SOROOR AHMED argues that long drawn out process of election spread over several phases is not desirable as it leads to several problems.
With the long process of parliamentary election successfully coming to end it is now high time to look back and objectively assess the performance of the Election Commission. No doubt holding election in a country of India’s dimension is a daunting task and the Election Commission deserves appreciation for this yet what needs to be explained to the people is as to why it now takes so much time to hold election when there is so much technological advancement. We talk of electoral reforms but nobody questions as to why the whole process of election took one full month – from April 16 when the first phase of election took place to May 16, the day result was announced.
If in neighbouring Pakistan and Bangladesh – not to speak of developed western countries – election process can be over in a day or two why it takes one month in India. We are a much more matured democracy and have the experience of holding 15 parliamentary and innumerable assembly elections. It is not only in 2008 that these two countries of the sub-continent held elections in one day and within 24 hours the results were out; even in 1977 the entire election process of Pakistan was over within a couple of days – election as well as counting.
It may be argued in defence that we are a much bigger country, but then we have a much larger human resource base and well-knit infrastructure. After all Pakistan and Bangladesh are much more densely populated and have more difficult terrains than India and are plagued with much serious problems – especially the former.
Even in India till 1989, elections were held within a week time. It is with the advent of T N Seshan, first as the Election Commissioner and subsequently as the Chief Election Commissioner, that the election became a protracted month-long process. In 1989 elections took place on November 20, 22 and 24. A couple of days later counting started and on December 1, 1989 V P Singh took oath as the Prime Minister of the Janata Dal-led alliance government. This was the period when there was no electronic voting machines, no computers and no good roads to transport ballot papers to the counting centres. Not only that, there was a big turmoil in large parts of north India and Bhagalpur in Bihar was still burning.
When the first election was held under the supervision of T N Seshan in 1991 it was spread in May-June. It was in between this prolonged election that Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on May 21, 1991. The question is what changed within one year and a half that prompted Election Commission to prolong the whole process so much? But none in the country asked the question. Instead everyone went on to applaud some cosmetic changes made by maverick Seshan because in the high time of Mandal polarization he was seen as the man who would teach lessons to the backward caste leaders in north India. In fact just the opposite happened and the parties championing the cause of Mandal Commission only consolidated themselves in UP and Bihar.
After 1991 election it became a habit of sort for the Election Commission to prolong the poll process at will. For example the 1995 assembly election of Bihar took place within a span of one and a half month. What is most ridiculous is the 2005 assembly election of Haryana. The polling took place on February 3 but the counting was held on February 27. For full 24 days there was complete anarchy in the state bureaucracy. The logic provided by the Election Commission was fantastic. It said that the result of Haryana would affect results in Bihar which also went to the three-phase poll in February 2005. Therefore, the counting should be held on the same day, that is, February 27 in both the states. Both Haryana and Bihar were ruled by entirely different regional parties – Indian National Lok Dal and Rashtriya Janata Dal – and even the main contenders were different. Thus there was absolutely no reason for the result of one place to have any impact on the other state.
Three years later the Election Commission contradicted its own stand. Assembly elections were held in November 2008 in Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and their results were announced by the end of the month. To declare the results of the four states the Commission did not wait for the completion of Jammu and Kashmir election even when the polling process started almost simultaneously. Elections in Jammu and Kashmir concluded only after a fortnight.
Since nobody is challenging the Election Commission on this count it is taking its own time. In the name of reforms the Election Commission can not hold the country to ransom, and that too at the crucial time when the financial year begins. Does the EC know the impact of this protracted election process on the country as a whole, on the average people, farmers, petty traders, daily wage earners, students, especially those engaged in competitive and other examinations? Candidates who appeared in the recent competitive examinations had a harrowing time while travelling to examination centres in far off cities. This happened even in 2004 parliamentary election, yet no corrective steps were taken.
However, the long draw-out election process comes as a windfall for the media barons, advertisement firms, survey groups and those working in them such as journalists, admen and women etc. Newspapers, television channels, websites, telephone companies etc had the harvesting time, that too at the cost of small time publishers and pamphlet makers. The bureaucrats got an opportunity to function as the undisputed king and at places they settled scores with local politicians too.
Thus longer the election process the more profitable it is for the non-political ruling elite of the country. None would question the Election Commission on this count. Any debate on the electoral reforms would remain confined to putting some checks and restrictions on the political parties and candidates contesting the election.