What explains the increasing entry of criminals and wealthy candidates into politics?

Muscle and money decide the fate of elections in India, as is evident from an analysis of the recent Uttar Pradesh legislative assembly elections.

—–

ON February 16, T. Raja Singh made a controversial remark that, "Yogi Adityanath will demolish with bulldozers the houses of those who do not vote for him." Singh made this open threat during the Uttar Pradesh [UP] assembly elections, and he's currently representing the Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP] as a legislator from the Goshamahal constituency in Telangana.

Singh has 43 criminal cases against him in which either cognizance has been taken or charges have been framed, and his total assets account for more than three crore rupees.

This 'muscle and money' power forms the crux of modern politics in India, and the UP assembly election epitomises this phenomenon.

Figure 1: Map spotting the winning political parties, vote percentage, and the winning candidates' name, criminal record and total wealth, for each constituency in the UP elections.

(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/OR12b/1/)

The Adityanath-led BJP in UP won a second consecutive term for the first time in the history of the state assembly elections. Figure 1 shows that the map has turned saffron in most of the constituencies.

A state with almost 210 million voters, where multi-pronged elections have been the norm, witnessed a highly polarized election in 2022 with BJP and the Samajwadi Party [SP] being the main contenders. Out of 403 constituencies, the BJP managed to win 255 constituencies whereas SP came into power in 111 constituencies. In comparison to 2017, BJP's seats declined by 14 per cent, whereas the SP's seats increased by 16 per cent after five years.

Also read: UP Elections: Touching Stories of Migrant Workers' Suicides in Vast Interiors

More candidates with criminal cases against them elected

Apart from the basic election-based analysis, it is useful to look at the social composition of the candidates. The non-governmental organization  Association for Democratic Reforms [ADR], in its detailed analytical report, shows that almost half of the total elected candidates have criminal cases, and a much larger percentage of them are millionaires.

The absolute influence of muscle and money power in the UP elections transcends party lines. The ADR report shows that out of the 403 winning candidates in the 2022 elections, 51 per cent of candidates have criminal cases, 39 per cent of whom face serious allegations such as murder, rioting, and outraging the modesty of women, among other things. Interestingly, compared to the 2017 elections, both indicators have risen by 15 percent and 13 per cent each respectively.

Figure 2: Representing the percentage of self-declared criminal cases and 'crorepatis' of winning candidates from major political parties.

Figure 2 shows that among the 205 winning candidates with criminal cases, BJP accounts for the highest percentage (54 per cent) followed by SP (35 per cent), and the Rashtriya Lok Dal (3.4 per cent). These candidates are scattered across UP, and a significant chunk of them are located in the south-western part of UP. Interestingly, among these 205 candidates, the assets of 43 per cent amount to more than five crores each.

The question bears: does a tainted candidate have more chances of winning an election than the candidates with clean records? In an interview with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, scholar Milan Vaishnav explains that elections are getting costlier with time. Most parties tend to choose wealthy candidates with dubious crime records, which creates an intimate and intricate connection between crime and politics in society.

Also, people mostly gravitate toward the strongman because the government fails to cater to the masses on socio-economic and political levels. Strongmen have the leverage of being more grounded, while their power and wealth create a perception that they would fulfil people's needs, which is why, as per Vaishnav's research, a tainted candidate is thrice more likely to win an election than a candidate with a clean record.

The candidate Yogesh Verma, who contested the election from the SP, has numerous criminal cases on him that consist of rioting, attempted murder, and dacoity. Interestingly, Verma's brother Rajan has dismissed the cases, saying that his brother helps his community's upliftment and the criminal charges remain baseless. When law and order fail to impart justice, the needs of the people are fulfilled in their own dubious ways, often at the cost of democracy.

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Indian Constitution in 2001 criticized the shifting dynamics between criminals and politicians in India. The commission arraigned that a stage has been reached where politicians openly boast about their criminal credentials and politicians seek refuge under the protection of criminals. In turn, these criminals seek power from the politicians, and become legislators and ministers, which is a worrisome trend nowadays. It also criticized the role of the Election Commission for being powerless in terms of debarring criminals from entering into politics, and suggested some radical reforms.

The growing entry of criminals into politics also increases the chances of abuse of public office for private gains. The matter is not far from reality; in December 2017, for instance, the UP government quashed a pending criminal cases against its Chief Minister Adityanath.

Academic Malte Pehl argues that the emergence of criminals in politics happens due to the regional candidate's overarching ambitions of using state-level elections as a springboard for national-level politics. Pehl named this phenomenon a 'trickle-down effect' where state-level politics becomes a breeding ground for tainted candidates to flourish and seek entry into national politics. For instance, Bal Kumar Patel, who was a member of the Lok Sabha from the Indian National Congress Party in 2009, began his political career in the SP, had ten pending cases against him in 2009, which include murder, rioting, criminal intimidation, kidnapping, and so on.

What is the genealogy behind the criminalization of politics in UP?

Vaishnav, in his book 'When Crime Pays: Money and Muscle in Indian Politics', points out that the indirect role of muscle power in benefiting politicians was entrenched in the independence period itself when booth capturing was a common phenomenon across Indian states.

However, the increased 'criminal-to-candidate' transition started from the 1980s Lok Sabha election. Sanjay Gandhi primarily mobilized pro-Congress storm troopers to fight the Janata government. Gandhi provided tickets to loyal muscle men in exchange for their services, particularly in UP, back then Gandhi's home turf, where the muscle men were used to oppose the influence of the rival Janata party on behalf of Congress party.

The illegitimate use of goons in politics has given ample space to criminalize politics in India. Hence, the 'post-emergency fallout' was a period when such tactics were used by the Congress party, which slowly became a norm within the other parties as well.

Also read: There is an urgent need to reform the functioning of the ECI

Growing money power

Apart from the increasing entry of criminals into politics, candidates with high wealth have also entered into politics. According to ADR, out of the 403 winning candidates in UP, 366 candidates' individual wealth share is more than one crore rupees. In Figure 2, it is clear that the BJP (64 percent) has the largest number of 'crorepatis' in the UP assembly, followed by the SP (27 percent), and then Apna Dal (Sonelal) (2.5 percent).

Figure 3: Correlating the total wealth and voting percentage for the 30 richest winning candidates in 2022 UP assembly elections.

(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/uUDTq/1/)

Figure 4: Correlating the total wealth and voting percentage of those candidates who lost to the 30 richest candidates in 2022 UP assembly elections.

(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/I9UcE/1/ )

As the cost of elections increases, parties generally tend to choose candidates with more wealth. Does the greater wealth share of candidates affect the candidate's voting percentage positively in elections? A comparative analysis of Figures 3 and 4 can sort out the doubts. In figure 3, it is noticeable that the top 30 richest winning candidates have also received an increased percentage of vote share in the elections. In figure 4, the percentage of votes has drastically decreased for those candidates with a lesser cumulative wealth compared to their winning rivals. Among these 30 constituencies, 10-12 candidates are noticeable in figure 3 who have won their constituencies by an excess margin of eight-ten percentage compared to their rival candidates in figure 4.

Political parties across India usually look for self-financing candidates who could fund the party's coffers with heavy donations. The increasing level of wealthy candidates has now become a permanent trend among regional parties in India. The primary reason is that national parties manage to collect money because they have a more grounded social base. It makes party politics competitive, and consequently, the regional parties also look for various means, and self-financing candidates turn out to be a way for them to satisfy the monetary demands of the party.

The scholar Neelanjan Sircar in his essay Money in Elections: The Role of Personal Wealth in Electoral Outcomes contends that electoral campaigning has been getting expensive, and candidates usually see fighting elections as a chance for economic investment in their future. This subsumes the whole process of contesting elections into an entrepreneurial decision. Parties usually associate personal wealth with greater chances of winning. In this sense, personal wealth becomes a significant factor in giving party tickets to the candidates. Both parties and candidates look to self-satisfy each other's demands through the 'winning-investment technique.'

Sircar's perspective holds ground; the ADR report shows most of the candidates who have been re-elected in the 2022 UP assembly election have grown their total wealth drastically. Their average income holds around eight crore rupees. The short time investment into elections provides long term benefits the candidates both in terms of wealth and power, with the political parties generally gaining a greater hold on the social bases of their constituencies too.

Also read: The urgent need to modernise Indian elections

Muscle and money decide the fate of elections in India. In the case of UP, it becomes self-evident, not only for the politicians but even for the voters as well that criminals and economic elites are the only choices they have in every cycle of elections, and they are destined to vote for the 'least worse' candidate.

The problems of party financing in India, which have ample loopholes that give space for criminalization in politics, must be urgently looked into.