going to be the test case. Known for its deeply entrenched caste based politics and overwhelming presence of MLAs with criminal charges pending against them, the state stood at the top of violent crimes and crime against SC and STs in India.
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
 |
|
| |
The WTO deadlock
India believed that the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration effectively addressed its core concerns. A major developing country coalition (G-110) came into being. All developed countries are neither opposed to agricultural liberalisation (the Quad—Canada, Japan, E.U., U. S.—has been providing support to its domestic agricultural lobby) nor supporting it.
Read more
|
| |
|
|
|
