With almost 900 million Indians having the opportunity to vote in around 10,35,918 polling stations set up across the length and breadth of the country, the 2019 General Elections is yet another marvel of an exercise conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI). While 2014 was an overwhelmingly one-sided contest with the then incumbent embattled with a huge fatigue factor in addition to the aspirational campaign by the current PM Narendra Modi, the political scenario five years later is much more complex and thus, difficult to predict. At such a juncture, a piece by Dr Mukulika Banerjee, an anthropologist and Director of LSE South Asia Centre caught my attention.
Basically, the author opines that 2019 drastically stands apart from the rest of the elections as far as the parameter of fair play is concerned. Before judging it one way or the other, I shall try to address some of her arguments like loss of credibility of ECI, breach of vote secrecy, the Prime Minister’s failure to answer questions, etc.
Firstly, though the repeated clean chits to PM Modi and BJP President Amit Shah on complaints of Model Code of Conduct (MCC) violations amidst dissent by one Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa have given rise to the feeling that the ECI is partisan, it will be myopic to paint the entire election with the same brush. The same ECI did not hesitate to ban both the commercial film as well as the web series on Modi. In fact, it was quite stinging in its criticism describing the film as a ‘hagiography.’ Furthermore, action has been taken against a sitting Cabinet minister in the Central government as well as Yogi Adityanath, the Chief Minister of the largest state in the country.
Here, it is necessary to clarify the author’s contention of a ‘retired’ soldier being debarred from contesting elections in Varanasi. To begin with, he was dismissed from his service and the Supreme Court too did not find merit in his plea that the ECI was incorrect. His paperwork proved to be the real problem. Thus, there should be a conscious attempt not to conflate issues.
Notwithstanding the fact that dissent pans out in a rather ugly fashion, we should not lose sight of how the ECI has functioned in the past. Whether it is the then Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) N. Gopalaswami officially writing to the President of India calling for the sacking of Navin Chawla, one of the Election Commissioners for his alleged pro-Congress bias ahead of the 2009 elections or the induction of MS Gill, a former CEC into the cabinet, the ECI has evolved through a turbulent phase.
Essentially, the debate around the role of the ECI stems from a misunderstanding of what constitutes the MCC. Unlike what most people assume, MCC is not akin to running a police state – arresting people and cancelling candidature of a candidate on whims and fancies. It is a set of guidelines morally binding on political parties but not enforceable in a court of law. As the guidelines are quite comprehensive in nature, the interpretation might vary in every case. For instance, Rahul Gandhi’s “chowkidar chor hai” jibe will run afoul of the MCC guidelines strictly going by the rulebook. Does it imply that he should be debarred from the polls? Hence, there must be a healthy balance between politicians getting away with crass language and their right to effective political communication.
Similarly, Dr Banerjee’s point about Totalizer machines is well taken. Indeed, voting patterns need to be masked in order to prevent political parties favouring or discriminating against specific group of people. However, it is a process that has commenced just about a decade ago and hence, it is unrealistic to expect political parties, including the incumbent to immediately embrace such reforms.
The Totalizer machine was not used in 2009 and 2014 either. Just as the opposition to Electronic Voting Machines considerably reduced over a huge time span, the aforesaid machine too will hopefully gain acceptance very soon. Thereafter, the author’s case about Modi distancing himself from taking tough questions of the media and not giving uncensored interviews is an interesting one. Although this is a highly desirable component of any democracy, the Indian experience throws up mixed results. Not just Modi, but a series of politicians including Mayawati, Mamata Banerjee, Jayalalithaa, and Naveen Patnaik have not interacted freely with the media when in power. In fact, did Sonia Gandhi, the Chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance government, touted as the real power behind the throne ever address a press conference from 2004 to 2014? So, the fact remains that Modi is neither the first nor will he be the last politician in power to keep the mainstream media at arm’s length!
Another set of issues pegged by the author are the lopsided campaign finance and the extensive use of WhatsApp. One, there is considerable merit to the argument that in the wake of introduction of electoral bonds, the ruling party stands to gain the most. Rightfully so, the scheme is under scrutiny by the Supreme Court. But, even if it is declared unconstitutional, the opacity in funding of political parties and their refusal to come under the Right to Information Act pre-date this and have remained unresolved over the years.
In India, the nature of governance implies that business tends to be on the right side of the ruling party especially if it has a simple majority in the legislature. Thus, it is not highly unusual for BJP to get more funds than the opposition parties. As far as targeted campaigning using social media is concerned, it is a contentious, yet legitimate tool used by political parties across the world to reach out to every possible voter.
As a student of modern political campaigning, I have heard considerable first-hand accounts of targeted campaigns used during the Brexit referendum and the 2017 General Elections in the UK. The ethical dimensions of this exercise are subject to a larger debate, but India can’t be singled out for adopting a global trend.
Fundamentally, the nature of elections in any country should be assessed taking on board the sheer complexities and unique circumstances involved. Therefore, unlike the author, I believe that barring for a few anomalies, the 2019 polls have been free and fair to a great extent. Of course, the ECI must aspire to achieve the maximum level of fairness, but to suggest that 2019 is radically different from some of the recent elections is a misnomer.