The Growing Menace of Cash-for-Votes

In the world’s largest democracy, elections are often celebrated as a grand festival of public participation, a time when the citizenry exercises its right to choose its representatives. Yet,behind the pomp and rhetoric lies a disturbing trend that erodes the sanctity of this process:the widespread practice of distributing money and gifts to voters.

This practice, colloquially referred to as “cash-for-votes,” is no longer confined to whispers orallegations. It has become a well-oiled mechanism that undermines free and fair elections,exposing the failure of our institutions to safeguard democracy from its worst impulses.

The exchange of cash for votes is not a new phenomenon. It is, however, one that has grown more sophisticated and audacious over the years. Political parties, instead of relyingon their records or manifestos, resort to this direct transactional approach to secure votes,particularly in areas where poverty and disenfranchisement make voters more susceptible to such inducements. The implications are stark: democracy is reduced to a marketplace, and electoral victories become a matter of purchasing power rather than popular will.

This malpractice is not limited to local or state elections; it has infiltrated national politics aswell. Allegations of cash distribution during high-stakes elections often emerge, and yet,enforcement agencies and the Election Commission of India (ECI) appear woefully ill-equipped—or perhaps unwilling—to tackle the issue head-on.

At its core, the distribution of money to voters exploits systemic vulnerabilities. For millions Of indians struggling with unemployment, inflation, and inadequate access to basic services,the cash handed out during elections offers immediate relief, even if temporary.

For political parties, the calculations are simple: a direct cash transfer is more cost-effective than making genuine promises that will require governance and accountability. The voter’seconomic distress, combined with their distrust of the political establishment, creates fertile ground for such transactions to flourish.

The consequences of this practice extend far beyond the ballot box. It reinforces cycles of corruption, ensuring that candidates who spend lavishly on elections recover their“investment” through questionable means once in power. Public money, which should ideally fund welfare and infrastructure, is diverted to enrich the very individuals responsible for eroding trust in democracy.

What is most troubling is the brazenness with which cash-for-votes operates. Candidates and their proxies have perfected the art of concealing their actions, using intermediaries,late-night distributions, and even digital wallets to escape detection. The ECI and other oversight agencies, though empowered with vast authority, often appear reactive rather than proactive, catching only the smallest fish in a net that should encompass much larger offenders.

The Election Commission of India is mandated to ensure free and fair elections, a task that includes cracking down on electoral malpractices such as vote-buying. Over the years, the ECI has introduced several measures to address the issue, including increasing surveillance, deploying flying squads, and conducting awareness campaigns. Yet these measures have proven insufficient.

One of the primary reasons for this failure is the lack of stringent penalties for offenders.Even in cases where candidates are caught red-handed, the consequences are often limited to disqualification or fines—measures that do little to deter well-funded political machines.Additionally, the absence of swift and decisive action by investigative agencies creates a perception of impunity, emboldening candidates to repeat their actions.

One of the gravest threats to the credibility of Indian democracy lies in the perceived control of independent institutions by the central government, particularly the Election Commission(EC) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Both institutions are vital pillars of the democratic process—the EC ensures free and fair elections, while the CBI is tasked with investigating corruption and other high-profile crimes.

However, in recent years, their autonomy has come under question. The EC has faced accusations of bias in its handling of electoral violations, with critics pointing to selective enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct and leniency towards ruling party candidates.Similarly, the CBI has often been labeled a “caged parrot,” with its actions seemingly influenced by political considerations rather than a commitment to justice.

This centralization of power undermines the trust citizens place in these institutions,weakening the democratic process and creating an uneven playing field where accountability becomes secondary to political expediency.

The role of enforcement agencies cannot be ignored either. While bodies like the Income Tax Department and the Enforcement Directorate frequently claim to act against illegal cash flows during elections, their actions often appear selective and politically motivated. The lack of transparency and impartiality in these operations further erodes public trust and gives the impression that the rule of law is a tool wielded against political opponents rather than a means to uphold democratic integrity.

The recent allegations against BJP MP Parvesh Verma offer a glaring example of how electoral malpractices continue unabated. Reports have surfaced accusing Verma of distributing money to voters during election campaigns, a blatant violation of the Model Code of Conduct. While these allegations have sparked public outrage and calls for action, the response from the ECI and investigative agencies has been predictably muted.

This is not an isolated incident. Numerous cases of cash-for-votes have been reported across party lines, and yet, the systemic response remains inadequate. In Verma’s case, as with many others, the issue is not just the alleged crime but the failure of institutions to act decisively. By allowing such cases to linger without resolution, the ECI sends a dangerous message: that electoral malpractices, no matter how egregious, can be brushed under the carpet if one has the right political connections.

The fight against cash-for-votes requires a multi-pronged approach. First and foremost, there must be a serious push to strengthen institutional accountability. Second, penalties for vote-buying must be made more stringent. Third, there is a need for greater public awareness.

Lastly, enforcement agencies must act impartially and without political bias. Selective targeting of opposition parties or shielding of ruling party candidates destroys the credibility of these institutions and deepens public cynicism.

The persistence of cash-for-votes is a symptom of a deeper malaise in Indian democracy. It reflects the failure of political leaders to inspire trust and the inability of institutions to uphold their constitutional mandates. The allegations against Parvesh Verma should serve as awake-up call, not just for the ECI but for all stakeholders committed to preserving the integrity of India’s elections.