With a little push by the Supreme Court, EC gets down to restore propriety in campaign discourse

Congress leader Shashi Tharoor is right when he says that civility is a rare virtue in politics in the context of BJP Minister Nirmala Sitharaman visiting him in hospital to enquire about his injury on the campaign run. Problem is such courtesies unfortunately need a context such as that of Tharoor’s and are not internalised as a behavioural routine by any politician. Which is why the campaign discourse for this edition of the Lok Sabha elections is at its bitterest, with leaders liberally tossing expletives, trading insults, hurling sexist remarks and polarising voters. Much has been said about the belly-crawling descent into dirt and mudslinging and now the Election Commission’s (EC’s) rap on the knuckles, forbidding some of our political leaders from making speeches between 48 and 72 hours, should keep them in line. Yet some of them like Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan continue to be repeat offenders every season while BSP chief Mayawati even challenged the courts over the EC’s restraining order. But elections are no longer a gentleman’s game, particularly in a two-camp contest, and political leaders, whatever their intra-personal or party equations, are under a kind of performance pressure of sorts to get a headline-grabbing or even a eye-popping moment or risk being labelled a tepid player. Besides, the virality of new media has meant that politicians are risking censure and crafting their outbursts to sting instantaneously and set off a talk point. They know that the punishment is simply too mild, ranging from advisories, warnings to curfews, but never disqualification or a campaign ban. 

But then a lot of the overstepping of boundaries has got to do with the perception of the EC as a toothless tiger which the Supreme Court disputed while taking up a petition on controlling inflammatory poll tirades and restoring a semblance of propriety. In fact, the Constitution gives it extraordinary powers to execute its primary responsibility of free and fair elections. It has the power of “superintendence, direction and control of elections.” It is in continuance of that thread that the Supreme Court said how the poll body was “duty-bound to take action and cannot sleep over such issues.” It even asked the EC as to what action it had taken against Mayawati and Yogi Adityanath for alleged hate speeches. Had the apex court not reminded the EC of its role, the limiting orders perhaps would not have been issued. This brings the office-bearers of the EC, the people who are appointed as Election Commissioners, into focus. It is not that they do not know their powers but are wary of the extent of implementing them given the politically charged atmosphere, the political nature of their appointments and other imperatives. But it is up to the person holding the office of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) to make it what it is. One still remembers the name of TN Seshan, a maverick who went overboard at times, but as CEC during the early 1990s, he did raise the status of the institution in his charge and manage to keep politicians across the spectrum in check. He was not scared to use the power mandated to him by law. And he revamped the election system as the transparent mechanism we know it today by staying within the ambit of the law. Besides, the CEC has the same protection as a Supreme Court judge and cannot be removed summarily. Agreed the EC has also not been faced with so many complaints and violations. But it could certainly act more decisively for the sake of its own credibility. For politicians have turned the elections into an aggressive, competitive and intense contest. And while the older lot of Sharad Pawar, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Nitish Kumar are still holding their dignified fronts, the discourse is being shared by a new generation eager to make a mark.