Jagdeep S. Chhokar shares with People Matters the lessons corporates can learn from the way the Election Commission operates and much more. 

Do you think the idea of proportional representation and majority voting will help throw out the vote bank politics?

What India needs is a combination of the current “First-past-the-post” and the “Proportional Representational” systems. This is because of two main reasons. One, the extreme diversity and complexity of the society and polity in India, and two, the peculiarity of the situation in India where the so-called political parties, while claiming to function in a democracy and upholding democracy, are not democratic in their own internal functioning.

The issue of “majority voting” and “vote bank politics” is somewhat different. It stems from the “First-past-the-post” system and the fragmentation of the polity which, in turn, is also caused by the lack of internal democracy in the political parties. When a person who believes s/he has sufficient following amongst the electorate or has an assured “vote bank” based on whatever criterion (even caste, community, religion, etc.) and wants to take a stand which is even marginally different from the mainstream view in the party, finds that her/his voice in not heard in the party, s/he finds it attractive to form a new party and often wins the election due a combination of the fragmentation of the polity, multiplicity of political parties and candidates contesting elections, and the “First-past-the-post” electoral system.

There should be an option for “None of the above” or “I do not vote for any of the above candidates” on the electronic voting machines (EVMs), and it should be not be considered a “negative vote” but a vote for better candidates.

In case none of the candidates gets more than 50% of the votes cast and “None of the above” gets the highest number of votes polled, then there should not be a ‘run-off’ elections between two candidates securing the highest number of votes because all these have already been rejected by the electorate, instead there should be a fresh election in which all the candidates in the earlier election should not be allowed to contest.

Only that candidate should be declared elected who secures at least one more than 50% of the votes cast in the fresh election. A much more robust form of representation is when the winner is required to get at least one more than 50% of the registered votes. But we are too far from that at the moment and therefore, even at least one vote more than 50% of the votes cast is a good enough criterion for now.

There will obviously some teething troubles and practical difficulties in implementing these provisions. The 15th Law Commission, in the 170th report of the Law Commission, anticipated these and observed, “If electronic voting machines (EVM) are introduced throughout the country, it will become a little more easier to implement this.”

The Election Commission of India supported these suggestions in its recommendations to the government on 10 December 2001, and reiterated then again in a letter from the then chief election commissioner to the Prime Minister on 4 July 2004.

Thus, an option of “None of the above” or “I do not vote for any of the above candidates” has the potential of giving voters some real choice, thus taking us closer to real democracy. It can nudge political parties to select better candidates.

There will be some costs to repolls, though much less now with EVMs. But democracy needs and deserves such investments. If the return is an improvement in the quality of candidates, the investment would be well worth it.

Even without a repoll, some moral pressure may be applied on political parties. If and when the “None of the above” option is repeatedly exercised across India, parties are sure to learn the lesson. The purpose of the exercise is not to ask voters to “not vote”, but rather to nudge political parties to select better candidates.

The election commission this general election banned telecast of exit polls. Do you think it overstepped its jurisdiction? Does banning of exit polls help voter cast his vote without being influenced?

The Election Commission banned the telecast of exit polls till the last phase of the polling was over. The TV channels were free to telecast the exit polls as soon as the polling in the last phase was over. I do NOT think the Election Commission overstepped its jurisdiction in doing so. We must remember that the Election Commission has a vast reservoir of residual powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India, for conduct of a free and fair election in the country.

Publication or telecast of exit polls of earlier phases of voting before voting for a subsequent phase has been completed, certainly has the potential of influencing the voter behavior in the subsequent phases of polling. Therefore, banning of publication or telecast of the results of the exit polls of earlier phases before the polling of all the phases is over, certainly allows the voters to cast their votes without being influenced by the voting patterns of the preceding phases of polling.

Navin Chawla’s appointment as the chief election commissioner was controversial with allegations of his closeness to the congress. Is election commission truly an autonomous body?

The Election Commission of India is indeed an independent, constitutional body since its formation and functioning are mandated by the Constitution of the country. This should not be confused with “autonomous” bodies set up by the Government of India. The appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner did become somewhat controversial but that does not seem to have affected the neutrality and standing of the Election Commission, at least not so far. And nor is it expected to do so in future. However, there is a very important lesson to be learnt in this and that is about the process of appointing Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner. These appointments are technically made by the President who acts on the advice of the cabinet. In practical terms therefore these are made by the government of the day. It is strongly advisable to ensure that these appointments are above any possible controversy, and therefore they should be made, and also seen to be made, in an obviously non-partisan way.

Suggestions for this already exist and were reiterated by the outgoing Chief Election Commissioner that the appointments should be recommended by a committee consisting the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Prime Minister, the Leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. I would suggest a slight modification and that is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India should also be a member of this committee. This may sound radical but it is necessary to maintain the system of checks and balances between the three pillars of the state, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The composition of the committee, as earlier suggested, confines it only to the legislature and the executive branches of the state. Given the criticality of these appointments, it is necessary that all the three pillars of the state are involved in making these recommendations.

Do you think election commission can be a role model for the corporate world in terms management of manpower and material?

There are very useful lessons to be learnt by all organizations from the way the Election Commission operates, and corporate organizations are no exception to this. I do not know enough about the internal working of the Election Commission but what is visible to common citizens is that the Election Commission seems to work in a project mode. Of course, there has to be, and must be, a well-oiled machine behind the scenes which is not available to the public eye to see, that makes the execution of each project, some of them truly colossal, successful. And that is what the corporate world can learn. Two other things that the Election Commission is extremely good at are information technology and logistics, and could offer valuable lessons to the corporate sector. But we should also remember that the Election Commission also has access to almost the entire bureaucracy at the time of elections and that is a really huge resource.