People's Democracy

Election Commission: Debate Reforms, Not Accuse The CPI(M)

Prakash Karat

THE CPI(M)’s critique of the functioning of the Election Commission and presenting a case for its reform has been met with a volley of criticism from a section of the media and the BJP. Two national newspapers have published editorials calling upon the Party to desist from weakening the Commission. The BJP has been expectedly more strident with Arun Jaitley calling the CPI(M) document a “complete charter for rigging”. None of them have refuted the main arguments set out in the document.

The Hindustan Times editorial is singular for its frivolousness and anti-Communist bias. It makes the absurd suggestion that the attack on the EC has been launched because the office of profit issue is before the EC for consideration. The problem with the EC’s attitude to West Bengal elections began much before. It was manifest during the Lok Sabha polls in 2004 and emerged with a vengeance in the run up to and announcement of the assembly elections. The other ridiculous suggestion in the editorial is that the attack on the EC stems from the necessity to “keep some of the CPI(M)’s renegade cadre-level leaders in West Bengal happy without chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya having to cook up a new role for them”. It is doubtful whether the editorial writer himself understands what is meant by such an assertion.

QUESTION OF STATE’S POWERS

The critics of the CPI(M) have not responded to the main points in the Party’s document.

1. Is it right or wrong to completely exclude the state police from manning the polling booths on polling day and handing over this job exclusively to the central paramilitary forces? Is this not a violation of the Constitutional arrangement and the state’s powers regarding law and order?

If the critics contend it is right for the EC to exclude the state police completely, then will they accept that this should then apply to all states? Will Arun Jaitley agree to the state police in Gujarat being excluded completely from the poll process, given its proven communal bias? The CPI(M) does not accept the exclusion of the state police in any state from deployment in the polling booths. What it can accept is the joint stationing of state and central forces.

2. Can the Election Commission impugn the integrity of state government employees just because they are unionised? What is the difference between state government employees association in West Bengal and in Tamilnadu, or for that matter Gujarat? Surely the EC cannot decide what type of trade union affiliations are acceptable or not. The EC will be treading dangerous ground it if it considers the affinity of the employees to Left ideology as inimical to free and fair polls but overlooks the links with RSS of sections of employees in BJP-ruled states.

3. The West Bengal polls have brought the role of central observers into sharp focus. Can the EC brief them to conduct activities assuming executive powers riding roughshod over the state administration? Can they entertain false complaints from opponents and order raids on CPI(M) party offices, houses of CPI(M) supporters and brand voters as Bangladeshi citizens and get them arrested? 

4. Can the EC take steps to curb inexpensive political campaigning like wall writing and postering? What law provides for depriving a citizen from hoisting a party flag in his or her own house? Such an illegal step was enforced in West Bengal. Matters went to such a ridiculous extent that observers ordered the hauling down of Red flags from trade union offices. The Red flag with hammer and sickle is not the copyright of the CPI(M) or any other party. It is a sui generis symbol adopted by all working class organisations.

What sense is there in the EC’s decision to allow crores of rupees to be spent on advertising and the use of helicopters by parties like the BJP and the Congress while the CPI(M) is barred from deploying its cadres to write its political message on the walls of houses of citizens whose permission has been obtained.

Can the EC’s claim that states will be treated differently on the stages of polling, the type of campaigning allowed, restrictions on political activists, activities of central observers etc be accepted without critical scrutiny. The fact that West Bengal had a five-phase polling, more than the four-phase polling in terrorist violence affected Jammu & Kashmir in 2002 surely needs an explanation. Can the EC explain why Tamilnadu required only a one-day poll while Kerala needed a three-day poll?

The CPI(M) is advised to give up its critique of EC functioning by citing the big victory of the Left Front in the assembly elections. The huge victory is proof that the EC has done a good job – so lay off the EC, so goes the refrain. In fact, the Left Front registered such a big victory despite the EC’s efforts to thwart such a result. If there had been only a two-phase poll, as in the past; if 9 lakh voters had not been arbitrarily removed after the finalisation of the voters’ list and if the CPI(M) had been allowed to conduct an extensive political campaign through its traditional methods, the results would have been better.

The problem is that the EC had decided well in advance that elections in West Bengal are not held in a free and fair manner. It may be recalled that during the Lok Sabha elections in 2004 the EC had proposed to bring 50 per cent of the polling staff from outside the state. In a circular to the chief secretaries of neighbouring states like Assam and Orissa, the Commission had asked for government employees to be drafted for poll duty in the state. The interference by central observers was seen in that election too. What was planned for the assembly elections was nothing less than a full scale “Operation” in the name of creating a “level playing field” for the opposition. The resort to dubious extraordinary measures cannot be justified under the powers vested with the Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution.

