A Basic Test Of Legitimacy For Elections 2024

Institutions can help restore democracy when the opposition is unfairly boxed in, as happened after Emergency. But what happens when a shadow hangs over the independence of the EC?

- KALEESWARAM RAJ

ELECTIONS in themselves are not reliable indicators of a democracy. They happen also in populist autocracies ranging from Russia to Bangladesh. Take the Russian case. The Central Election Commission of Russia declared that President Vladimir Putin won about 88 percent of the vote in the recent polls. Many of Putin's critics were either imprisoned or forced to quit politics. Some others, including Boris Nemtsov and Alexei Navalny, died in mysterious circumstances. This does not mean that Putin lacks popular support. Many feel that under his leadership, Russia is formidable enough to defend the challenges from the West and that the country is progressing.

Let us come to the Indian scenario. According to the latest global attitudes survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, a majority of respondents were of the view that either an authoritarian rule or a military rule would be a better fit for India. Several countries have had to pay a heavy cost in the past because of the people's affinity for autocratic regimes.

BR Ambedkar, who said democracy is only a top dressing in India, is now proven to be correct. His fear against idolatry in politics as distinct from that in religion endangering democracy was prophetic. Idolatry is antithetical to constitutionalism since the Constitution is about institutions rather than individuals. The Constitution does not believe in personal glory.

Indian elections are a process with multiple components and stakeholders. The fairness of elections depends upon the interplay between these factors. It always required protection from money power, muscle power and state power. Article 324(2) of the Constitution says that till parliament makes a law, the chief election commissioner (CEC) and election commissioners (EC) will be appointed by the president. This provision effectively ensured the predominance of the executive of the day in selecting the CEC and ECs.