Code breaker

Minister's undermining of EC should have consequences

Minister for Law and Company Affairs Salman Khurshid has justly been criticised for what was seen as a direct attack on the authority of the Election Commission (EC). Mr Khurshid was warned by the EC that he was violating the model code of conduct when he promised that, if voted in, the Congress would increase the sub-quota for Muslims within the larger category of reservations for Other Backward Classes, or OBCs, from 4.5 per cent to nine per cent. Later, at another public rally, Mr Khurshid said that he cared little for the warning, even if he were “hanged” for a violation of the code of conduct. “We will change the fate of the poor even if we have to go against the Election Commission,” he is reported as having said. Well, if Mr Khurshid wishes punishment, he should be allowed to get his wish.

Mr Khurshid clearly has trouble figuring out where campaigning ends and the undermining of effective institutions begins. Mr Khurshid’s political party, the Congress, has not been noteworthy for its ability to either build or perpetuate strong apolitical institutions. Mr Khurshid has since apparently written to the EC expressing his “regret”, and adding that it had “never been his intention to transgress the law and undermine the election code of conduct”. No doubt he will be pleased to see the row die down as soon as possible. But what Mr Khurshid called his “unfortunate” statement should have more consequences than a terse letter of apology. And it should cause the Congress and the UPA to reflect, again, on why many observers continue to fear that it has insufficient respect for those few institutions in India that seem to be working independently.

That said, the Election Commission, too, should learn from the fact that the law minister clearly held a vastly different idea of what is not permitted under its model code of conduct. The code of conduct is too lengthy, too draconian, restricts too much activity, and is in effect for far too long. It covers several volumes, each of hundreds of pages, including a long list of “Frequently Asked Questions”. While the code of conduct needs to be clear to crack down on the menace of unrestrained electioneering – which can deface our towns, disrupt daily life, and warp the political process – the EC should consider if its restrictions on speech and action are going too far. That a campaigner associated with an incumbent party (at any level!) cannot make promises unless they have already been put into a manifesto that few outside the EC read – as the EC suggested to Mr Khurshid – seems to leach much of the spontaneity out of the political process. Nor should the multitude of voices and ideas in an average political party be reduced to just the consensus view, as expressed in a manifesto. For Mr Khurshid, the attack on the EC should have consequences. And the EC, too, should not overreach itself.