Today's Editorial

Questioning the polls ‘rain washes out play’ moments

Relevance: GS Paper II

Why in News?

The Surat and Arunachal Pradesh results are issues that call for debate where an election is made to seem ‘free and fair’ despite people not having cast a single vote. The aim is not to scrutinise the circumstances behind a particular event but to delve deeper into the process of exercising democratic rights.

Phenomenon of unopposed election:

• An unopposed election is legal and thrilling. It allows one to become the unrivalled representative of the people without being chosen by the people, as they are the only choice on the ballot. It is like achieving something without making the necessary effort.
• For instance, the ruling party candidate was declared the winner in the Surat Lok Sabha seat, where two candidates were disqualified, and eight others withdrew. Similarly, 10 other Assembly seats were procured in Arunachal Pradesh.

Existing rules and regulations:

• Rule 11 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961:
• It says: “(1) The returning officer shall… cause a copy of the list of contesting candidates to be affixed in some conspicuous place in his office and where the number of contesting candidates is equal to, or less than, the number of seats to be filled, he shall, immediately after such affixation, declare under sub-section (2) or as the case may be, sub-section (3) of section 53 the result of the election in such one of the Forms 21 to 21B as may be appropriate....”
• Section 53 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
• It says: “(1) If the number of contesting candidates is more than the number of seats to be filled, a poll shall be taken.] (2) If the number of such candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats.”

Quandary of uncontested elections in India:

• In such a scenario, there is a victor but no ‘vanquished’ party. Only those who are ruled out under the Rules and those who decided to ‘voluntarily’ withdraw.
• Some have questioned whether this process does not allow electors to exercise the None of the Above (NOTA) option.
• NOTA option, a progressive reform aimed at influencing political culture. Originally incorporated into court directions to inform political parties and candidates about public opinion, NOTA does not significantly impact the election process or political parties.
• The real question arises here: What happens if no one opts to contest the election or if all the electors boycott the election and “have failed to elect a person…to fill the vacancy”?
• Is the Election Commission of India bound to call upon the constituency to elect a person again, as happens when, say, in government procurement, there are unresponsive bids or no bids are received?
• The General Financial Rules (GFRs), a compilation of rules and orders to be followed by all when dealing with matters involving public finances, speak about “a fair, transparent and reasonable procedure” for public procurement.

The financial rules parallel:

• Rule 166 provides for a ‘Single Tender Enquiry’ that can be resorted to if the supplier is the original manufacturer, or in case of an emergency, or if there is a technical necessity for standardisation purposes.
• Rule 173(xx) says that lack of competition “shall not be determined solely on the basis of the number of bidders.
• Even when only one bid is submitted, the process may be considered valid provided the procurement was satisfactorily advertised and sufficient time was given for submission of bids, the qualification criteria were not unduly restrictive, and prices are reasonable compared to market values”.
• The procedure followed under the Representation of the People Act (RPA) meets all these requirements, although the two are unrelated.
• The similarity may be in the sense that electors are meant to choose from the available alternatives, and if there is only a ‘single bidder’ to represent them, they are not required to make a choice.

Challenges posed by the current electoral system:

Paradox of electoral exclusion -

• The current electoral process creates a dichotomy, with the "elector" being completely excluded from the process of choosing their representative.
• A person without a single vote would sit in Parliament to legislate on behalf of the entire constituency. This creates a situation where voters' choice is presumed because they have no choice.
• This raises questions about the possibility of the election process being controlled or manipulated by a few candidates who can nullify the rights of millions of voters.
• In an extreme situation, all candidates in 543 parliamentary constituencies could game the system, denying a billion electors their statutory right by complying with the process while seriously wounding the spirit of democracy.

Bias towards contesting candidates -

• The RPA favours contesting candidates. It treats a complete boycott as zero votes and covers it under Section 65, which deals with 'Equality of votes'.
  • If an equality of votes exists between any candidates, the returning officer will decide between them by lot, proceeding as if the candidate on whom the lot falls had received an additional vote.
  • The will of the people is replaced by the expediency of the system in identifying who will represent the people who did not participate in the process.
  • This paradox is seen as a challenge to democracy, which is defined as a "government of the people, by the people and for the people."
• The RPA also provides for issuing another notification if no candidates file their nomination the first time, but it is silent if it is repeated. However, it excludes people who abstain from elections and are deprived of the NOTA option, as NOTA has no significance in the democratic exercise.
• Candidates can nullify the process, but people collectively cannot.

Way forward:

• Introduction of minimum percentage of votes:
  • The first-past-the-post system in India could be amended to include a minimum percentage of votes for the winning candidate.
• Transferring uncontested seats to nominated category:
  • If no candidate offers herself for elections the second time, the seat could be transferred to the nominated category, where the President can nominate a person without consulting the government.
• Need for wide-ranging debate:
  • This debate is needed to avoid a 'rain washes out play' or a 'collusive walkover', ensuring a free and fair election without fear or favours.
    • It could be argued that voters could also be denied their rights if there are no candidates to contest. The democratic process is fulfilled only when there is interest among the contestants and the voters. Someone has to seek your vote for you to cast it.

Conclusion:

Addressing the challenges posed by uncontested elections requires a thorough examination of the electoral process and potential reforms to uphold democratic principles and ensure meaningful participation for all citizens.