ANTI-COMMUNIST PREJUDICE

The Indian Express editorial poses the question whether “the Left’s anger against the EC” is a reflection “that it hasn’t quite come to terms with the concept of checks and balances”. This is an important issue which has been posed wrongly. A quick look at political history would show that the Constitutional set-up has been misused time and again against the Left. There was intolerance of the Communist party right from the time it decided to enter parliamentary politics. In 1959, its first elected ministry was dismissed. Article 356 was not so blatantly misused till then. It was later utilised repeatedly in West Bengal. It is by fighting against the arbitrary use of the Article 356, in which the CPI(M) played a major role, that some “checks and balances” were brought in later through the Bommai judgement on the use of this power to dismiss elected state governments.

It is the consistent concern of the CPI(M) that the rights of states should not be eroded and the federal structure strengthened. The EC's recent actions have encroached on some of these powers. There has to be some “checks and balances” to ensure that the EC does not act on the unstated premise that virtual president’s rule should be imposed on a state where elections are being held.

The CPI(M)’s overall record, we can claim, has been to expand democratic rights and to strengthen parliamentary democracy, not weaken it. The EC is a vital institution in this regard. But the EC presided over by bureaucrats cannot be allowed to restrict political campaigning and attenuate people’s participation. It is a typical bureaucratic response to view with suspicion high polling in West Bengal and Kerala. They fail to comprehend that it is the Left politics which has deepened political participation in these states. If there is 90 per cent polling in a booth, the EC orders a special enquiry, while it should be seen as a triumph of popular participation.

It is this same outlook which directed the EC to take the illegal and extraordinary step of prohibiting a citizen from putting up a flag, poster or banner in support of the candidate he or she supports in their own house. This single act itself vitiated the basic right of a citizen. Can this be tolerated in any democratic system? Is there any recourse for thousands of citizens whose names were deleted from the voters list and who could not vote on polling day? Is there any recourse for a citizen who was ordered to be arrested by a central election observer on the false charge of being a Bangladeshi?

PARTISAN, WHO?

Coming back to Arun Jaitley, he accuses the CPI(M) of having lost its moral authority by supporting the appointment of a “partisan person” to the EC. The BJP has established a new precedent by taking to the streets to remove an election commissioner. One would like to know how Jaitley defines a “partisan person”? When the BJP-led government was in office, they appointed a commissioner, N Gopalaswami, who is now the CEC. Gopalaswami was the home secretary under L K Advani. Earlier being from the Gujarat cadre he served under the Narendra Modi government before being brought to the centre by Advani. By Jaitely’s standards would this be considered a partisan appointment?

The CPI(M) has not focused on any individual in the Commission. What it has raised are the grey areas in the Commission’s functioning and the clear evidence of bias.

DR AMBEDKAR ON ROLE OF EC 

The Election Commission has to be made accountable. This, according to Arun Jaitely, is because the CPI(M) wants “the subjugation of the Election Commission to a monitoring body” and he goes on to claim that this will be “destructive of the independence of the EC.” The editorials cited earlier also tend to make the same point. Those who reject the CPI(M)’s demand for accountability are blinkered by their anti-communist prejudices. They should heed the views of Dr B R Ambedkar, the architect of the Constitution. In the Constituent Assembly debates on the role of the Election Commission, Dr Ambedkar was greatly exercised about how to ensure the appointment of the right type of person to the Election Commission so that the vital task enjoined upon the Commission by the Constitution can be fulfilled. While summing up the discussion on the amendments to the relevant clauses in the Draft Constitution, Dr Ambedkar said: 

“Now with regard to the question of appointment I must confess that there is a great deal of force in what my friend Professor Saksena said that there is no use making the tenure of the Election Commissioner a fixed and secure tenure if there is no provision in the Constitution to prevent either a fool or a knave or a person who is likely to be under the thumb of the Executive. My provision – I must admit – does not contain anything to provide against nomination of an unfit person to the post of the Chief Election Commissioner or the other Election Commissioners. I do want to confess that this is a very important question and it has given me a great deal of headache and I have no doubt about it that it is going to give this House a great deal of headache.” (Constituent Assembly of India, June 16, 1949, Vol 8, Page 928)

After mulling over the problem, Dr Ambedkar then states:

“The Drafting Committee had paid considerable attention to this question because as I said it is going to be one of our greatest headaches and as a via media it was thought that if this Assembly would give or enact what is called an Instrument of Instructions to the President and provide therein some machinery which it would be obligatory on the President to consult before making any appointment……” (Page 929)

Finally, no “instrument of instructions” was enacted by the Constituent Assembly. The problem that exercised Dr Ambedkar is still relevant today. The CPI(M) document on reform of the Election Commission suggests a constitutional mechanism to monitor and check if the Election Commission acts with political bias, usurps the powers of governments or does anything with mala fide intention. It has cited a Supreme Court judgment that advocates a mechanism to resolve differences between the Election Commission and the governments both at the state and central level. Dr Ambedkar’s “instrument of instructions” are being resurrected. Howsoever much Jaitely and the critics of the CPI(M) may dismiss this vital issue, the public debate for reform of the Election Commission cannot be avoided.

The CPI(M) is fully aware of the vital role of the Election Commission in our parliamentary democracy. It will conduct the debate and suggest reforms with the single and only purpose of strengthening the institution and maintaining its integrity.