If the nervousness in the stock market is anything to go by, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bid for a third term does not appear to be as secure as it did earlier this year. However, regardless of who wins when ballots are counted on Tuesday next week, the country’s besieged democracy is the biggest loser. The blame for that falls squarely on the organization responsible for ensuring a free and fair poll: the Election Commission of India.
Conducted over six weeks in seven phases amid a debilitating heat wave, the vote has been the most hate-filled since India held its first general election as an independent republic in 1951 to 1952. Instead of focusing on their own policies, Modi and his Hindu right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have run a polarizing campaign that — in the process of attacking his political opponents — vilified the Muslim community, India’s largest religious minority.
Despite complaints from Rahul Gandhi’s Congress Party and other opposition groupings, the election commission has done precious little to restrain the prime minister or act decisively on media reports of blatant voter suppression during polling, especially in BJP-controlled Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state. Nor has it released complete polling data, as it did in 2019.
Illustration: Yusha
The election has drawn international admiration, the government said in a news release. Delegates from Chile, Georgia, Maldives, Namibia, Papua New Guinea and Uzbekistan witnessed some of the May 7 polling in Uttar Pradesh. They were also taken on a tour of the Taj Mahal.
However, behind the veneer of transparency lies near-complete opacity. Civil society groups have dragged the election watchdog to India’s Supreme Court, which last week asked the commission to answer a simple question: Why can it not publicly release data on the number of people who have voted?
Considering that all of India’s voting is electronic, this information is readily available. Indeed, it is required to be handed over to the agents of all candidates in each of the country’s 1.2 million polling booths after the last ballots are cast.
Why not upload scanned copies of this information, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked the commission. That way, the votes cast can be crosschecked against the votes counted.
Public disclosure “may cause confusion in the minds of the voters” when postal ballots are added to the mix, the poll body said in its reply on Wednesday. Hearings on the case are to continue.
The absolute number of voters has become a crucial issue. Unlike in 2019, the election manager has so far only disclosed percentages.
On April 19, the first day of polling, the commission announced that, tentatively, more than 60 percent of eligible electors had voted, without sharing the data behind the calculations.
After 10 days of intense pressure from the media and political parties, it released final figures which showed a voting percentage of 66 percent, with no explanation for the increase. The data for the second phase also showed a similar bump between provisional and final figures. Once again, no absolute figures were provided.
A sprawling geography does pose challenges. Each parliamentary constituency has more than 2,000 polling booths, on average. Late-arriving data from remote stations or repolls might alter turnout calculations, but a 6 percentage point increase?
The voter turnout app was adequately reflecting updated information at all times, the commission wrote in a letter in response to the Congress Party’s questions. The election body also sought to show that polling figures were updated in previous years as well. However, even the data for 2019 showed a maximum difference of 3.4 percentage points between same day figures and a final tally done a few days later.
This time around, the gap between the initial and final estimates amounts to an increase of more than 10 million votes in just the first four rounds. (A fifth phase of voting took place on Monday last week.) Even if you discount the change in turnout calculations as innocuous, what is truly bizarre is the reluctance to share the absolute numbers.
The commission is “not legally bound to publish any voter turnout data” for a constituency, state or phase of election, it said in its letter to the Congress Party.
When investigative reporter Poonam Agarwal asked for this data using a right to information application, she was told they did not have the statistics.
None of this inspires confidence. India’s elections got under way with unanswered questions regarding electronic voting machines. A Supreme Court bench dismissed civil society groups’ demand for 100 percent matching of the paper slips that are briefly shown to voters behind a glass display with the actual votes recorded by the machines. Since then, the way the commission has conducted the polls has done little to boost either its own authority, or the credibility of India’s democracy.
The need of the hour is institutional overhaul, starting with staffing and how election commissioners are appointed. However, government officials are focused on image management: They have commissioned a local think tank to publish its own democracy ratings after the country was demoted to an “electoral autocracy” in 2021 by the V-Dem Institute, an independent research unit at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden.
“We have not invested enough attention, importance, money or time into the electoral process that forms the bedrock of a functional democracy,” Tamil Nadu politician Palanivel Thiaga Rajan said recently.
This year’s polls have laid bare the consequences of this willful neglect, which must be urgently addressed for about a 1 billion-strong electorate to continue to believe that it still has the power of vote over its rulers.
Andy Mukherjee is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies and financial services in Asia. Previously, he worked for Reuters, the Straits Times and Bloomberg News.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS