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.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS