SANGRAM MISHRA
Free and fair election constitutes the cardinal principle for the efficacy of a democratic system. Any bottleneck or hindrance to such a
concept and its actualization is not only anathematic but vitiates the system as well as its process to make the principle of rule by the
people a sham or a fiasco. The election is delineated as a formal group decision-making process by which people choose their
representatives and that forms the edifice of a democratic setup. The word election is derived from the Latin word ‘e' meaning out of
and ‘Lectus' meaning chosen. Election to truly manifest or reflect the will of the people, should be free and fair and therefore this
electoral dynamics has assumed importance in as much as it has invited many scathing diatribes regarding its effective
implementation.
The reasons for which electoral reforms are assuming significance is that the role and functioning of electoral and behavioral
dynamics (and anathematic things/situations affecting and transforming the election process into a fiasco) have shown aberrations
not only smear the mud of ineffectiveness on the functioning of democracy but also makes the novel (ideal) concept of
election/democracy scandalous and condescended. The conceptual definition of democracy in the Lincolnian expression ‘of the
people, by the people, and for the people' appears as a semantic window dressing. Though it's a gargantuan and humongous effort
to reform the process with about 27.5% of the population living under predicaments of poverty and impecuniosity and languishing
under the spell of illiteracy, it is the time to pummel and chisel out the concept for good governance. Electoral reforms generally
contribute to better participation by the citizens in electoral practices while reducing the role of corruption and enriching and
invigorating the functioning of democracy (in India).
A Country beset with a plethora of diversity and its unpleasant manifestations concerning religion, caste, language, customs and
beliefs, rich-poor gap, and diverse cognitive perceptions, etc, becomes a herculean task to mend. But we have a Hobson's choice in
hand. The sooner we adopt the change to transform/reform the electoral system, the better it is for the nation. The first and foremost
important factor that makes the election process a sham, is the negative role of money power. Not ideas, not principles but the money
that reigns supreme in politics. As has been depicted earlier, in a nation where about one-third of the population lives below the poverty
line (The literacy rate being equally low), as such money plays the obnoxious (ugly) role of exploiting the conditions of predicaments of
the people and human weaknesses and the spirit of the democracy is lost in the quagmire of monetary importance. Purchasing votes
taking account of the poverty of the people not only hinder the future of the nation but also stigmatizes democratic novelties and ideals.
Though the election commission has fixed expenditure limits for both MP and MLA elections but the clandestine role of money to
buy/woo voters belie any legal implication. The poverty-stricken people sell their ballots and unscrupulous politicians wielding the power
of money power rule unethically.
The other important aspect that ails and affects the electoral process is the criminalization of politics. Though one may not agree
with Plato regarding the concepts like philosopher kings it is desired that the ruler/representative of the people should be honest,
sincere, and fair bereft of criminality. The criminalization of politics has really affected the process of election and the mode of
governance. The criminal elements procure vote/mandate by threats/fear psychosis and the occurrence of violence makes a
mockery of the system. The entry of criminal elements into parliament and state legislature cripples and makes justice – social,
economic, and political a distant chimera. Over the past few years, the influence of criminals in political affairs is on a tremendous
rise. In Anukul Chandra Pradhan, vs union of India 1997, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the criminalization of politics is the
bane of the society and negation of democracy. It is subversive of a free and fair election. Criminalization of Politics has other
manifestations like booth capturing, intimidating voters, obtaining votes through intimidation, tampering of electoral rolls, large-scale
rigging, and large-scale violence after elections targeting people for not voting for the criminal elements.
The other important factors affecting electoral dynamics are divisive factors like religion, caste, language, customs, and belief. The
multifaceted diversities take a significant role in an already divided society. Still some parts of our country are dominated by the caste
factor, and it plays a predominant role in deciding who would rule taking into account people's herd mentality. The perceptional
distortion affects the concept of a free and fair process making democracy a fiasco.
Other factors which affect the electioneering process, can be stated as a lack of moral values with the candidates, a Machiavellian
approach to the election to win anyhow with unholy alliances and deep-rooted conspiracies mars the spirits of democracy. The other
most disturbing factor affecting the democratic process is regarding defection of members after elections. Fighting for a party before
or during the election and changing the stance and side after getting the mandate of the people is not only obnoxious but also
deplorable by any standard assessment.
The most important thing is to keep the electoral and behavioural dynamics free and fair, it is essential to reform them. Before
touching upon the essential dimensions of reform it is imperative to know about the connotations of reform and the reforms taken so
far. The knowledge is of paramount importance to formulate and proceed for further improvisation, addition, and pragmatic
implementation.
The word reform by its semantic connotation means to put or change into an improved form or condition, to amend or improve by
change of form or removal of fault or abuses, put an end to evil by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action and to
induce or cause to abandon evil ways. In general, it means an improvement by changing behavioural aspects and/or structure of the
system.
The word reform is derived from the Latin word reform meaning improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, or
unsatisfactory. The use of the word emerged in the late 18th century and is believed to have originated from Christopher Wyvill's
association movement identifying parliamentary reform as the primary aim. It is discernible that reform is antithetical to revolution.
Reform as such delineates a change in the present structure and behavioural dynamics to effect improvement. The question
arises as to why reform? Is there any other method to make the electoral process better? In a democratic system with a constitutional
framework, overhauling a process is difficult and may well nigh be impossible and not desirable. The wrong can be corrected through
reforms and amendments, to improvise the process to move towards the cherished goal of a free and fair election and a better
democratic setup.
In our country, the electoral process is governed by certain articles of the constitution of India, amendments, and many acts/laws
and judicial pronouncements, etc. Art 324 to art 329 in the constitution of India deals with election matters in part XV of the
constitution of India. Art 324 (i) rests the power of the superintendence, direction, and control of elections, etc in the election
commission of India. Art 324(2) deals with the composition of the election commission. The powers and functions of the election
commission as such can be delineated as administrative, advisory, and quasi-judicial. Apart from this, other acts/laws which deal with
the election process are the anti-defection law, the Representation of peoples Act, 1950, (preparation before the actual election)
Representation of people's Act, 1951 (makes provisions for the actual conduct of elections).
Fifty-second Amendment Act 1985 passed Anti defection Act (the Tenth schedule of the constitution of India) to check defection (a
serious malady in a democratic setup). Hon'ble Apex Court through landmark judgment also has initiated much-desired changes. In
Jan chaukidari vs Union of India, 2013, S.C pronounced that all those in lawful police or judicial custody other than those held in
preventive detention will forfeit their right to stand for election. In Lily Thomas vs Union of India, SC declared that those convicted are
disqualified from polls.
The Supreme Court also held that voters could exercise the option of negative voting and reject all candidates as unworthy by
pressing the NOTA (None of the above) option in EVM. Even the supreme court on a petition filed by advocate Subramanian Balaji
challenging the state's decision to distribute freebies (promised by political parties in their manifestos) said that the freebies shake the
root of free and fair polls and directed E.C. to frame guidelines for regulating the content of manifestos. S.C. in 2013 gave power to the
returning officer to reject the nomination paper of a candidate for non-disclosure and suppression of information, including that of assets
and their criminal backgrounds. It is seen in the plethora of judgments that the Hon'ble Apex Court has tried to touch on various aspects
that plague the electoral system. Before actually getting into the core of the problem/point, it is necessary and imperative to have a glance
over the reforms that have taken place hitherto to effect improvement in the process.
The various reforms taken up till 2000 can be listed as – lowering of voting age (61st amendment – lowering the voting age from 21
years to 18 years), increasing the number of proposers and in the number of security deposits, introducing Electronic voting machine
(EVM) (first introduced in the election of Delhi, MP, and Rajasthan), disqualification on conviction, restriction on contesting from more
than two constituencies, no countermanding of the election on account of deceased candidates. And the time limit for the by-election.
Some important reforms carried out post-2000 are a ceiling in election expenditure and restriction on exit polls. Awareness creation, not
eligible to contest in the event of conviction, etc. It is seen that these reforms have touched on some issues of the election process to
change it for the better. But despite the efforts and endeavours, it has not been possible to make the process free and fair. Reform
means to set things right and before setting things right it should be meticulously discerned as to where the shoe pinches. COURTESY: The
Pioneer
(The author is a superannuated senior IAS officer. The views
expressed are personal.)
