The recent query by India's Supreme Court, questioning how the Election Commission (EC) can decide on citizenship issues related to voters, has sparked a crucial debate that delves into the very bedrock of our democratic system. It's a reminder that even the most fundamental aspects of governance require clear, unequivocal mandates to function effectively.
At its heart, democracy, as eloquently described in the Wikipedia entry on Democracy, is about the rule of the people, where political power is vested in the population. A core feature identified is 'citizenship' and 'voting rights'. The Supreme Court's intervention, as reported, shines a spotlight on this foundational element: who precisely constitutes the 'people' eligible to vote. Without absolute clarity on this, the integrity of the entire electoral process becomes vulnerable.
I’ve long advocated for greater clarity and accountability in our electoral system. Years ago, I highlighted the need for stringent measures regarding political promises and the overall functioning of the Election Commission. In my blog, titled "Thank You, Election Commission", I outlined the concept of a 'Prevention of Irresponsible Promises by Political Parties Act' (PIPPPA). While this focused on financial transparency and accountability for poll promises, the underlying principle was the necessity for the EC to operate with clear, defined powers and responsibilities. Similarly, in "Changes in Poll System", I touched upon the discussions surrounding different electoral systems, again emphasizing the need for robust and transparent frameworks.
The core idea I consistently conveyed was about the imperative for clear institutional mandates. When I wrote about the Election Commission approaching the government for more power in "Election Commission to approach government for more power", I was underscoring a broader challenge: the need for our electoral body to have well-defined, undisputed authority to uphold free and fair elections. The current question from the Supreme Court, concerning the EC's role in determining voter citizenship, resonates deeply with these earlier thoughts. It’s striking how relevant that earlier insight still is; the parameters of who votes are arguably even more fundamental than the promises made to them.
This judicial scrutiny serves as a critical validation of the need to revisit those foundational ideas. Ambiguity in the EC's mandate, especially on such a sensitive issue as citizenship, can erode public trust and destabilize the very democratic processes we strive to protect. It reaffirms my belief in the urgent need for comprehensive electoral reforms that clearly delineate the powers and responsibilities of our institutions, ensuring that every citizen's right to vote, and indeed their very eligibility, is beyond reproach.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
No comments:
Post a Comment