news details |
|
|
| Poll Code Can Halt Progress | | |
P.C. Alexander
Few would have missed the sternness of the Chief Election Commissioner’s declaration that the model code of conduct would come into operation immediately after the announcement of the schedule for General Elections 2009. This means that the code will last for two-and-a-half months. Even after the results of the election are announced on May 16 there may be a few more days of interim government. June 1 is the date when the term of the Lok Sabha expires and therefore the parties can wait till this date in order to complete the formalities of formulating a common minimum programme and distribution of portfolios among the members of the coalition government. This would mean a delay of three months for the regular government to be formed and start working without any of the constraints of the model code.
Three months are by any reckoning an unusually long period when the business of governance is conducted without taking decisions on even the most important development projects. It is true that India’s electorate has increased from 671 million in 2004 to 714 million in 2009 and the number of polling stations has increased from 6,87,402 to 8,28,804 during the same period. There are also pressing problems of law and order which have to be taken care of through deployment of adequate security and polling personnel. However, too large a number of days under the regime of the model code will certainly affect the efficiency of the government.
It is important to remember that elections are held at three levels in the states — panchayats, state Assemblies and the Lok Sabha. On all these occasions the model code comes into force and one can imagine the extent of delays and also the substantial increases in administrative expenditure because of certain provisions in the code relating to development projects.
An attempt was made by the government in 2000 to make the model code applicable only from the date of the formal notification of each phase of election. The government tried to get a favourable decision from the Supreme Court and a petition was filed against the ruling of the commission. Eventually, the government withdrew its petition in the court and the code of conduct now comes into force with the announcement of the election.
The code lays down certain well-intentioned instructions about the conduct of the people during elections. It prescribes certain dos and don’ts regarding conduct of meetings, processions etc as part of the election campaign.
However, there are certain instructions in the model code which, in effect prevent any move by the party in power to implement the projects necessary for the welfare of the people. It prevents even laying foundation stones for projects already included in the annual plan and for which provision exists in the Budget. Its "don’ts" result in postponement of projects such as construction of new roads, providing drinking water etc even though their beneficiaries are the common people. Those who have followed the manner in which the model code of conduct has been operating would have noticed that the general practice is to put on hold action on all new development projects till the elections are over. It is time that some of these provisions in the model code are removed and suitable changes are introduced to ensure that elections do not become a cause for delays in the development process.
Another important reform needed to ensure that the normal work of governance is not affected by elections is to revert to the old system of simultaneous election to the Lok Sabha and the state legislatures. The administrative cost for conducting elections has been steadily increasing with every election and the government has to be vigilant that its own expenditure on elections does not get out of control while it continues to advise candidates and political parties to observe the prescribed limits on election expenses.
Apart from the heavy cost involved on security personnel, quite a large number of government employees are disturbed from their normal duties by drafting them to election duties. Teachers constitute the largest group of election personnel in our country. It is a well-known fact that primary schools in India, particularly those run by the government, are grossly understaffed. Simultaneous elections for the state and Central legislatures will reduce the burden on the teachers and other government employees considerably without in any way affecting the efficiency of the work relating to elections.
Some opponents of simultaneous elections have expressed apprehensions that the personnel drafted for election duty may find it difficult to manage such elections. But this is only an imaginary apprehension. I am one of the very few civil servants who are still around today who had conducted simultaneous elections in the first ever general elections held in India in 1952 and I can say from my personal knowledge that there has been no difficulty whatsoever in conducting the elections to both Central and state legislatures simultaneously and that the personnel drafted for election duty did not find any problem in managing simultaneous elections. Now that we have gained adequate experience in conducting elections with smoothness and efficiency, any talk about causing more confusion to electoral officers or candidates if elections are held simultaneously is quite unjustified.
While discussing issues like reducing the expenditure on elections etc it is important to highlight the fact that the Representation of the People Act itself contains certain loopholes which need plugging. Explanation to Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 allows easy violation of the ceiling prescribed for election expenditure, because it states that expenditure incurred by the political parties shall not be deemed to be expenditure in connection with the election incurred by the candidates. It is well-known that most political parties do not maintain proper accounts and even if some parties maintain accounts they are not audited by those qualified to do so. Thus the whole concept of a ceiling for expenditure is vitiated and no effective action has been taken for submission of wrong accounts by the elected candidates.
No electoral reforms can be complete unless some of the deficiencies referred to above are effectively eliminated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
