Is it the EC that is confused, or the people? The EC was once seen as the neutral guard of the election process. Now it's cloaking crude logic in confusion By The Editorial Board

Editorial Board, TT, 5 April 2019: Confusion is a useful tool before election time. But is it the Election Commission that is confused, or do the people have the institution’s purpose all wrong? 

The EC was once perceived to be the neutral guard of the election process, applying certain rules of which the model code of conduct was one. The MCC, meant for political parties and candidates, was a way of ensuring free and fair elections. Suddenly it seems that ordinary citizens fall within its purview. 

The economist, Jean Drèze, and two others were detained by the police in Jharkhand for organizing a meeting on the right to food. It was alleged that the meeting violated the MCC because Mr Drèze had not taken permission. The fudging here is truly artistic. What has permission to do with the MCC? The allegation of MCC violation was made again when the police and poll officers confiscated copies of a book analysing the Rafale deal just before its release in Chennai. Then there was backtracking: Mr Drèze and his companions were let go and the books returned with the EC claiming ignorance about the seizure.

Just wetting the toes? The prime minister’s address to the nation on Mission Shakti did not violate the MCC, for it was not, the EC said, abuse of mass media for electioneering. Channels merely took a video clip of an announced address to the nation from a ‘private’ source and aired it as an item of ‘news’. This is as bare-faced as the EC’s clean chit to the film on Narendra Modi. The commission is innocent. According to the EC’s instruction, if the film is passed by the censor board following the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, then the EC would have nothing to do with its release date. Besides, the film’s producers said it had nothing to do with the elections. And how can the EC ignore the Bharatiya Janata Party, which has denied association with the film and also said that banning it would go against the freedom of expression? But that freedom is selective. The EC seems to have a soft spot for the BJP candidate for South Bangalore who has got an order from a civil court banning any ‘defamatory’ reference to him in 49 media outlets and on social media platforms. Confusion is a good cloak for crude logic.

What the election code of conduct is really about... The idea of sanitising India from political influences at election time is preposterous

Swapan Dasgupta, TT: An unintended consequence of the staggering popularity of social media in the world is the mushrooming of completely useless controversies that have a life-span of a few hours. One such erupted last week over the countrywide release of the film, PM Narendra Modi, starring Vivek Oberoi on April 5.

The announcement of its release got some people very hot under the collar. One person who was particularly agitated was the writer (and, if I may say so, an old friend from my college days) Ramachandra Guha. In an uncharacteristic intervention that received some 10,000 ‘likes’ on Twitter, he wrote: “That such a film will be shown and promoted during the elections demonstrates the joke and farce that the ‘model code of conduct’ is; how can the Election Commission allow it?”

Guha’s objection seems grounded in his fierce dislike of real Prime Minister Modi. He is anxious that the inspirational facets of Modi’s life story do not lead to crowds rushing out of matinee shows and flocking to polling booths to endorse the lotus symbol. More likely, he is concerned that a possibly positive spin to the life story of the chaiwala-turned-chowkidar will negate the patiently constructed demonology around Modi by the country’s ‘eminent intellectuals’. As a political concern of those campaigning on the single plank of Modi hatao, Guha’s worry is warranted. However, it will not enhance the democratic credentials of India’s liberal community if it seeks an outright ban on a film that dares to hero worship Modi. Consequently, a temporary restriction, at least people have voted, seems the second best solution.

Of course, there are ominous implications of this demand for the EC to intervene and put the film in cold storage till counting day. If a film can be put on hold on the ground that it seeks to influence public opinion, then it follows that similar restrictions should accompany other creative projects that also seek to mould voter behaviour. This includes books — both fiction and non-fiction, poetry, theatre, works of art and even opinionated columns (such as this one) in print and online, in fact almost anything that can be construed to have a direct or tangential political dimension.

The whole idea of sanitizing India from political influences seems absolutely preposterous, especially when the avowed objective is to ensure the exercise of political choice. That eminent individuals should be lending their names to such a strange initiative is sad.

