150+
mock exams
17,986
tests completed
2,30,795
questions answered
This editorial, written by former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa, critiques the growing trend of uncontested elections and the potential compromise of the (ECI)'s neutrality. He uses recent issues concerning electoral rolls in West Bengal to argue that a lack of political competition and a seemingly partisan electoral referee undermine the foundational principles of a democratic mandate.
The core constitutional principle highlighted here is the necessity of political competition for a meaningful democracy. The author references the Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifically Section 53(3), which allows for 'unopposed' winners. While legally sound, the author argues that a true democratic mandate requires contestation, providing voters with alternatives and legitimizing the winner's position. The editorial contrasts a system with high voter participation but low contestation (termed a 'plebiscitary autocracy' by political scientist Robert Dahl) with a true democracy. For UPSC Mains, this raises critical questions about electoral reforms. Should uncontested elections be viewed as a sign of political consensus or democratic decay? The argument underscores the importance of a level playing field and vibrant opposition for accountability and policy refinement.
A significant portion of the critique focuses on the role and perceived neutrality of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the ECI is vested with the power of 'superintendence, direction and control' of elections. The author questions the ECI's recent handling of electoral rolls in West Bengal, specifically the 'Special Intensive Revision' (SIR). He points out discrepancies, such as the hasty deletion of 27.16 lakh electors classified as 'under adjudication' by specially appointed judicial officers, and contrasts this with the ECI's inaction regarding 19 lakh people classified as 'non-citizens' in the Assam National Register of Citizens (NRC). This disparity raises concerns about arbitrary disenfranchisement and the abdication of the ECI's mandate to ensure 'No voter to be left behind.' For governance studies, this highlights the necessity for independent institutions to maintain unassailable integrity and the potential democratic cost when their neutrality is questioned.
The editorial indirectly touches upon the right to vote, implicitly referencing Article 326 which guarantees universal adult suffrage to citizens over 18, unless disqualified under specific constitutional provisions. The author points out that the ECI has not released data clarifying if the weeded-out voters in West Bengal were actually ineligible under Article 326. The mass suspension of voting rights without due process or functioning Appellate Tribunals arguably infringes on this constitutional guarantee. This issue provides a complex case study for understanding the tension between administrative efficiency (cleaning voter rolls) and fundamental democratic rights. It also brings into focus recent debates around structural changes like One Nation, One Election, which the author suggests might further diminish necessary political competition rather than foster it.