India’s multi-party democracy thrives on diversity but often sees political parties driven by individual charisma rather than internal democracy. Despite their role in upholding the nation’s democratic framework, many parties struggle to maintain democratic structures. Can the Election Commission (EC) ensure these organisations practice internal democracy? Former Chief Election Commissioner O.P. Rawat and PRS Legislative Research president M.R. Madhavan discuss this question with Sreeparna Chakrabarty. Edited excerpts:
The EC has been thinking of nudging political parties on the issue of internal democracy. But how can they do it?
O.P. Rawat: The EC is the registering authority for all the political parties in our country. As such, the EC monitors whether they are functioning according to their Constitution, by-laws, etc. And in the process, they also oversee whether the elections to their office bearers are taking place regularly. But there has been one important point in this whole issue. This was the 2002 ruling of the Supreme Court which says that the EC cannot go into the political process and anything which is part of the political process per se. That’s why it has no power to de-register a political party based on any violation of these things. They can de-register if registration has been obtained on the basis of fraud or other things, but they cannot de-register a party if they don’t have periodic elections. Otherwise, to whatever extent the laws permit, the EC is doing it.
Also read | The long road to reforming India’s political party system
What would be your views on whether the EC should have the power to de-register parties at all?
O.P. Rawat: I would like to say that the EC does whatever is mandated to it with efficiency. The only thing is that when it comes to the de-registration of parties, it will have many different directions or dimensions. You know, elections are challenged only by way of election petitions according to our Constitution. We have been monitoring this and find that these disputes are much less every time over the years. If you compare us with the democracy in the most developed country as well, they had a storming of their legislature when the results were against one candidate.
This kind of thing, we never witnessed in our country after any election, and political acceptance of the election results is beyond imagination for all democracies which is borne by international conferences which I attended and which my colleagues attended everywhere. Election Commissioners from different countries say that India is a golden example where acceptance of election results by all political parties is enormous. With these credentials, if the EC is made to go into the internal process, the political process for de-registering, we will be running the risk of getting the poll body into a model where even the main stakeholders — the political parties — will start developing suspicion. So, I think we have to take a view in totality not only in the context of political parties about registration and regulation but also about the delivery of elections time and again on the stipulated time and in a free fair manner.
Also read | Are regional parties in India facing a succession problem?
M.R. Madhavan: So, I am not going to talk about the EC’s reputation, which has been very high, but it has, in my opinion, faltered in the rating bit. But back to the idea of political parties being regulated by them, I would agree with Mr. Rawat in saying that they should not get into that. Because then the EC becomes political, and susceptible to various political pressures, it should maintain its distance from the politics of the day. So, I would say whether parties hold internal elections or not, you cannot regulate them because even today they are required to hold. But what do they do? There is somebody who manages it so that somebody is contesting unelected or it is managed so that the people know who is going to get elected. I would say the discipline of political parties should come from the electorate.
If people think that this party is not democratic and you want a democratic party, don’t vote for them. If people want them, they will vote for them.
Is there any existing legal ground on which elections can be mandated within political parties?
O.P. Rawat: No, I feel there is nothing except for this registration of political parties by the EC and the periodical review of compliance with their Constitution, their by-laws, and all those things. But in the end, it is a very kind of loose compliance which is visible.
Probably the most well-known instance of EC intervening in the lack of democracy issue was when they rejected the YSRCP proposal to make Jagan Mohan Reddy permanent president of the party. They said that such a step was inherently anti-democratic. Was this within its mandate?
O.P. Rawat: Actually, the EC doesn’t have that kind of mandate, but within the framework of the political party registration rules, the EC is overseeing the compliance with their Constitution and their by-laws. Now amending that is contrary to the democratic idea of periodic elections and that is the point at which the EC took shelter to reject the move.
M.R. Madhavan: Does it matter? Because let them make that intervention. The party re-elects the same person again, who will contest unopposed. I mean the whole thing is that what we are talking about is not the reality but what could be in the letter of the law and what can they do. But if in reality, political parties are being essentially dominated by one personality who controls the whole thing, then there is nothing that stops them from having an election with one candidate who will get selected for a post. So, it will tick the boxes, but there is absolutely no difference in practice.
In a situation where we want or think that the EC should regulate internal democracy in political parties, how can such a law be brought in?
M.R. Madhavan: My simple answer is that it is not needed. So, the question shouldn’t arise.
O.P. Rawat: I agree with Mr. Madhavan. We should leave this kind of decision to the people who are the sovereign electorate and therefore I personally feel that one should not think of that.
Why this question arises again and again, is that the EC has made certain observations in many of the cases where parties are split.
O.P. Rawat: Actually, these issues fall under the political party’s symbols order, 1968, Paragraph 15. And under that, EC goes by four tests when there is a split, whether every faction has been following the party Constitution, whether they have been having the majority of the party the organisation whether they have been having the majority of the legislature wing or they are proceeding according to the by-laws. All these four tests are applied every time starting from Sadiq Ali case. It always comes down to the legislative majority, because all other tests fail. The only test which is amenable to the summary inquiry is the number of legislatures with the splinter group. So, whoever has the majority of a number of legislators with the splinter group gets the party symbol and the party name and that has been the case with the EC. In the text arguments are there where the arguments cover the aspects that since this group which was in command did not hold elections, did not sort of follow these by-laws, and therefore whatever orders they have passed for disqualifying are invalid all those things are just for by way of explanation.
M.R. Madhavan: I will just add one thing, which is that I mean, I am looking at it as a citizen, right? I mean, it is in our interest that EC has a very high credibility on whatever it does, so that we trust the process.
They need to have an objective way of making the decision and as Mr. Rawat said, if you are counting the number of legislators supporting, there is an actual number there and you can count if number A is greater than number B or is number A less than number B and make that decision. So, that is a fairly wise way of doing it without getting politically entrapped and I think they have been smart at doing that.
O. P. Rawat is former Chief Election Commissioner; M.R. Madhavan is co-founder and president of the PRS Legislative Research
Published – October 04, 2024 02:05 am IST