EC’s deep credibility crisis

As the 2019 poll campaign kicked off, a few unprecedented civil society initiatives deserve to be recalled.   

One, 66 civil servants complained to the President of India that the Election Commission (EC) was partisan and batting for the party in government. These senior bureaucrats include former Union secretaries and a CEO of Prasar Bharati.  

A week later, as Pulwama and Balakot turned into a poll campaign rhetoric, over 150 military veterans sent a letter to the President of India, protesting against the politicalisation of armed forces. These signatories include three former army chiefs and two ex-navy chiefs.  

Third, it is also relevant to recall that in January 2018, four sitting senior judges of the Supreme Court addressed an open press conference to express their concern about pressures on the independence of the judiciary in the country.  

What prompted so many senior citizens to go out of their way to express such misapprehensions? Obviously, the EC’s repeated  insensitivity.   

Instances of such inaction are too many to recount. Despite the Election Commission’s warning not to use the army’s good name in the course of the poll campaign, important party leaders have been repeatedly referring to the Pulwama attack and the Balakot airstrike. The ECI has not been able to call for explanations from leaders claiming credit for bravery of the forces.  

Even in the case of reported hate and objectionable speeches by party leaders during the campaign, it is only now under mounting public pressure and Supreme Court scrutiny, that the EC has issued temporary bans on four such leaders.   

The list is long. Since the March 10 Election Commission notification on the poll schedule, residents and offices of some select opposition leaders, their associates and supporters were raided by central government agencies, including income tax and revenue.  

Raids were conducted in Karnataka, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, states run by non-BJP opposition parties. The timing of raids were meant to demoralise and defame the opposition parties on the eve of polls.  

Then again, despite Supreme Court’s clear directives not to refer to religious divisions, leaders continue to do so and the Commission has not been able to go beyond asking some of them for 'explanations.'

Other blatant violations of the Code of Conduct were reported prominently after the EC, whose mandate it is to proactively take tough measures, remained dilly-dallying until such information become public knowledge.    

These include release of the biopic on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the launch of NaMO TV, a 24-hour DTH channel, devoted to wooing voters.   

That this channel is violative of four different Acts, did not bother the Commission. In both the instances, the ECI tried to do a balancing act, instead of taking corrective action.   

Even here, it acted only after two letters to the President become public. That the trailer of the biopic was all over TV channels and the social media for weeks without any permission or clearance, did not bother the Election Commission.  

Earlier, when the election schedule was announced, there were atleast two biopics released in Telugu and Marathi meant for the poll campaign. They figured prominently in the news media with eleborate trailers in cinema and on TV, but even then the Commission refused to intervene.  

Even as the poll schedule was announced, the Commission was accused of allowing the party in power to take a tactical lead. The ruling BJP took major decisions, inaugurating important new projects.  

The EC was also accused of allowing state governments to take certain decisions and spend government money just before the poll notification.  

The Commission has been unable to offer a convincing explaination as to why it had to go in for a seven-phase polling stretching over 47 days.  

There are many earlier instances of India holding Lok Sabha polls in three phases. Now with upgraded technology and better facilities, there is no reason why it should be stretched so long. In the absence of any cogent explanation, rumours dent the Commission’s credibility.  

Then again, an unusual number of on-line applications for removing names from the voter list were acted upon without verification and many others protesting against massive deletion of names, particularly in some sensitive areas, were ignored, without so much as offering an explaination as to why it was done.     

In the assembly elections to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana late last year, a few million names were removed from the voter list. Earlier, the ECI did nothing in Telangana when more than a million names were dropped, a pattern that repeated itself in Andhra Pradesh.    

Amusingly, after the results for the Telangana assembly elections were announced, the Election Commision apologised for not restoring the voting rights of so many.  

Yet, it changed the Chief Secretary, the police chief and a few district collectors going against the wishes of the state government, without explaining the compulsions for such abrupt transfers.  

The Supreme Court had earlier suggested that voters be made aware of the candidates with criminal backgrounds, asking the Election Commission to do the needful.

And yet, at the end of the first phase of polling on April 10, the Commission had done nothing substantial. In the absence of EC coming up with any initiatives, the Supreme Court had intervened and reminded them about their rights and privileges.

Author is a pioneer in applied social research with 50 years standing