However, what is sadder still is the belief the distortion of what the code of conduct is all about.

When it was evolved, the CoC wasn’t aimed at preventing any articulation of politics. It merely sought to first, negate any unfair advantage accruing to the incumbent government through the improper and partisan use of official machinery; second, to monitor and often regulate the use of financial resources by parties and candidates; third, to insulate the ordinary citizen from any significant inconvenience to their lives; and, finally, to ensure free and fair polling. In time, often with the benefit of hindsight, the EC has extended the CoC to extend to opinion polls and the use of media. Regulating and monitoring ‘paid news’, however, remain work in progress.

Despite its imperfections and lax implementation by individual officers with a bias towards a party or candidate, the CoC has made a big difference to the culture of political campaigning. Some of the changes are visible and felt by the ordinary citizen.

Till the 1991 general election at least, the use of loudspeakers was totally unregulated. One of the noisiest campaigns I witnessed was the ‘Ayodhya election’ of 1991 in Uttar Pradesh when loudspeakers blaring rival political messages and campaign songs drowned each other at market venues and bus stops, and went on all day and night. It was also customary for political meetings to extend late into the night and the early hours of the morning. In fact, in the Hindi heartland, the political worth of a leader was often judged from how many hours late he was running from his original schedule.

This pattern of electioneering is now history. The ban on public meetings and use of the public address system after 10pm is now an accepted facet of life and, often, gleefully imposed by the administration. During the 2004 general election, a local IAS officer became a celebrity after he got on to the dais and stopped L.K. Advani, then deputy prime minister and home minister of India, from continuing with his address in Patna’s Gandhi Maidan just as the clock struck 10 pm. Such dedication to the letter of the CoC may be exceptional since in Uttar Pradesh at least I have seen election rallies continue past 10 pm.

Another area where the CoC has made a big difference is in the use of government facilities and public buildings. One of the first campaigns I covered as a journalist was the 1991 general election when the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi was still at the helm. One of the features of that election, in North India at least, was that the Congress candidates routinely requisitioned the Circuit House for the use of the candidate. In fact many of them operated as campaign centres. Today, while a visiting politician — especially in remote areas — may avail of these facilities for overnight stay, there is a complete ban on using them for meetings and displays of flags. True, the rules are occasionally violated but local officers are only too aware that they face disciplinary action by the EC for their wilful indulgence of politicians.

These, however, are the easier facets of the CoC. The more daunting challenge before the EC is to ensure an environment free from harassment and intimidation of voters. Apart from the areas where the Maoists ruled the roost, Bihar used to present a big challenge in the 1990s. Today, that pride of place has been taken by West Bengal where last year’s panchayat elections set new standards of high-handedness. It is to meet this challenge that the EC has staggered voting in the state to include all seven phases. And it is to rebuild local confidence in the democratic process that contingents of paramilitary forces have started patrolling sensitive areas, sometimes with the cooperation of the local police and often independently of them. Success in West Bengal, despite the fierce opposition of the state government that colluded in the derailment of democracy during the panchayat polls, will be a big feather in the cap for the EC. It will strengthen India’s reputation as a robust democracy.

The next step is to ensure that the media are in sync with the larger objectives of democratic functioning. But this is a more problematic area where the media’s right to be partisan has to be balanced with some dos and don’ts without inviting charges of compromising the rights of expression. The more blatant cases of ‘paid news’ are easy to handle — by adding a notional charge to a candidate’s expenses — but how is the touchy area of a campaign freeze in the 48 hours before polling in a seven-phase election to be achieved? And how will the dissemination through WhatsApp groups be effectively monitored? Today’s technology makes a mockery of regulation and control.

These are just some of the issues that warrant public vigilance and will test the EC’s effectiveness. Diverting its attention to non-issues is hardly helpful. But then, this is an election where some groups of people are also fighting to ensure their own future relevance in a changing India.