23 March 2024 : Indian Express Editorial Analysis

This topic is relevant for both Prelims and Mains in the context of understanding the roles and functions of international organizations like the UN, and their efficacy in addressing global issues.

• In 2022, Pakistan proposed a resolution at the United Nations to establish an “International Day to Combat Islamophobia.”
• Despite objections from countries like India, the UN proceeded to declare March 15 as the day to combat Islamophobia.
• This initial step set a precedent for further actions addressing Islamophobia, culminating in the recent demand for the appointment of a special envoy to combat Islamophobia.

• The term “Islamophobia” has evolved into a political tool, particularly since the 1980s, utilized by Islamists to suppress dissent and justify violence.
• Instances like Ayatollah Khomeini’s Fatwa against Salman Rushdie and demands from organizations like the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation illustrate the weaponization of Islamophobia discourse.
• However, the Nahdlatul Ulama declaration from Indonesia highlights internal factors within Islam, such as extremist interpretations, contributing to the rise of Islamophobia globally.

Consider the following statements:

1. 21st February is declared to be the International Mother Language Day by UNICEF.

2. The demand that Bangla has to be one of the national languages was raised in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(c) Both 1 and 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Ans: (b)

This topic is relevant for both Prelims and Mains in the context of understanding the Electoral Bonds Scheme and its impact on transparency and accountability in political funding. It provides insights into the mechanisms through which political parties are funded and the potential implications on democratic processes.

• The Electoral Bonds Scheme, introduced by the Indian government, has come under scrutiny for its implications on transparency and accountability in political funding.
• The recent Supreme Court judgment scrapping the scheme sheds light on the nexus between the ruling party and business houses, prompting industry platforms to demand a reversal, citing national interests.

Regulation of Donations:

• Some individuals or organisations, for instance, foreign citizens or companies, may be banned from making donations. There may also be donation limits, aimed at ensuring that a party is not captured by a few large donors — whether individuals, corporations, or civil society organisations.
• Some jurisdictions rely on contribution limits for regulating the influence of money in politics. US federal law imposes different contribution limits on different types of donors. Some other countries, such as the UK, do not impose contribution limits, but instead, rely on expenditure limits.
• Limits on Expenditure:
• Expenditure limits safeguard politics from a financial arms race. They relieve parties from the pressure of competing for money even before they start to compete for votes.
• Therefore, some jurisdictions impose an expenditure limit on political parties. For example, in the UK, political parties are not allowed to spend more than Euro 30,000 (about Rs 30 lakh) per seat.
• In the US, the Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of the First Amendment (freedom of expression) has come in the way of legislative attempts at imposing expenditure limits.
• Providing Public Funding to Parties:
• The most commonly used method is to set predetermined criteria. For instance, in Germany, parties receive public funds on the basis of their importance within the political system.
• Generally, this is measured on the basis of the votes they received in past elections, membership fees, and the donations received from private sources. German “political party foundations” receive special state funding dedicated to their work as party-affiliated policy think tanks.
• A relatively recent experiment in public funding is that of “democracy vouchers”, which is used in local elections in Seattle, US. The government distributes a certain number of vouchers — each of which is worth a certain amount — to eligible voters.
• Voters can use these vouchers to donate to the candidate of their choice. The voucher is publicly funded, but the decision to allocate the money is the individual voter’s. Put simply, voters get to “vote” with their money before they cast their ballot.
• Disclosure Requirements:
• Disclosure as regulation rests on an assumption that the information supply and public scrutiny may influence politicians’ decisions and the electorate’s votes. However, mandatory disclosure of donations to parties is not always desirable.
• At times, donor anonymity serves a useful purpose of protecting donors. For instance, donors may face the fear of retribution or extortion by the parties in power. The threat of retaliation may, in turn, deter donors from donating money to parties of their liking.
• Many jurisdictions have struggled with striking an appropriate balance between the two legitimate concerns — transparency and anonymity. This issue was addressed by the Supreme Court in its judgment.
• The Chilean Experiment:
• Under the Chilean system of “reserved contributions”, donors could transfer to the Chilean Electoral Service the money they wished to donate to parties, and the Electoral Service would then forward the sum to the party without revealing the donor’s identity.
• If the complete anonymity system worked perfectly, the political party would not be able to ascertain the sum donated by any specific donor — and would find it extremely difficult to strike quid pro quo arrangements.
• However, it would be in the interest of donors (who want government patronage) and parties (who need money) to informally coordinate in advance to ascertain the sums donated by those donors. Indeed, as various scandals revealed in 2014-15, Chilean politicians and donors had coordinated with each other to effectively erode the system of complete anonymity.
• Balancing Transparency, Anonymity:
• One of the most prominent responses is to balance legitimate public interests in transparency and anonymity. Many jurisdictions strike this balance by allowing anonymity for small donors, while requiring disclosures of large donations.
• In the UK, a party needs to report donations received from a single source amounting to a total of more than Pounds 7,500 in a calendar year. The analogous limit in Germany is Euros 10,000.
• The argument in favour of this approach is: small donors are likely to be the least influential in the government and most vulnerable to partisan victimisation, while large donors are more likely to strike quid pro quo arrangements with parties.
• Establishing National Election Fund:
• Another option would be to establish a National Election Fund to which all donors could contribute. The funds could be allocated to parties based on their electoral performance. This would eliminate the so-called concern about donors’ reprisals.
• During the hearing, the apex court, however, flagged a new issue — the possibility of misuse of money received by political parties for activities like funding terror or violent protests, and asked the Centre whether it has any control on the end use.