AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        It is common knowledge that the reputation of the country has been sullied by criminalisation of politics, corruption and unethical practices. The Moily Commission on Administrative Reforms has recommended the obvious remedies. Coalition ethics requires adherence to what had been agreed upon by its partners, the common minimum programme as it is called.

        When, therefore, there is a realignment midstream later with one or more parties outside the coalition, the new entrants do not have a mandate of the electorate nor can they presume that, by subscribing to the common programme ex post facto, their inclusion would have, ethically speaking, the mandate.

        Moily wants these new entrants to seek a fresh mandate. What he says is unworkable because it imposes costs of fresh polls for their constituencies. More significantly it would rob the cobblers of coalitions of the opportunity to manipulate realignment as witnessed in Jharkhand where the NDA government was replaced by a UPA type coalition. That is the ground reality, however ugly it be. Hence, this recommendation of Moily is sure to be thrown out.

        Another recommendation relates to the local area development fund allowed to legislators ostensibly for schemes on which it is believed that they would be competent to judge. This is hogwash. The real intention is to help increase or sustain whatever popularity or stake that those legislators have with their voters. Moily considers this gesture as intrusion by the legislature into the sphere of the executive. He rightly recommends abolition of this practice. Yet, does he not know, that once granted, a privilege will be difficult to eliminate? Again, in this case also, legislators cutting across partylines, would successfully fight against implementation of this idea.

        As forcefully put by Moily, participation of criminals in politics is the soft underbelly of the Indian political system. He wants the Representation of the People's Act of 1951 to be amended to disqualify all persons facing charges related to grave and heinous offences and corruption, with such modification as could be suggested by the Election Commission. Since the backdrop of this is the huge amounts pumped in covertly during the elections, he wants partial funding by the government of poll expenses. The country has slid down too deeply into the quagmire of corruption to be rescued from its predicament by the limited amounts of funds which are at all affordable for the exchequer to risk.

        As for one of the sources of corruption labelled as office of profit by critics, Moily says that all offices involving executive decision-making and control of public funds, approving expenditure shall be treated as office of profit. The exemptions should apply in the case of offices in advisory category besides the Planning Commission. Moily leaves the issue of disqualification of legislators for defection to the decision of the President or Governor in consultation with the Election Commission. He wants the members of the Election Commission to be appointed according to the recommendations of a collegium consisting of the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Law Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

        Constituting special election tribunals at the regional with the stipulation of their having to deliver their verdict on election petitions within a period of six months is a good idea provided review by courts of those verdicts would be equally expeditious.

        Moily's recommendation for constituting a judicial council to monitor judicial conduct borders on the utopian.