Good riddance, but...

Few people, even from the BJP, which has lost 6 MPs, will be sorry to the see the 11 expelled MPs go. The BJP has tried to make out that the poor fellows (who were caught by a hidden camera accepting money in return for asking questions in Parliament, nothing less) have been the victims of Parliamentary peremptoriness. But the fact remains that even if they had been given a longer hearing, they would still not have been able to justify what they did, for there can be no justification. To have said, as L K Advani did, that expulsion amounted to a death penalty was plainly ridiculous. Nothing prevents the BJP from giving their dirty half-dozen high party posts""or fresh party tickets! It will be interesting to see what it does with them now, because it will be a death sentence only if they cannot become BJP candidates or office-bearers again.

This cannot be the end of the story. There is the issue of MPs who were caught on camera doing kickback deals with the money supposed to be spent on their constituencies (under the MP Local Area Development Scheme). There is the possibility of some of the MPs who have been expelled going to court, seeking redress in a move that could pose a Constitutional issue. There is the uncomfortable aspect of the journalistic "sting" operations that have caught these MPs in a web: if the "sting" amounts to deliberate entrapment, should that be declared illegal (as it is in some countries?) And since no one believes that these 11 plus MPs are a separate breed, and that the rest of the 800-odd members of Parliament are cut from a different cloth, there is the systemic issue of political corruption to be addressed.

The core of the problem consists of the politician's constant need for money even when he is perfectly honest. It costs much more to fight and win an election than is officially permitted. How do MPs raise that money? We cannot, on the one hand, have the "common man" become an MP and, on the other, not provide him with the wherewithal to ply his trade. Even after getting elected, an MP needs money to provide for constituents who come seeking favours, and who usually expect varying degrees of hospitality. Democracy is therefore expensive at the level of the individual MP. So the issue for resolution is financing MPs' expenses in as clean and transparent a manner as possible. And since MPs perhaps feel genuinely threatened for the first time (who is to know which sting operation will nab whom next?), there is now a genuine chance that the long-ignored issue will finally be addressed.

In fact, the government has already moved in the direction of state funding of elections. That is fine in principle, but who is to say that enterprising poll candidates will not resort to underhand financing to top up whatever money the government gives them""so that the role of illegal money does not reduce at all? And shouldn't the cleaning up of political party accounts (audit, tax inspection, etc) be made effective before putting government money at risk? At the very least, such accounts should be publicly disclosed (as listed companies' accounts are), and be subjected to proper scrutiny by both the taxman and the Election Commission.

As for routine expenses that MPs are customarily expected to bear, ideally the party should provide a stipend to its MP. But then the MPs will not want to pay tax on it. So the next best solution would be for the party to pick up the bill by way of reimbursement of costs. Since the finance minister has exempted political parties from the fringe benefit tax, all MPs can be made employees of their parties and the problem can be dealt with on that account at least. The system will have the advantage of forcing parties to keep an eye on how much is being spent and how. It will also impose some financial discipline and ensure that the exchequer is not burdened with the MPs' personal costs and the party's running expenses (which no government or presiding officer likes to scrutinise).