Dr Quraishi has brought a special focus on people’s participation, voters’ education and youth involvement in the electoral process through scientific research and interventions. He has been an ardent proponent for lending strength to the grass root level election functionaries. In an e-mail interview to Sonam Saigal, Dr Quraishi talks about the recent guidelines given by the Supreme Court to the Election Commission (EC) on framing the election manifestos.
Dr Quraishi, India is looking at interesting elections a few days fron now?
Yes, the stage is set, India is going to witness the biggest-ever election. With 81 crore voters and 11 million personnel conducting the polls at 9.36 lakh polling stations using 1.4 million electronic voting machines (EVMs). The Indian election is considered the biggest such event in the world.
Lok Sabha elections are going to flag off soon, but national political parties have not issued their election manifestos as yet. Can the Election Commission do something about it?
Election Commission has recently included some guidelines in the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). But these seem to be only advisory in nature.
Where is the need to have an election manifesto?
A manifesto is a published declaration of the intentions, motives or views of an individual, group, political party or government whosoever issues it. It is their right and duty towards voters to make such offers and promises in manifestos in a healthy democratic polity.
The Supreme Court had asked the Election Commission to frame guidelines that will be followed while making the manifestos. Why was this being done?
This is done in order to frame various welfare measures for the citizens so that there are no objections to the promises made in the election manifestos. There is no enactment that directly governs the contents of the manifestos, therefore the EC was asked to frame guidelines in consultation with all the recognised political parties for general conduct of the candidates, meetings, processions, polling day, party in power as part of the MCC.
What do the guidelines state? Do they state the do’s and don’t’s?
Although, the law is obvious that the promises in the election manifesto cannot be construed as “corrupt practice” under Section 123 of The Representation of the People’s Act, but the reality cannot be ruled out that distribution of freebies of any kind, undoubtedly, influences all people. As the Supreme Court says, it shakes the root of free and fair elections to a large degree. So the EC has to ensure level playing field between the contesting parties and candidates in elections and also see that the purity of the election process does not get vitiated. The guidelines state that political parties should avoid making those promises which are likely to vitiate the purity of the process or exert undue influence on the voters in exercising their franchise. In the interest of transparency and credibility of promises, it is expected that manifestos also reflect the rationale for the promises and broadly indicate the ways and means to meet the financial requirements for it. Trust of the voters should be sought only on those promises which are possible to be fulfilled.
Did the parties accept the guidelines? What was their reaction?
During consultations, some political parties supported the issuance of such guidelines; others were of the view that it is their right and duty towards voters to make such offers and promises in manifestos in a healthy democratic polity. While the Commission agrees in principle with the point of view that framing of manifestos is the right of the parties, it cannot overlook the undesirable impact of some of the promises and offers.
Haven’t the manifestos simply come down to offering only sops for elections?
Well, there are two types of sops, one, pre-election ones announced through subsidies, price cuts and new schemes. These are essentially the domain of the ruling parties. The party is in a rush to make such announcements before the Election Commission becomes a spoiler. Here we see the genuine debate of good politics versus bad economics. Then there are sops through the manifesto that do not attract the model code: the ` 2 kg rice, laptops, bicycles, TVs.
Shouldn’t the election commission penalise the ones who promise irrational freebies?
The EC is inundated with requests to declare these freebies illegal. The fact is that the manifestos are perfectly legal, even if they promise the moon. The EC has no power to question these. Most political parties say it is their democratic ‘right and duty’ towards voters to make such offers and promises in manifestos.
Do you think the election manifestos have done any good to the electorate?
Yes, promises like cheap food grains and free items of utility have done some good. Starvation deaths don’t happen anymore with rice at ` 2 per kg. Remember the famous line of Rajiv Gandhi that only 15 paise of a rupee reaches the poor. Now, if a TV is promised, a TV is delivered! Distribution of bicycles has improved enrolment and retention of girls in schools. Employment guarantee schemes have brought visible relief to rural poor.
Is there a mechanism to hold political parties accountable for not delivering the promises announced in the manifestos?
My own view is that neither the Election Commission nor the Supreme Court can get involved so long as a manifesto is perfectly legal and a legitimate democratic instrument in a democracy. Even if the promises are absurd or nonfeasible, it is for the rival parties to expose the hypocrisy and the common voters to remember that promises were not fulfilled. However, now that the MCC has included the manifestos, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
The fact that the Election Commission cannot do anything about the unfilled promises, doesn’t that make the Election Commission toothless?
This perception is absolutely flawed. The MCC is the most dreaded weapon in the hands of the election commission. Many citizens, however, feel disappointed that all that the EC does against defaulters is issue warnings, reprimands, condemnation or censure. They probably expect drastic action like the cancellation of elections, de-recognition of the political party concerned or even the registration of criminal cases. The MCC’s moral authority is extremely high. Have you seen any hate speech in the last few years? Personal attacks have become a rare occurrence. The abuse of government facilities by the ruling party has been reduced to zero.