People's Democracy

For The Sake Of Democracy

Nilotpal Basu

WHILE laying down his office, on June 29, chief election commissioner B B Tandon converted  his  last press conference – as the chief of this  important  constitutional body – into  an  exercise of  defending  the  indefensible. The most unfortunate aspect of this entire effort was his complete refusal to redeem the sense of accountability, which otherwise, has to be a guiding principle for the functioning of such an eminent  constitutional body. 

The first issue of his controversial tenure that was questioned by some journalists in the press conference was the Commission’s way of handling the West Bengal assembly elections. He not only doggedly defended the actions taken by the Commission but made the most bizarre assertion –– that differential approaches and standards have to be adopted in different states.  Coming from the chief of a constitutional body in a federal set-up like India, this is as shocking as it can go. 

Analysing the implications of what Tandon was  trying to defend, one cannot but be left with a  sense of outrage.  First,  the  decision  to  hold  the polls in five phases was ostensibly based on  “security considerations”.  Second, the decision to marginalise police and other electoral officials  from the  state from key electoral  duties implying  that they were  virtually en masse partisan.  Third, the  commissioning of large number of  controversial observers (even some of whom had  pending CBI cases against them) who were lauded by Tandon and his  Commission even after they violated virtually all canons of fair play which distinguishes a constitutional body. By raiding political parties offices at the behest of  their opponents and  drawing a blank  in  recovering  alleged  stockpile of arms  and  not even  showing the  minimum courtesy  of tendering apology, these gentlemen drew kudos from the EC.  And, finally and most importantly, ensuring the maximum number of deletion of legitimate voters due to the process adopted for revision of rolls at the Commission level.

Overall, the drive towards curtailing people’s participation and  political discourse (which is the  lifeline of parliamentary democracy) was unmistakable.  At no point in time, earlier or during the June 29 press conference, did Tandon care to inform the public as to what was the  objective basis  of  this  differential  approach  towards  the West Bengal elections. This raises a very serious question – can incumbents of constitutional offices  interpret  subjectively  the  reality of a  state?  Is the constitutional body  not accountable  to explain  the  factual basis  which  justify  their  actions?  Alas! There was nothing  of that – only self-congratulatory claim that  elections were  successfully conducted. But,  with the exit of Tandon, the abandoning of the public exercise  to examine  the implications  of  the concepts  that he so doggedly defended  would be a  great disservice  to the institution  of  Election  Commission and the principles of  democracy to which we are  firmly wedded. 

The other aspect which Tandon defended  was  the  controversial conduct of the Election Commission in dealing with complaints against CPI(M) MPs on the `office of profit’ issue. He defended the EC’s attempt to collect  information inspite of his clear admission that the complainant  has not  been able to furnish  any  substantial  material.  He defended this  in  the name of  reporting  the  truth  to  the President.  Little did he care for the fact that the President  and his office is an entity  whose  legitimacy  flows  from our  Constitution.  Nor did he care for the fact that  our Constitution advocates  the principle of jurisprudence which is  universally accepted.  Far less did he realise the implications of his assertion which stands the jurisprudential principle on its head – that under no circumstances can  the  adjudicator – a  quasi-judicial body – be the  investigator at the same time. 

These are serious issues and concepts which are vital for safeguarding our democracy. No efforts must be spared to subject these controversial decisions of the EC under Tandon’s shepherding to a close scrutiny as close as a  mature  democracy warrants.