OPEN FORUM
New Delhi, 21 September 2006
Another Political
Move
Election Commission under
Attack
By Bobby Srinivas
The
Communist Party of India
– Marxists (CPI-M) is the latest to point its gun at the Election Commission, particularly the Chief Election Commissioner. The
Party has demanded reform of the Election Commission
with Constitutional amendment to make it more “accountable.” Almost all the political parties, at one time
or another, have attacked the Commission
and its panel. They have accused the EC
of highhandedness, arrogance and
even partisanship. Perhaps that is
indirectly an indication that the Commission
has been independent and non-partisan.
One of the accusations of the CPI-M is that the poll panel observers
were “blatantly high handed and partisan” in the recently held elections in West Bengal. (Italics
mine)
Though
some of the suggestions of the Communist Party would appear to be salutary,
such as poll members being prevented from joining any political parties or
accepting any political posts after retirement, the real reason for this attack
seems to be that the political parties want the EC to be subservient to them or
to Parliament.
The
founding fathers of our Constitution had established many great democratic
institutions to function for the benefit of the people. The Legislature, the Executive and Judiciary
with other special organs such as the Election Commission,
each having a specific role, were intended to ensure that people’s will
prevailed and a secular democracy was well established. “We the people” were considered
supreme. But like a python, politicians
and political parties have tried to swallow one after another of these
institutions. They have tried to make
these institutions suppliant to their own selfish ends.
Parliament
and State legislatures are of course full of them. They have to be there in the ‘service’ of the
people who elected them! As political
masters they have infiltrated into the domain of the executive. In any case, when in power, the political parties
use the bureaucracy or the executive more for political purposes than
administration for the welfare of the people. Even the Judiciary has not gone
untouched. During the Emergency period
of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the ruling political group wanted what was
called a ‘committed’ Judiciary!
There is an interesting historical
analogy for separation of powers. In
medieval Europe spiritual and temporal powers
were evenly divided between the King and the Church. This was the time when European Christendom
was entirely Roman Catholic under direct control of the Pope who was considered
Vicar of Christ. Reformation or the
advent of Protestantism had yet to make its debut. Though European monarchs and kings were
totally loyal to the Pope, the Holy Father also had his hierarchy in various
countries to enforce the Papal interpretations of his religious thought.
An interesting conflict arose during the
reign of Henry II in England
in the middle of the twelfth century.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, to be appointed by the Pope on the
recommendation of the King, was the highest ecclesiastical office at that time
of the Roman Catholic Church in England. Once appointed, the Archbishop reported only
to the Pope. King Henry II to have his
‘own man’ in this office recommended the name of his close and dear friend
Thomas Becket. Becket became the
Archbishop of Canterbury. He took his
religious duties seriously and was answerable only to the Pope. He ignored the King and His Majesty could do
precious little. Becket was murdered by
the King’s chamchas, thinking they
were pleasing the monarch. That was not
the intention of the King, who was beside himself with grief. However, Becket became a martyr for the
Church and later proclaimed a saint by the Church of Rome.
There
is a curious and eerie parallel in India, when T.N.Seshan was
appointed as the Chief Election Commissioner.
T.N.Seshan was a proven loyal bureaucrat and held high office as cabinet
secretary during the Congress
government at the center. Seshan was
appointed CEC, perhaps with expectation of his pliability to ensure the party’s
(Congress) favourable election
results. Soon after his appointment,
Seshan became like Thomas Becket! He asserted his rights under the Constitution to act
independently and perform his duties strictly under the provisions of the
Constitution. To politicians and many
political parties he was a ‘Bull in a China Shop.’ Someone even remarked he resembles a saand (bull)!
Seshan
asserted Election Commission’s right to ensure free and fair
elections. He was particularly hard on Bihar politicians who had assumed
rigging, booth capturing, making winners lose and losers win as their divine
right! He said that certain political
parties were winning elections by Rig
Veda – winning by rigging votes! He
wanted, what state and central government said, was an impossible task of issuing
identity cards for voters. No identity
card, no elections in Bihar he asserted.
Politicians
of all hues were not amused with Seshan and his independent actions. They thought he was belligerent and
abrasive! They wanted the government to
dismiss Seshan! But Seshan could not be removed. He had Constitutional immunity. There was a move to impeach Seshan, the only
course to remove him. But the political
parties got cold feet. The people, i.e.,
the electorate would not have tolerated such a draconian move.
The
Government in Delhi
appointed two additional election commissioners
to clip the wings of the CEC Seshan, hoping the other two would be
helpful. At first Seshan even refused to
recognize the other two. Unfortunately
for the political parties the additional election commissioners
were not of much help. One by one they
had to be promoted as the chief when the incumbent retired. And when in office, they acted like Thomas
Becket and Seshan!
Remember
Chief Election Commissioner
J.M.Lygndoh? He was a no-nonsense
election chief, called the politicians the cancer of Indian political
system! Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra
Modi was particularly harsh with Lygndoh and used abusive language against him
as Lygndoh refused to oblige the Chief Minister for convenient election dates for the State Assembly. Modi used the full name of Lygndoh James
Michael, suggesting his Christian origin not knowing that James was a given
name but Lygndoh was more of an agnostic!
He was certainly a proven upright and loyal bureaucrat. He conducted free and fair elections in Kashmir in spite of every impediment put his way and the
world community applauded him. After
retirement Lygndoh did not seek nor accept any government employment. He quietly settled down in Hyderabad, the paradigm that the CPI-M
recommends for the Election Commission
panel for the future.
Political
parties have now learnt their lessons. Experience is a great teacher. Now the Party in power will carefully choose,
nurse, pamper, reward and orient a proper candidate. Such a candidate when appointed should be
grateful to his ‘employers’ even when the employer ceases to be an employer! A wag remarked that when Navin Chawla was
appointed EC, he had benefited immensely from Congress
MPs and their funds. He could very well
be such a suitable candidate!
As
for the CPI-M demand for Reforms: Yes.
Accountability to the Constitution and not to political parties! The independence of the Election Commission should be preserved at all costs to strengthen
and sustain our democratic heritage. If
a Constitutional amendment is attempted, will political parties rise above
their narrow interests and consider amendments in the larger interest of the
nation?---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
|