It will be a relief that with the results Thursday, the abominably long-drawn 2019 Lok Sabha elections will be finally over. Whoever wins the election faces the immense challenge of healing the nation, repairing the republic and holding the country together. I cannot think of any other event in my living memory that has brought out the worst among India’s politicians, its public officials and the people. If wisdom prevails, the winners, losers and their partisans will recognise this challenge.
Central to the drama of 2019 is the Election Commission, an institution that India used to be proud of but which, in my view, no longer deserves the praise. I am not referring to the allegations of tampered Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), which are popular among politicians when they are in the opposition (a BJP leader wrote a book about it in 2010). I am also not referring to the Election Commission’s weak-kneed approach towards insisting that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) follow the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). The EVM issue is a red herring and the MCC is mostly not legally enforceable.
The controversies over these two issues distract us from what, to my mind, is the Election Commission’s biggest failing — the exceedingly long duration of the election.
Also read: Without realistic rules, Election Commission can’t monitor social media before polls
Never-ending
At 39 days, polling in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections took almost twice as long as the 2004 polls. The election period has been getting longer — 21 days in 2004, 28 days in 2009 and 36 days in 2014. Two reasons are offered to explain the trend towards the lengthening election periods. First, that number of voters has been getting larger, from 670 million in 2004 Lok Sabha elections to 900 million this time. Second, that the logistics of moving the election machinery, especially the deployment of security forces, needs more time.
On the face of it, these arguments make sense. Yet they also point to an Election Commission that is unable to keep pace with the changes in India. If there are 230 million more voters now compared to 2004, there are also better highways, rural roads, airports and telecommunication networks. The government has a lot more revenue. Intake in the paramilitary forces has increased, especially after 26/11 Mumbai attacks.
Yes, the Election Commission does a commendable job mobilising lakhs of officials to conduct the polls well. Yes, the security forces do a commendable job in protecting the electoral process while having to move hundreds of kilometres across the country every few days. Even so, unless we demand that the Election Commission try to conclude polls in as short a period as possible, the fairness of the electoral process will be increasingly in question.
Also read: Three simple things Election Commission must fix urgently, before solving larger problems
Too many issues
The fairest election is one where all 543 seats go to the polls on the same day. Every additional day and every additional phase reduces the fairness factor. Consider these:
One, a long-drawn election favours political parties with a few star campaigners, allowing them to visit more constituencies closer to the polling date than they might otherwise have. Of course, it is only fair that parties with star campaigners enjoy that advantage, but the Election Commission should remain agnostic to this, and neither strengthen nor dilute it.
Two, multi-phase elections favour cadre-based national parties over the regional ones, for the former can mobilise their party workers to travel from state to state in support of their candidates. This asymmetry in opportunities for political mobilisation changes the federal balance. It is one thing for the federal balance to change through political or constitutional means, quite another to arise out of the Election Commission’s calendaring methods.
Third, parties can take advantage of different polling dates in different constituencies by staggering their campaign messages. It is technically possible to promise something in an early phase and completely the opposite in a later phase, effectively fooling the voters. Furthermore, it once again gives an edge to the national parties over the regional ones.
Fourth, long-drawn, multi-phase elections render many campaign rules pointless. For instance, even if there is a cooling-off period in one set of constituencies, campaigning can legitimately take place elsewhere where the elections are to be held later. In an age where elections are continuously covered on television and social media, this means that voters who ought to be calmly reflecting their choices in the cooling-off period are still being subjected to campaign messaging. Clearly, election rules have to be re-written to reflect the 21st century context, but until they are changed, multi-phase elections set many of them up for abuse.
Also read: Modi calls Constitution a ‘holy book’ but his government violates its letter and spirit
Finally, the longer the election period, the greater is the total campaign expenditure. Parties with deeper pockets, and parties that have additional fundraising capacity, will unduly benefit. I think this gives the national parties and those that control state governments an additional advantage.
Using the resources
To ensure that the election schedule does not create undue advantages to some parties over others, the Election Commission ought to aim towards getting as close to a single-day election as possible. Nothing stops the Election Commission from investing in better logistics and supply-chain management techniques. Nothing stops it from ordering and pre-positioning an adequate number of EVMs. India’s security forces have consistently shown that they are capable of meeting the policy objectives set for them. Why not use air transport in addition to railway and roads? Why not deploy state reserve police forces in adjoining states? The Election Commission must demand adequate financial resources to enable this and the government must make them available.
The praise that the Election Commission has received over the years has made both it and us, the citizens, complacent. Its conduct in this election — effete at best, partisan at worst — has undermined its hard-won reputation. Among the questions that it must be asked is just why can’t it complete the whole business quickly.
The author is the director of the Takshashila Institution, an independent centre for research and education in public policy. Views are personal.