Journalism of Courage
Advertisement
Premium

Here we go again

With monotonous regularity, the Election Commission has been delivering ill-advised and illiberal orders that form no part of its job, make ...

.

With monotonous regularity, the Election Commission has been delivering ill-advised and illiberal orders that form no part of its job, make a busybody of it, and in any case make little sense. In its latest such act, this one a misguided attempt at electoral egalitarianism, the Commission has declared TV advertising by political parties for the elections a no-no. Its reasoning is that political parties with smaller resources would stand to lose from TV advertising for lack of money. This is just the kind of non-reasoning which has increasingly come to characterise the actions of a hyperactive EC run amok. Considering that Doordarshan will afford free air-time to all the political parties, where is the question of the parties8217; lack of access to the electronic media for canvassing? If some of them wish also to spend money for extra publicity, not a single valid reason stands in the way of their being allowed to do so. It can only be hoped that the EC is not beginning to fancy that its duty to ensure quot;free andfairquot; elections is a duty to level out every inequality between every party.

The inequality imposed by unequal resources is a handicap for the poorer parties in every respect, not just in the matter of TV advertising. The answer to the EC8217;s anxiety to even the odds is not to ban TV advertising by the parties but to make it mandatory for all parties to fight the election with equal resources. This is as outlandish as it sounds, but it is no more outlandish than the EC8217;s hamhanded egalitarian zeal. As if the EC8217;s fuzzy logic was not full enough of holes, the Chief Election Commissioner makes things worse by declaring that the reason for discriminating against advertising in the electronic medium while allowing it in print is that the print medium is a traditional medium while TV is a relative newcomer. It is, but so what? Taking this astounding logic to its conclusion, the EC should next direct the political parties to take their websites off the Net, for nothing is newer on the media and technologyscene.

It is such a pity that the EC cannot seem to tell its rightful duties apart from those that really are none of its business. Is it the same EC that makes sensible pronouncements about arms carrying to polling booths and securitymen accompanying VIPs to polling booths and then goes off and announces frankly incomprehensible schemes? The trouble is, and it is a pity that the EC seems not to realise this, that every such wrong-headed move by it plays havoc with its credibility. Since it is hard to make sense in rational terms of the EC8217;s latest action, the natural alternative is for people to ask: can this possibly be motivated? If they persuade themselves that not egalitarianism but a less than neutral attitude towards the richest party has provoked this decision to put others at an advantage, not only would that do the EC8217;s image no good 8212; something that seems disproportionately to preoccupy the Election Commission these days 8212; but also possibly boomerang. If the action is understood to meandiscrimination against a particular party, the likely public response is sympathy for that party.

Curated For You

 

Tags:
Weather
Edition
Install the Express App for
a better experience
Featured
Trending Topics
News
Multimedia
Follow Us
Express Premium'My food is my pride': How two Indian students won a $200,000 settlement with US university
X