The Election Commission sets the maximum amount a candidate can spend in an election. For the upcoming House of Representatives elections, the spending limit has been set at Rs 2.2 million to Rs 3.3 million, depending on the constituency.
Elections are an opportunity for the people to choose the most suitable party and candidate from among the eligible ones to run the state. This is a regular process in a democracy. The ideas, principles, and programs they carry are some indicators for choosing the most suitable party and candidate. Voters also evaluate aspects such as how much they understand the joys and sorrows of the people, how much they interact with the people, and whether they have the ability to become a bridge between the people and the government.
However, such issues are only the ideal side of elections. In reality, the trend of spending a lot has flourished. Studies have shown that those who spend more have an increased chance of winning. Elections are becoming expensive and the state machinery is becoming corrupt because of the violation of ideals, rules, and laws in elections. Only if elections can be improved can the state be made people-oriented.
The Election Commission has set the maximum amount that a candidate can spend in elections. For the upcoming House of Representatives elections, a limit of 2.2 million to 3.3 million rupees has been set depending on the constituency. Such a range of expenses was also set in previous elections. But candidates say that they cannot afford such an amount. In their experience, some say that they spend that amount just by reaching the constituency with a ticket. The study shows that the average expenditure of the winning and runner-up candidates in the 2074 House of Representatives elections was 2.13 million and 1.49 million rupees. Some candidates have admitted to spending more than the details submitted to the Election Commission. The then Congress MP Shashank Koirala had said that he spent 60 million in the 2074 elections. However, he had submitted details of the expenditure of 2.175 million to the Commission.
When a candidate spends more and has the possibility of winning, the election itself has turned into a competition for money. A situation has arisen where a candidate is not committed to ideas and principles, and is not aware of the problems of the people. Even after winning by spending money, there is no compulsion to carry the people's agenda. Instead, how can it be, they focus on recovering the expenses incurred in the election and making financial provision for the upcoming elections. When there is no debate on the people's agenda in the election, there is no churning over the country's development blueprint, such an election only fulfills the formality of democracy. The people are not even the priority of the parliament and government formed from such an election. This trend has worked in our failure to fulfill the people's expectations in one election after another.
The tendency to spend more has violated the election code of conduct. But the candidates submit their details by lying. A candidate whose victory is possible through violation of policies and rules and fraud does not have the status of an advocate of political ethics. On the other hand, the source of the candidate's expenses is also not transparent. The expenses are immense, but what is the source of it? The candidate does not consider it necessary to disclose it. Studies have shown that the main sources of billions of rupees spent in elections are hidden funds, investments and donations from industrialists and businessmen. Those who pour money on candidates in an opaque manner cannot be said to have made unreserved investments and good intentions. On the contrary, candidates who are won by investing are expected to make policy decisions that suit them, initiate laws, and use their power to protect them from administrative hassles. The expectation that the elected representatives will work hard to work in the interest of the people is weak.
When money is the talk of the town in elections, leaders committed to ideas and principles cannot become candidates. Even if they do, it is difficult to win. If those who are said to be good, who understand the pace of society and the people's desires, and who do politics among the people do not get tickets or do not even imagine winning, then such an election cannot benefit the people. And in order to win, parties also choose candidates who can spend money. To correct the distortions, voters themselves must improve their voting habits. Rather than candidates who violate the code of conduct and spend money, they should vote for candidates who understand the issues of their place, are theoretically and ideologically clear, and are economically, socially, and politically moral. Parties should also nominate leaders who understand the problems of the people and have programs to solve them, rather than those who can afford to spend. The Election Commission should also be strict in enforcing the code of conduct. A code of conduct that cannot be enforced is meaningless. The government should provide the necessary infrastructure, manpower, and technology to enforce the code of conduct.
The opaque and excessive spending in elections has corrupted the state structure itself. Therefore, the state should take policy initiatives to make elections less costly, agenda-focused, and transparent. The practice of creating a separate account for election purposes, providing donations or support money there, and only spending the money collected there can be strictly enforced. A method of making donor details mandatory can be adopted. In doing so, opaque money cannot be used in elections. The model of providing subsidies to political parties for their regular expenses by the state is also under discussion, and has been adopted in some countries. If that is done, the parties should be accountable to the people for the expenses they incur. If good and successful practices adopted in various countries are implemented here, there will definitely be improvements. A major cause of corruption will also be eliminated.
