There is a reason the Election Commission is vested with certain special legal powers during election time. Since the conduct of free and fair election is the ultimate goal, the Election Commission is constitutionally empowered to mobilize state resources to achieve that end. For instance, the Election Commission in Nepal might seek ‘additional facilities’ like ‘security personnel for the period of elections’ if EC deems it important to maintain law and order and to check fraud during election. The kind of facilities needed to ensure free and fair polls has been left to the discretion of the EC. Thus, it is surprising that the government has turned down the proposal forwarded by the EC to allow the constitutional body to mobilize security personnel for elections. Not just that. Most of the provisions recommended by the EC in the election related ordinance forwarded by the government to the president have been removed. Clearly, certain political interests felt the provisions were not in their favor. Past governments have faced criticisms for mobilizing security personnel during the elections to their advantage.
Similarly, the government has amended the provision which stated that the constitutional body would be authorized to take action against security personnel, among other officials, for any activity deemed to be against electoral code of conduct. This omission is even more surprising given that the Election Commission Act, 2063 clearly provides for such disciplinary actions. The government has also turned down the EC´s proposal to allow one person to file candidacy from one constituency only. But even this measure to cut down on unnecessary costs has been turned down, apparently to appease the top leaders who are unsure of getting elected if they stand from only one constituency. The amended proposal also removes the eligibility criteria for candidates vying for proportional seats. Even more alarmingly, the provision that proposed disclosure of property details and income sources of candidates has also been dropped.
Whether the amendments were made with the consent of all four major political forces, or at the sole responsibility of the Maoist-Madhesi coalition, it will be a grave mistake to ignore the advice of the constitutional body entrusted with holding the biggest exercise in democracy. It is important that the EC be adequately empowered to allay fears that the political parties, particularly those in the ruling coalition, will try to exercise their leverage with the new election government during the next election. By removing the provision of background checks of electoral candidates, the political parties seem determined to push through candidates with questionable, even criminal, backgrounds. The fact that the majority of lawmakers in the erstwhile CA had failed to disclose their income and property details, in clear contravention of EC directive, indicates that they had something to hide. The latest omission on property details and income sources only deepens that suspicion.
Again, the importance of giving the EC enough independence and clout to conduct free and fair polls cannot be overemphasized. Even if the CA polls take place in the near future, they are likely to invite more troubles than give solutions if their credibility comes under question. Only if all relevant actors follow the rules of the game can the exercise of franchise be meaningful.
Related story
‘Big Bang Theory’ tops ‘Game of Thrones’ in weekly ratings
