The decision of the Election Commission to put off the elections in the assembly constituencies of Aravakurichi and Thanjavur in Tamil Nadu raises important concerns. The elections in these two seats had been postponed twice earlier. The first time, it was moved from May 16 —  when the whole state went to polls — and then to May 23, and finally to June 13. On Saturday, the commission had decided to hold the elections when the situation in these two places improves. It had based its decision on the reports of observers and of the central teams. The reports said that there were complaints from Aravakurichi about money being distributed. And the complaints have been made by the candidates themselves. There is then apprehension on the part of the contestants that voting will not be fair and impartial. 

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

It would be difficult to find fault with the Election Commission for rescinding the scheduled action and ordering a fresh poll. It would mean that the commission would have to notify the new dates, nomination papers by the contestants will have to be filed afresh and after the campaign time, voting will take place. It can be asked whether going over the whole process yet again is going to alter the situation radically. It may not, but it will make clear to all the participants that a red card is inevitable for foul play.

The Election Commission is of course is walking the tight rope. It cannot demand that the situation in these two constituencies will have to be conducive to hold the elections. It will be obligated to conduct the elections and facilitate fair and free polling, which would imply that there will be no inducements or impediments as far as possible. It will also be necessary for the commission to confiscate cash as it had done on May 18 and even earlier. 

As the commission’s decision is based on complaints emanating from those in the constituency, it will have to disqualify the people who are involved in distributing money, and not penalise the rest of the people in the constituency by denying them the right to vote. It may not be realistic to expect that there will be ideal conditions for holding the election. It is evident from experience that re-polling would have to be ordered in those booths where foul play is suspected, but the election process should go on in the rest of the two constituencies.

There is no doubt that the Election Commission is taking the idea of a fair election to the next level. Its position implies that it is not enough that the polling takes place under peaceful conditions and it is not disrupted by violence or by the presence of gun-toting supporters on either side. The commission is now demanding that the polling has to satisfy the additional condition that money is not being doled out brazenly. It has to be understood that this is not a moral demand but a practical one. It should not be the case that money is circulating in a conspicuous manner during election time. It is a fair demand and it needs to be met as well along with the other conditions of peaceful polling and orderly campaigning. 

The issue of a fair poll cannot be the task of the Election Commission and that of the local administration functioning under the commission’s jurisdiction. Political parties will have to cooperate and they should work with civil society groups to ensure that the electoral contest is conducted according to rules and norms.