The triumvirate of the Election Commission of India (ECI) – Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Rajiv Kumar, and Election Commissioners Anup Chandra Pandey and Arun Goel – visited poll-bound Karnataka on March 9 for a three-day visit. The officials departed after meeting representatives of various political parties, government officials, and mediapersons. However, they seemingly had no time or inclination to meet civil society representatives, and hear their myriad complaints and suggestions on major issues concerning the integrity of the forthcoming Karnataka Assembly election.
This conduct only makes it apparent that the ECI has of late become opaque, secretive and unresponsive towards the electorate’s genuine concerns. The Election Commissioners must realise that they are not placed in such an exalted position by ‘We, the people of India’ only to bring political parties to power. They are present on behalf of the people to sustain democracy and make it vibrant, and this cannot be done without civil society’s close involvement.
During the ECI team’s visit to Karnataka, CEC Rajiv Kumar acknowledged in a press conference on March 11 that a major concern in the state right now is the use of “money power” by politicians. He said that in Karnataka, the ECI would be placing extra emphasis on preventing the flow of freebies and cash to influence voters. “We want to… ensure that illegal or irregular inflow of any freebies or money or liquor is strictly guarded and not allowed,” the CEC said.
Stating that the ECI would keep a strict vigil on the distribution of money online, the CEC urged the state agencies not to wait for a ‘muhurat’ (auspicious time) of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) but to extensively use sections 171B (bribery) and 171E (punishment for bribery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against violators.
This is easier said than done. While the CEC is strategising about ‘wholesale’ or large-scale corruption, ‘retail’ bribery has been flourishing right under the nose of state and Union government authorities. For instance, in January, Karnataka BJP MLA and former state Minister Ramesh Jarkiholi announced at a rally in Belagavi that the party would pay Rs 6,000 per vote. Even in Bengaluru, voters from low-income households are being given cash up to Rs 2,000 and a variety of gifts from sarees to LED TVs and cookers, with the ECI and local authorities not lifting a finger.
Elections are the essence of democracy, and integrity is the salt whose flavour is indispensable. Cash-for-votes scandals could deprive elections of this salt! Political parties openly brandishing ‘money power’ demoralises voters, as many of them end up losing hope in the possibility of a ‘free and fair election.’ Therefore, such practices need to be effectively countered by the ECI, in collaboration with the civil society.
In this context, it is worthwhile to look at Tamil Nadu as a case study. The venality or openness to corruption inculcated by offering cash to voters was institutionalised during the Thirumangalam Assembly bye-election in January 2009. The constituency in Madurai district saw bribes of Rs 1,000 to Rs 2,000 per vote being openly offered to voters. This practice was carried forward on a larger scale during the general election in May 2009, and was refined further in the Pennagaram Assembly bye-election in March 2010. In the absence of an effective counter from the ECI as well as civil society, the ‘Thirumangalam formula’ of cash-for-votes evolved further, and was touted as a guaranteed blueprint for winning the 2011 state Assembly election.
Forum for Electoral Integrity, a civil society coalition with this writer as its convener, was formed in August 2010 as a counter to this wicked formula. In its network, the coalition had several non-governmental organisations, civil society organisations and eminent personalities including former Chief Election Commissioners of India, former Chief Electoral Officers of Tamil Nadu and retired senior civil servants, journalists, professionals, and lawyers. The ECI, with SY Quraishi as the Chief Election Commissioner at the time, was also closely associated with this initiative.
Focused on youngsters, Forum for Electoral Integrity interacted with thousands of college students. These interactions highlighted a severe disconnect between first-time voters and the electoral system. The Forum encouraged students to reject bribes for votes, and emphasised the perils of making such a choice.
Based on the Forum’s inputs, the ECI issued detailed instructions for curbing any attempts to bribe voters. Police and Income Tax officials seized lakhs of rupees being moved for bribes. The pushback yielded satisfactory results, restoring the integrity of elections to a large extent. A strong takeaway that emerged from the Tamil Nadu experience was the potency of the ECI working in tandem with civil society.
The efforts before the 2011 Tamil Nadu election were made when the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) was in force. In Karnataka, however, the MCC is still a couple of weeks away. What can ECI do at the moment, since the CEC has flagged the matter as a major concern? Besides invoking relevant provisions of the IPC against violators, the ECI must also invoke Rule 16A of The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. This rule pertains to the power of the ECI to “suspend or withdraw recognition of a recognised political party” for failing to either observe MCC or follow lawful directions of the Election Commission.
The Commission can exercise this power after giving the political party reasonable opportunity to show cause, in relation to the action proposed to be taken against it. Though the harsh action (of withdrawing recognition) may not actually materialise, initiating the process itself can have an intimidating, beneficial effect on those ravaging the integrity of elections.
Electoral corruption is a clear and present danger to India’s electoral democracy, and desperate times call for desperate remedies. If the ECI does not act now, it would amount to a grave abdication of its constitutional duty.
MG Devasahayam is a former Army and Indian Administrative Service officer, and convener, Forum for Electoral Integrity. Views expressed are the author’s own.