& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Electoral reform: Limitations of the current discourse

DR. BADiuL ALAM MAJuMDAR
IT is gratifying to see that the newspapers now regularly carry items on electoral reform. Almost everyday, since the first public discourse on the subject was kicked off last September jointly by The Daily Star and SHUJAN, a citizens' initiative for good governance, one group or another holds another discussion on issues relating to electoral reform. The Daily Star later devoted its entire anniversary issue (January 14, 2005) to the continuation of the public dialogue. It is fortunate that the subject of electoral reform has caught the people's imagination and it is now on the minds of the nation's thoughtful citizens.
The current discourse
Public discourse on electoral reform, as reported in the media, is primarily focused on two aspects: (1) the reforming of the non-party caretaker government, and (2) the strengthening of the Election Commission (EC). The opposition parties and their allies in the intellectual community are clamouring for a redesign of the caretaker system in order to ensure free, fair and impartial elections, while the ruling coalition dismisses the idea outright. Many non-partisan thoughtful citizens appear to feel that the caretaker system, by reflecting a total lack of trust and confidence of major political parties in one another, seriously undermines the political process itself and thus prevents the institutionalisation of democracy in our country. These citizens are, in essence, in favour of doing away with the system altogether as it offers no permanent solution for our criminalised political system.
There, however, seems to be a unanimity regarding the need for a strong and independent Election Commission, although many are frustrated that the EC does not even exercise the power and authority it already enjoys under the existing statutes. For example, the EC has totally failed to enforce the limits on election expenses; to take action against those who exceeded the limit
or who failed to file required expense reports at all; to make the electoral roll reliable; to issue voter identification cards; and to take firm action against prominent violators of election rules and manipulators of election results. Nevertheless, most conscientious citizens, irrespective of party affiliations, now feel that EC must have an independent secretariat and financial independence. Many also feel that the EC must be empowered to make rules under all election-related statutes and hold local body
elections. Some are also demanding transparency in the EC's decisionmaking process.
Limitations
While the discourse on electoral reform has become a popular one, involving many of our thoughtful citizens, it appears to be still too limited in focus and content. Reforms are obviously intended to make elections acceptable and useful. Election results are acceptable if the process is free, fair and impartial, and if they reflect the unhindered and informed opinions of the citizenry. They are useful if elections, as the democratic procedure, provide opportunities for honest, competent and dedicated individuals -- individuals dedicated to the people's welfare -- to get elected.
In our context, four interested parties are directly involved in the electoral process. They include (1) the non-party care-taker government and (2) the EC from the official side, and (3) political parties and (4) their candidates from the non-government side. Each of these four plays an important role in making elections acceptable and useful. Nevertheless, the current discourse is focused only
on one side: the official side of the electoral equation, namely the caretaker government and the Election Commission. It totally ignores the necessity of reform on the other side, the non-official side of the equation, which includes political parties and election candidates.
The roles that each of these interested parties play in the election process, while equally vital, are quite different and, at times, conflicting. For example, the role of the care-taker system, as per our Constitution, is to
"give to the Election Commission all possible aid and assistance that may be required for holding the general election of members of Parliament peacefully, fairly and impartially" (Article 58D(2)). Clearly, it is not the responsibility of the care-taker government to hold elections, and it also must not also have any direct role in elections. Rather, its role is to create an enabling environment so that the EC can fulfil its task of holding parliamentary elections.
The Election Commission, and not the caretaker government, is clearly the body empowered by our Constitution to hold all national elections. In fact, it was created as a constitutional entity solely for this purpose (Article 119). Thus, in order to hold free and fair elections, it is imperative that the Election Commission be strengthened by giving it the constitutionally-mandated autonomy and the necessary resources to function independently. It is also important that the EC is manned by competent and respected individuals so that it can courageously and effectively perform its constitutional responsibilities, and fend off any interference in its activities by outsiders.
On the other side of the electoral
equation are political parties and candidates, and their roles are equally important in ensuring the smooth functioning of the electoral process. Unless these two interested parties play positive and helpful roles, it will be almost impossible to make elections credible. For example, if political parties field dishonest individuals or criminals as candidates or "sell" nominations to owners of black money, while ignoring dedicated party functionaries, or otherwise try to systematically cheat in elections, it
will be impossible for the EC to make elections free and fair. Similarly, if candidates in an election, numbering thousands, are determined to indulge in illegal activities (i.e. occupying polling booths, stuffing ballot boxes, casting false votes, bribing election officials or otherwise undermining the system), the election is likely to be tainted.
Thus, if the political parties and the candidates they nominate do not practice democratic principles in their actions and behaviour, even the most neutral caretaker government and most independent Election Commission would be unable to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. Political parties and candidates they nominate are, therefore, equally responsible for maintaining the credibility of elections, and they must bear the blame for problems originating from their dishonest actions and lack of democratic norms.
Political parties and candidates
It must be noted, however, that the overriding goal of political parties and their candidates is to win electoral contests. Thus, it is not unlikely that they would use all possible means,
including unfair means, to prevail. Unless such tendencies can be checked, election outcomes are bound to be compromised. Thus, in the interest of ensuring the integrity of the electoral process, the Election Commission, as a democratic institution, needs to be given specific authority to regulate the actions and behaviour of political parties and their nominees. The activities of political parties can be regulated through a legal provision for their mandatory registration. The requirements of
registration must include the practice of democracy within political parties, transparency of their income and expenditures, and the use of systematic procedures to give the primary members of the party a clear say in the nomination process.
There also must be a requirement of active party membership of those seeking a party nomination. India, for example, has a system of mandatory registration of political parties under it, Election Commission, in contrast to our system of voluntary registration. It must be pointed out that giving such regulatory authority to the EC does not take political parties off the hook for demonstrating good behaviour.
The integrity of the electoral system also depends on the quality of the candidates running for office. Elections can cause more harm than good unless honest, dedicated and competent individuals are elected to public offices. Our own experiences provide clear evidence of how elected officials can cause great harm to a nation. Thus, criminal and corrupt elements, as intended by Article 66 of our Constitution, must be made ineligible to run for public office. Again, the Election Commission, as the constitutional body, must be
given the authority to prevent undesirable elements from contesting in elections. Criminal dons, corrupt individuals, loan defaulters, bill dodgers of government services and the like must be made ineligible to run for office. The EC must also collect information about the backgrounds of candidates, especially regarding financial and criminal activities, and make that information available to the public so that voters can make informed choices.
Fortunately, a recent High Court ruling empowered the EC to require candidates in national elections to submit, with their nomination papers, affidavits disclosing their educational qualifications, criminal antecedents and the assets and liabilities of themselves and their dependents. The effectiveness of this court ruling in preventing dishonest individuals from contesting in elections will depend on the EC's seriousness in informing citizens about the backgrounds of candidates. It will also depend on the activism of citizen groups in distributing the contents of the submitted affidavits to the voting public in order to clean up our electoral process.
To conclude, it is gratifying that there is an almost universal demand for free, fair and impartial elections. Clearly, the credibility of elections as the democratic procedure is necessary for institutionalising democracy. However, this alone is not sufficient, for the election alone is not democracy. The institutionalisation of democracy will further require the demonstrated practice of democratic principles and norms by political parties and candidates in elections, and the strengthening and autonomy of democratic institutions such as the Election Commission. Thus, the demand for electoral reform must also include insistence on the mandatory registration of political parties, the nomination of honest and competent candidates, and the good behaviour of those candidates.
Dr. Badiul Alam Majumdar is Member-Secretary, SHUJAN, and Global Vice President and Country Director, The Hunger Project-Bangladesh.