Results required

The Election Commission deserves all support for cracking down on Kalyan Singh’s government in Uttar Pradesh. Announcing a substantial largesse to local and rural bodies a week before 39 people are elected to the state Legislative Council is nothing short of a crime against democracy. Kalyan Singh may be correct in saying that he was previously committed to the measure, but the timing of the announcement is clearly motivated. The results of these elections, which were to be held before the year was out, will certainly affect the UP results in the forthcoming general election. The Chief Minister had taken advantage of the fact that the model code of conduct was not enforced for these polls. However, this act is in violation of the Representation of the People Act itself, which calls for a level playing field.

This incident has also made it clear that the Election Commission can only lay the ground rules for establishing a level playing field in advance. Once the balance of power has been disturbed, it can do precious little to restore it. In retaliation to Kalyan Singh’s largesse, the Commission has advanced the date of elections to January 11. In effect, all that it has succeeded in doing is to make its displeasure felt. On the ground, the advancement of the poll date will have no effect. The electorate that Kalyan Singh has showered with disbursals will remain just as grateful a fortnight after the event as on December 29, the original poll date. The UP case shows that in order for it to be effective, the Election Commission cannot remain a body which can react to electoral malpractice only by delaying or countermanding elections. On the other hand, it would not do to directly empower it either. The tenure of T.N. Seshan offers a clear contra-indication, and the unseemly tiff between G.V.G. Krishnamurthy and M.S. Gill is too recent in memory to contemplate the idea of a more interventionist Commission.

However, the Commission can certainly be allowed to make its feelings clear in a more constructive manner. It can be permitted, for instance, to demand action of the administration or the legislatures, even when it does not enjoy the right to enforce. In the UP case, for instance, it would be unrealistic to expect that Kalyan Singh can be forced to rescind the order. But the Commission can certainly demand that he suspend it until the polls are over. If, as Kalyan Singh says, he had been committed to the financial package long before polls were announced, it would make little difference to the lot of local bodies if they continued to be deprived of it for 45 more days. Such concrete demands in retaliation to specific wrongdoing on the part of the party in power would be far more effective in levelling the playing field than punitive action relating to election schedules. The latter effectively punishes the people rather than any party with increased poll expenses and longer periods of campaigning. And invariably, the party in question makes political capital out of it by claiming that the Commission is imposing upon both people and party.