The Election Commission of India has notified elaborate guidelines for the conduct of Assembly elections and by-elections during the Covid-19 pandemic. Considering the extraordinary circumstances in which a crucial element of democratic life has to be maintained, the guidelines attempt to maintain the essence of competitive politics while safeguarding ordinary citizens from the risk of infection.

The task before the ECI is daunting. It is one thing to issue guidelines that political parties and citizens should adhere to. However, in a country such as India where there are uneven levels of public consciousness, it will be an additional challenge to ensure that the guidelines are both understood and followed. There are understandable concerns over whether or not social distancing and the wearing of masks can be enforced during public meetings and road shows, not to mention queues at polling booths. How strongly with the administration deal with violators? Will good sense prevail at all times?

These are understandable concerns, but they are often overwhelmed by a question the Opposition parties in, say, Bihar are posing. According to media reports, the leadership of the Opposition parties are questioning the very necessity of going through with the election at such a time. The implication is clear: the Assembly elections should be postponed till the pandemic is brought under control and, once the term of the Assembly expires, President’s Rule should be imposed in the State.

In normal circumstances, the implicit demand for the suspension of democracy would have been dismissed as outrageous. However, when posed as a choice between the maintenance of democracy and the safeguarding of people’s lives, the answer isn’t all that easy.

If the present situation is compared to times when a country is at war, but the war hasn’t intruded on to the Home Front, certain precedents exist. In Britain, for example, Parliament functioned in a normal way throughout World War II. By-elections were routinely held. However, the life of a Parliament that should have ended in 1940 was extended by Parliament itself and the General Election was finally held in 1945, after victory in Europe but before the war against Japan had concluded. Postal ballots for soldiers stationed overseas was widely used and there was a gap of more than 30 days between polling day and the counting of votes. It would probably be accurate to say that in all likelihood the electoral rolls were imperfect.

In the United States too, the presidential election was successfully conducted in 1944 and, presumably, postal ballots were widely used.

A question arises: should the ECI have extended the scope of postal ballots beyond the over-80s, Covid-19 patients in quarantine and the handicapped? Should it have been extended to all those who feel that physical voting in these times is not worth the risk? The question is being posed because I have little doubt that turnout will be less for two reasons. First, many voters will be inclined to stay at home rather than risk possible infection in a queue. Secondly, in view of the elaborate protocol, it is likely that the queues before polling stations will be much longer than usual. In short, it may take considerably longer for people to complete their voting. This will ensure that those who are not sufficiently motivated politically may choose to stay away.

Will a greater use of postal ballots address these concerns? In theory, yes. However, if we are to examine the recent experience of other countries that have facilitated postal ballots on application, certain concerns arise.

The United Kingdom is an important case study. Here, to offset the problem of low turnout, postal ballots on applications were introduced. While this has worked well in most parts of the UK, problems have been noticed in some inner-city areas where there are people of Pakistani origin. It seems that there is an organised racket involving postal ballots. Mass applications are being sent and then the postal ballots are being given to some so-called community leaders to fill in. In short, rather than individuals voting, the community leaders are voting for individuals.

This is reminiscent of the elections in the 1950s in India when ballots were put into separate boxes for each candidate. There was a practice that the voter simply pocketed the ballot paper and then sold it to the representative of a candidate who then used another voter to stuff multiple ballots into the box of a candidate. The techniques of deceit in India tend to be quite innovative.

These concerns are relevant because the country is seriously interested in maintaining democracy in these extraordinary times. The Government could have chosen to rush through constitutional measures that would have curtailed democracy during the pandemic. That this is simply not an option that it is willing to exercise is reassuring. Now the priority is to ensure the country rises to the challenge. A fuller discussion on elections at the time of a pandemic is imperative to enrich our democratic traditions.

I think it is prudent to factor in these possible malpractices before innovative steps are taken.