EVM Woes – An Issue that Went Wrong

…so here it is, the question of EC’s answers – can a state, a democratic state expropriate its electorates of their right to know how they personally voted and where their individual vote went, merely because  its polling system is devoid of flaws? The electronic ballot makes secret ballot secret to its own exerciser and eliminates the very basic concept of democracy…

Saurabh Dharmeshwari

EVMs – the computerized, automatic redeemer of people’s ballot in twenty first century democracies – is a sizzling theme of discussion in certain parts of the world; but in our country, the debate, having come to a boil at snail’s pace, swiftly simmered down even without mainstream commetariat touching it. There were some riveting pieces of comments from professionals in leading computer and electronic journals, the concisely put elucidation of possibilities of hacking, to bear out the topic. They drew enough attention but not sufficient takers. No surprise about that, you might think. We are, after all, not a technically aware nation and a democratically revolutionized society.

Have a look at EVM trials across the world: Banned in Germany and Netherlands, dropped with initiative still in pipeline in Ireland, its genuineness suspected across Europe, reports of rigging in Venezuela, Macedonia and Ukraine, and even re-election of US President George W Bush in 2004 under fire, lots of stuff this is. You name an electronic democracy and there is a skepticism building up about programmed, self regulated gadgets.

The issue broke ground at right time in India but went wrong from naught. The ghost of 2009 general elections would not abandon any political camp: the BJP, LJP and JDS would point finger at elections and the ruling Congress party would react the way an accused does. No wonder, a good cause was weakened and the real concerns remain untouched, unaddressed.

In our post-TN-Sheshan-post-JM-Lyngdoh-electorally-reformed-democracy, several High Courts are hearing petitions on EVM woes today. And yes, there is an IAS officer, Omesh Saigal, former Delhi chief secretary, who knocked over our Chief Election Commissioner Navin Chawla with a presentation to bug his temper proof machines, with utmost success but with no resistance. The bewildered Chawla had no option but to order an inquiry into possibility of rigging.

The issue, sort of relief for losers in times of despondency and melancholia, broke ground at right time in India but went wrong from naught, finally losing track as the debate progressed little by little. The ghost of 2009 general elections would not abandon any political camp: the BJP, LJP and JDS would point finger at elections and the ruling Congress party would react the way an accused does. No wonder, a good cause was weakened and the real concerns remain untouched, unaddressed. The concern is not EVM’s temperablity but reinforcing public faith in polling system.

The point, it seems, has not cut much ice either with the political parties or with the Election Commission for that matter, so this talk keyed on safeguards, the nine safeguards allegedly required to stand guard integrity of election results. There is much hullabaloo about their lacking in Indian EVMs in losers’ camps and even some leaders of the ruling Congress – in some states which went to assembly polls before parliamentary elections and saw Congress party being mowed down the way the BJP has been in general elections – are seeking refuge in the theory to turn their back at the remises and trespasses made earlier.

Well, the issue is purely democratic rather than technical, as has been with Germany and Netherlands and Ireland and wherever: go out in the street, or visit a shanty, or talk in a commuter bus – people complain they finish up voting on EVM without knowing where their vote actually, eventually go.

Yes, the disbelief is markedly more pronounced in technically unaware but democratically active illiterate, downmarket mob, the bulk of those who come out to vote instead of hanging about on weekends. And their skepticism, not surprisingly, has nothing to do with current controversy; the undercurrent of suspicion existed right since the introduction of EVMs. They want their vote voted in favour of their favourite party in front of their eyes rather than leaving the job to a programmed machine.

So here it is, the question of EC’s answers – can a state, a democratic state expropriate its electorates of their right to know how they personally voted and where their individual vote went, merely because it thinks or claims that its polling system is ideal, devoid of flaws? The electronic ballot makes secret ballot secret to its own exerciser and eliminates the very basic concept of democracy. Does an election conducting body or even executive have this right? Without, I hope, consulting a constitutional expert, everybody knows the answer of at least the moral part of the question under discussion.

We can bring home the point the other way, too. EVMs were scientific inventions to lessen the complexities of paper ballot, adopted by many countries, and accepted by Indian masses solely on the premise that such a system successfully, flawlessly works in certain parts of the world and will do so in India as well. Unfortunately, there are many opinion polls and analyses of verdict every elections but not a survey on public acceptability, public opinion of EVMs to show the level of this acceptability.

The use of EVMs, in my opinion, should be a choice made by voters rather than anybody else, or at least it has to be grounded on their beliefs and disbeliefs instead of the cogency of scientific processes incomprehensible to them. Well, critics may argue their case with an assumption that voter turnout is an indicator of public faith in EVMs, but assuming so is more or less being Ayatollah Ali Khamanei of Persia; I have qualms to believe this theory.

The use of EVMs, in my opinion, should be a choice made by voters rather than anybody else, or at least it has to be grounded on their beliefs and disbeliefs instead of the cogency of scientific processes incomprehensible to them. Well, critics may argue their case with an assumption that voter turnout is an indicator of public faith in EVMs, but assuming so is more or less being Ayatollah Ali Khamanei of Persia.

The Election Commission’s stand on the matter is fathomable. It is not a body representative of people and so considering or ignoring the public opinion, fears, expectations and aspirations while pushing ahead with electoral reforms is not its business. No surprise, Deputy Election Commissioner Balakrishnan will probe possibility of rigging, but not possibilities of enhancing public trust. No wonder, certificates of EVM manufacturers, the government run BEL and ESIL, will be relied upon, but not public mood will be palpated. The spoils of TN Sheshan, JM Lyndoh styles of reforms, eclipsed then by their firm commitment to their duty to the country, are out to do the spoiling.

The way Congress party reacted on the issue is unfortunate. It could have taken a panoptic approach to the matter rather than clarifying one as an accused, particularly so because even some of its own leaders reportedly share the reservation. As a leading partner of ruling coalition and as a political party, it is expected to take a position on an issue only after making an attempt to assess public mood on that rather than yielding to the immediate political requirement in the face of opposition.

My take on the issue is that it really does not matter if the Indian EVMs are vulnerable to bugging or are temper proof, and instead of concentrating too much on any other safeguards, we should rather ensure that the polling system take care of people’s faith, whether it is reverting to ballot papers, or it is a paper receipt of individual vote generated out of EVM and deposited in a nearby ballot box after confirmation of how the vote went, so that people go back from polling booth satisfied.

The electronic receipt is more a theoretical idea, considered unfeasible, impractical, though.