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.
The most troubling message coming out of Washington for Taipei is not any single statement but the cumulative effect of a series of signals suggesting that US President Donald Trump is rethinking Taiwan’s strategic value while viewing the US-China relationship through the lens of a transactional great-power bargain. The danger behind Trump’s new softness toward Beijing is a potential US-China bargain that undermines Taiwan’s core interests. During Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) recent state visit to Washington, Trump and Xi appeared to rewrite the history of World War II. In a Sept. 25 fact sheet on Xi’s visit, the White House said,
The official English name for Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen’s (沈伯洋) campaign is “the Taipei Current.” It comes from the Chinese term yangliu (洋流), a direct translation of which would be “ocean current,” using the last character of Shen’s name, yang (洋, “ocean”). The Chinese term is a reference to the 2018 campaign for Kaohsiung mayor that swept a hitherto marginal player within the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), who is now legislative speaker, whose successful campaign then was termed the “Han Wave” (韓流). Shen’s usage of the Chinese term is intentional.
Early this month, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) held two large election campaign rallies in Taichung and New Taipei City on the same day. However, KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) was marginalized at the rallies. Cheng shouted herself hoarse campaigning onstage for the mayoral candidates, but neither candidate was onstage at the time. In the morning of that day, the KMT’s Taichung mayoral candidate, Deputy Legislative Speaker Johnny Chiang (江啟臣), entered the venue accompanied by Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) and New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜). That afternoon, the party’s New Taipei City
China’s revised National Defense Mobilization Law took effect on Oct. 1, allowing the government to mobilize civilians and redirect resources for military purposes, and ensures a rapid transition from peacetime to wartime. It has a wide scope of “national interests” pretexts, which would likely be used against Taiwan. The amendment incorporates Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) “Military-Civil Fusion” principle into law, and stipulates that once the state initiates national defense mobilization, “the people’s governments at or above the county level may expropriate and requisition civilian resources,” and “all organizations and individuals shall have the obligation to accept the lawful expropriation and
RSS