Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

Election, a democratic festival?

The 2008 general election to the Karnataka Assembly has just been completed largely peacefully. During my interactions in Bangalore and other parts of Karnataka which the Election Commission (EC) team visited, and from the newspaper reports and letters we received, I find the efforts of the EC to deliver a free and fair poll have been appreciated. The fact that there was no disfigurement of public places through posters, banners, wall writings, and so on, and that there wa s no noise pollution came in for praise from some sections of society. There was also the contrary view and criticism that the EC has robbed this democratic exercise of franchise by the citizen of its ‘spice and colour,’ stripping the festival of democracy of its vibrancy and investing it with the silence of the graveyard. For those who hold the latter view, the Election Commission is the villain of the piece.

Does the Commission deserve this reprobation? I am afraid not. Let me explain. Over the last ten to fifteen years, many States have passed anti-defacement legislation, prompted by the desire to keep their cities and towns clean and to prevent harassment to owners of private property. In many States, the legislation is quite stringent. There is prohibition to defacement of not only public property but also whatever is in ‘public view.’ Since most properties will be in ‘public view,’ this straightway excludes most of the private properties as well. Some have a provision that in respect of private property, permission can be taken from the private owner for display.

In actual practice, however, thanks to call it the innovativeness of the Indian mind, or the cockiness of those in power who can get away with any violation with impunity or are able to pressurise the officials concerned, the implementation of the law enacted is at best lukewarm. So a stringent law is enacted perhaps with full knowledge that like others this would fall by the wayside at the time of implementation. This syndrome is aptly called the ‘culture of impunity.’ No wonder therefore there is consternation, a cry of anguish, and an accusation of the throttling of democracy, as the stringency of the law hits home only when the EC asks for and monitors its implementation without exception!

There was the case of a State in which defacement of any kind was prohibited only in its metropolitan town and not elsewhere, though their law provided that it could be extended to the whole State. Citing the lack of a level playing field, the EC suggested to the State government that it extend the law to the entire State using its powers. The Commission was pleasantly surprised to find the State government extending the law to the entire State within a matter of days — only to be confronted by a vehement protest, of the ruling party of that State, against the Act itself. The State government repealed the legislation soon after the completion of the election.

In another State, advertisements were permitted only for the purpose of promoting tourism. The Commission was requested to relax the provisions so that political ads could be displayed during election time. This the Commission had no power to do. In the same State, it was permissible to display flags in private properties. When the Commission was willing to allow a flag in each house, the demand was voiced that either three or four flags must be permitted or none at all, because the house owners did not want to display the flag of one party and invite the wrath of others.

Many a time the complaints and representations to the Commission were that such permission was taken for granted or the house owners were threatened into submission if the Commission insisted upon written permission. Barring some cases, where conscientious candidates clean up the mess, it is left to the house owner to do the cleaning job at his or her own cost. No wonder the house owners are not in favour of any relaxation.

When there is no local law in regard to defacement, the Commission’s instruction prevails: this simply stipulates that public premises should not be defaced, and for private premises permission should be taken. So those who criticise the Commission for robbing the elections of ‘spice and colour’ are barking up the wrong tree. The Commission merely asks for implementation of the local law relating to anti-defacement and, if it happens to be stringent, the blame cannot be placed at the door of the Commission.

Has the strict implementation reduced the cost of contesting an election? To those parties — it may surprise many to be told that there are still some in our country — who believe in not violating the law relating to the ceiling on expenditure, the steps taken by the EC are welcome. For those parties and candidates who do not have the money power to undertake a campaign that can match their opponents poster-to-poster, banner-to-banner, vehicle-to-vehicle and meeting-to-meeting, the strict implementation is welcome. Party representatives, leaders, and candidates belonging to these two categories have time and again come before the Commission and appreciated the steps taken by it. This was the case in Karnataka and earlier in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat.

In Karnataka, the so-called ‘poor’ voter turnout in Bengaluru city was attributed to the lack of fanfare. This conclusion was drawn by taking Bengaluru Municipal Corporation area’s poll percentage alone, little realising that delimitation having interchanged areas between the Bengaluru urban election district and the Bengaluru Corporation (BBMP) election district, the two have to be taken together as one unit for comparison with 2004 polling figures. In the event, the drop in polling was just 1.81 percentage points but more importantly in urban Bengaluru, seven lakh more voters voted in this election compared with 2004. In urban Bengaluru, within constituencies there were wide variations in polling, with the maximum 85 per cent in one booth in Padmanabhanagar AC and the minimum a very poor 12 per cent in one booth in Sarvagnanagar AC. As for polling in the whole State, the voting percentage was lower by an insignificant 0.13 points. Fanfare or no fanfare, the conscientious voter turned out to vote.

A myth that is assiduously being propagated is that the strict implementation of the Act against defacement has lead to bribery of voters with cash, liquor etc., and other gifts. Nothing can be more untenable than this allegation because nobody who has closely watched the election scenario all these years can say that money and liquor did not play a part in all the elections before this in Karnataka or elsewhere. All these years, plying voters with liquor and money was made a habit in lesser or greater measure; it is now merely the case of the Frankenstein monster becoming bigger and bigger by the day. The total value of hard cash, liquor, and goodies seized in Karnataka was Rs. 45.57 crore, the highest value (by a wide margin) in any general election to a State in my four years in the EC.

Big spending in elections by parties and candidates is a manifestation of the festering disease of corruption and concealment of income leading to the generation of black money. If a candidate is willing to spend ten times more than the prescribed ceiling, it is not out of philanthropy but in the secure knowledge that he can earn ten times what he spends once he gets to the seat of power. Nothing can be more naïve than the thinking that the ban on flags and buntings has pushed up the expenditure levels higher. It can be nobody’s case that in the days of yore, of flags and buntings, the limit on election expenditure was not crossed. The only difference now is that the number of people who have ‘earned’ huge piles of cash has gone up considerably, thanks to the real estate boom, the mining boom, and whatever other booms we have had, and that money has raised the bar for the spending and made the envelopes pushed under the door fatter and fatter. If it was muscle power that was employed in the poorer States, it is money power now in the richer States.

If it is only ‘spice and colour’ we are looking for, then, I say, look at the anti-defacement law. If however there is concern over the danger posed by the growing power of money in politics and in elections, if we do not want our democracy to be hijacked by the demon of unaccounted wealth earned in unscrupulous ways and spent to grab the levers of power, let us sit up and take notice before it is too late. Let us not delude ourselves. Let us recognise that there is more danger in politics becoming the handmaiden of filthy lucre because unscrupulous candidates are hijacking elections with their money power — and not because the EC is implementing the anti-defacement law of every State strictly.

(N. Gopalaswami is India’s Chief Election Commissioner.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

A rosy picture still
Welcome initiative
Election, a democratic festival?
BJP’s caste politics and the Gujjars
Corrections and clarifications
NREGA hits buses to Mumbai
Energy imperatives and the untapped potential
Gujjar agitation
Stop media trial
Dream team
On vegetarianism

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu