BUILDING FAITH IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS

By JAMES MICHAEL LYNGDOH Chief Election Commissioner,
Election Commission of India
Presented at the 2003 Magsaysay Awardees' Lecture Series
Magsaysay Center, Manila, 28 August 2003

My citation says the award is for my convincing 'validation of free and fair elections as the foundation and best hope of secular democracy in strife-torn India' and refers to the 2002 State Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir and Gujarat.

Jammu and Kashmir is a Muslim majority State in the northern extremity of India, bordering Pakistan. Following the end of British paramountcy, the State was invaded by raiders from Pakistan and its Hindu maharaja acceded to India to secure military support and India accepted the accession on the understanding that after hostilities had ended there would be a plebiscite enabling the people to opt for either India or Pakistan. The plebiscite never took place, Pakistan not having fulfilled the preconditions. Indo-Pakistan wars in 1965 and 71 and an undeclared one in 1999 did not settle the issue, but were substituted by sponsored terrorism from across the border. In the course of time, being a part of the Indian Union was seen to have eroded the State's autonomy. And poll-rigging, -- with the exception of the 1977 elections -- and the general perception that various elected Governments had been manipulated from Delhi had exacerbated the problem. The limited objective of the 2002 elections was as free and fair an electoral process as possible, as a beginning to a possible political settlement.

In Gujarat the communal riots of February-March 2002, the latest in a series, had not only killed more than a thousand people but had happened with the connivance of the State Government and without any attempt by the police to stop them. The State Government tried to exploit the communal divide it had helped to create by prematurely dissolving the Assembly with an eye to early elections.

When visiting the State, the Election Commission found hundreds of thousands of Muslim voters had shifted residence, and the electoral rolls required to be modified to show their changed addresses. Special polling arrangements at their new addresses had to be made. Also, sufficient time had to be allowed to elapse for Muslim voters to lose their fear and be prepared to vote. By its 16th August order the Election Commission provided the time needed for all this and refused to be hurried into an unfair election. It thus tangled with the Gujarat Government and the Government of India. The response to the Government of India's Presidential reference to the Supreme Court validated the Election Commission's prerogative in fixing the date for polling so as to achieve free and fair elections.

Both elections were widely accepted as free and fair, and in the public perception were not only seen together but as mutually complementary. The 16th August Gujarat order of the Election Commission provided it with the credibility it had never had before vis-a-vis Jammu and Kashmir. Good elections that saw 44% voting in Jammu and Kashmir, that toppled the National

Conference government, then increased the Election Commission's reputation for impartiality in the Gujarat elections, the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party in Gujarat -- having accused the Commission of being biased against Hindus -- being returned to power.

The Commission's capital achievement in these elections was the assertion of its independence at a time when some leading politicians and Governments in power were doing their best to cleave Indian society on communal lines. The Commission's action somehow kept society together, though precariously. It therefore gave back to the Indian citizen the sense of belonging to one country as well as his inherent pride in a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic and multi-religious harmony.

It also returned to the voter his sense of security and faith in democracy.

It decisively reclaimed Jammu and Kashmir for democracy.

There were several major factors contributing to the success of the Jammu and Kashmir elections. The first related to the Election Commission's 16th August 2002 order on Gujarat. When we were visiting Kashmir on the 18th August a Kashmiri lady congratulated me as I got into the aircraft in Delhi. Then one of the airhostesses wanted to wear my jacket which I had handed over to be stowed away. On the other side, in Srinagar, elated government officials and Army Commanders congratulated the Election Commissioners individually -- something Generals in the Indian Army do not do with civilians, normally considering them beneath contempt. Kashmiri politicians also took the approaching elections more seriously. It was just as well for without this faith in the democratic process and the Election Commission, the elections no matter how fair would never have been perceived as such by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Confidence building was further augmented by inducting 5,000 polling personnel from the States of Uttar Pradesh and Punjab.

The electoral rolls there had not been intensively revised for 14 years and carried the names of dead voters and voters who had shifted elsewhere. The rolls were clumsy, consisting of the mother rolls of 1988 and 14 annual supplementary rolls obtained through summary revision. They were also illegible with continuous xeroxing. The rolls were not only rectified through a special revision but actually computerised. They were required to be in Urdu in the Nastalik script and computerisation was the inspiration of the Chief Electoral Officer of the State of Uttar Pradesh who found a suitable software for the purpose.

It had not been possible to make identity cards in this disturbed State, voters requiring to visit production centres and putting themselves at risk of being eliminated by militants. So special identity cards were introduced. Each voter brought with him two copies of his passport photograph. These were then affixed to machine-numbered, high security paper produced by the Nasik printing press (which also produces currency notes). The two were then laminated. By the time the elections arrived identity cards had been given to 40% of the voters.

Since there was a leeway of 60%, voters' slips generated by the computerised rolls were distributed to every household. (Voters' slips indicated the polling booth specific voters had to go to.)

Also for the first time electronic voting machines were used everywhere.

