Poll positions

Enforcing the model code of conduct could be a challenge

The second-longest parliamentary elections begin in a little over a month, presenting the uplifting spectacle of democracy in action in the world’s largest democracy. The scale of this quinquennial task has never been small for a country with its wide geographical and multicultural variety. The 2024 exercise is likely to dwarf its predecessors in terms of size. There are about 969 million registered voters for the seven-phase elections, including four Assembly elections.

This number makes India’s electoral exercise larger by several orders of magnitude than other large democracies voting this year. For instance, Indonesia, which recently completed its elections, has roughly 204 million voters. The US, the world’s most powerful democracy, has around 168 million voters. In India, women account for almost half the electorate; expectedly, the poorer among this voting bloc have been the target of electioneering among key parties in the contest. This is also a young people’s election with 29 per cent of the electorate between ages 18 and 29 (remarkably, India also has over 200,000 voters above 100). The fact that India has been able to conduct this huge exercise via universal electronic voting without the kind of controversy over “stolen elections”, which roiled the US in 2020, ending with an attack on the Capitol, is also admirable.
 

That said, there are some points of concern, chief among them the Election Commission of India’s (ECI’s) ability to monitor and effectively enforce the model code of conduct. In this respect, the steady lengthening of polling duration — from 29 days in 1999 to 39 days in 2019 and 44 days in 2024 — has been the source of contention among key Opposition parties. The ECI has frequently explained that the primary reason for multi-phased elections is the need to deploy large numbers of federal security forces across one million polling booths. The ECI deploys about 15 million polling staff and security personnel to conduct the elections. Given the frequency and intensity of campaigning it is a tough ask to expect it to effectively monitor whether all parties are observing the model code of conduct. Staggered polls also raise questions. The principal apprehension is that a lengthy time span disproportionately favours the ruling party, which can deploy the power of incumbent advantage and government infrastructure to campaign.

A less addressed issue is the use of TV, websites, social media, and phone-in as campaigning tools. In long-drawn elections, these modes of virtual campaigning offer competing parties the opportunity to amplify and lengthen campaigning even in areas where ECI rules mandate that campaigning stop 48 hours before voting. These campaigning techniques have been skilfully deployed by most parties to circumvent the spirit if not the letter of campaign restrictions. These are challenges that the ECI urgently needs to address as April 19 nears. Besides, the ECI has issued advisories for political parties. It has advised, for instance, that campaigning be issue-based and parties avoid hate speeches. Appeals should not be based on caste and religion and it would be the responsibility of star campaigners to maintain decorum. Given that elections are competitive, as should be the case, it is incumbent on the ECI to ensure that everyone plays by the rules of the game.