But all labour would have gone in vain if certain sections of the State police had been allowed to rig the polls. For the Commission it meant intelligence work it was not trained to do, viz. penetrating the State police and identifying and neutralising the mischievous elements. Some of these were surrendered militants recruited as Special Police Officers and others, an elite group of the regular State police. A fearless officer from the Election Commission actually made the rounds alone and took a roll call of these dreaded policemen to make sure they were confined to barracks.

Gujarat was a different matter. Electorally it had been always the easiest State to handle. In 2002, the only problem was the aberrations caused by the communal riots. No other State authority, directly or indirectly concerned with the riots, had been able to meet more than a miniscule fraction of the victims and discuss the horrid events freely. For those who had suffered were too frightened to come out. And the State government had stage-managed the visits of everyone that mattered. The Election Commission was an exception, not announcing to the State government its programme in advance but disclosing it on a daily basis at the very last minute. The Commission had collected information of the worst-affected places and the daily selection of places to visit was made by consulting the list of such places.

To counter the fear of the victims, an alliance with the media was needed. And it came unexpectedly. The Commission was initially suspicious of the media but since it was omnipresent, and in such overwhelming numbers, it could not be shaken off. As the Commission patiently ploughed through its lane-by-lane enquiry, the media, especially the electronic media which had earlier dispassionately covered the riots, had a magnetising effect on the riot-sufferers. The victims came out in large numbers and the Commission was able to unimpededly interact will them and make a fair assessment of the situation. The electronic media -- full of enthusiastic young people -- had, for the first time in Indian elections, played a crucial part.

Having dealt with Jammu and Kashmir and Gujarat, there are many challenges the Commission has to continue to address. The first of these is concerned with broad social developments. The resurgence of an aggressive market, worldwide, has rendered economic planning nugatory. In India, this has meant the removal of all seriousness in the doings of the State. The vacuum has been filled by resurrected Hindu nationalism -- which threatens the inclusiveness of Indian society as well as the catholicity of the Indian Constitution -- and the political mobilisation of the underprivileged, which has put liberal, democratic values in jeopardy. For the underdog, loyalty and patronage are more important than probity and accountability.

The Commission is under increasing strain in upholding the liberal, secular and democratic principles of the Indian Constitution. If Gujarat is an indication, the Commission will not only have to continue to be proactive but combative.

On the political playing field, most of the contestants are those who have entered politics purely for the spoils of office. There is a symbiotic relationship between this and the amount of money spent by candidates in elections. A case study by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies indicates that the expenditure incurred by a candidate is normally anything up to five times the ceiling allowed to him. As the law stands, nothing can be done about it because an amendment of more than twenty years ago allowed the bulk of the expenditure to be attributed to the party or friends and relatives. This is in the process of being remedied, but the expenditure on political leaders campaigning for him will not count towards a candidate's expenditure.

Ideologies have disappeared from politics everywhere, but in most countries politicians adhere to their political parties. In India most of the politicians walk in and out of political parties depending on the highest bidder. Here again an amendment of the law of more than twenty years ago legalised mass defection of a third or more of the strength of a political party in the House.

As serious is the entry of criminals into politics. Persons convicted of serious offences are debarred from contesting elections for six years. But convictions are almost impossible to secure. The Commission has therefore recommended that debarment should operate the moment charges are drawn against the accused by a court. This has not become legislation.

The Commission introduced an affidavit for the candidate, showing whether he had been convicted of serious offences or not. In the absence of important electoral reforms legislation, interested citizens' groups have taken a cue from the Commission and secured from the Supreme Court an order requiring candidates to disclose their assets and liabilities (including those of their dependants), the details of the criminal cases against them, of convictions if any, and their academic qualifications. All political parties had united in legislating out the Supreme Court's first order. But the petitioners went back to the court and secured a confirmatory and final order.

The law does not contemplate cheating by the Government of the day but this has become common. State Government officials are used to manipulate the electoral rolls -- genuine voters are deleted and fictitious ones are added. As elections approach, projects are sanctioned and appointments made. This is against the Code of Conduct for political parties. But the Code operates only from the date of the announcement of the elections and anything done before that cannot be remedied.

Nevertheless, the triumph of the market system, the consequent scaling down of government, globalisation and the inevitability of English education are bound to result in the liberal middle class' regaining dominance in Indian politics. But the benefit from this can be swiftly lost in the market-driven spurt in inequality between people and the lack of countervailing policies in a regime of diminishing government. The basic contradiction between democracy and the market system will tend to pull society apart and revive antiquated and disruptive elements.

Things being as they are I can only recommend to the youth of India, tolerance, patience, basic honesty and ethics. But to make themselves effective they must more energetically pursue issue-based networking with superior courts, inquiry commissions, citizens' committees, NGOs and the media. The networking ought to extend to public scrutiny of candidates (to secure better specimens), political parties (in the matter of internal elections, accounts and election expenses), and governments (to ensure probity in expenditure and appointments, as well as overall efficiency). The scrutiny ought to concentrate on some of the crucial functionaries of the State like the police, election officials and the lower courts.