One of the significant features of India’s electoral record has been its progressive betterment on two major counts — in registering eligible citizens as electors, and achieving increased participation of electors in voting. While only 17 per cent were registered and 45 per cent of them turned out to vote in 1951 in India’s first general election, in 2019, India’s latest general election, over 91 per cent of its eligible citizens were registered with 67 per cent of them coming out to vote, which is the highest voter turnout in the nation’s history.It is, however, worrying that a third of the eligible voters, a whopping 30 crore people, do not vote. Among the many reasons, including urban apathy and geographical constraints, one prominent reason is the inability of internal migrants to vote for different reasons.The Election Commission had earlier formed a “Committee of Officers on Domestic Migrants” to address this issue. The Committee’s report submitted in 2016 suggested a solution in the form of “remote voting”. On Monday, to further address this serious problem, the EC invited representatives from all recognised national and state political parties to discuss the legal, administrative, and statutory changes to resolve the issue. The discussion took place in the presence of a technical expert committee. It is important to recall that the last major decision about the voting system was the introduction of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT), with the consensus of all political parties in 2010.The consensus approach is imperative not only to keep intact the democratic heritage of the Commission but to help further entrench its popular trust and institutional integrity, which, in recent times, have been noticed to be in peril.The Constitution guarantees freedom of movement to every citizen and freedom to reside in any part of the country. However, migrant workers, especially circular or short-term migrants, constituting tens of millions of citizens are some of the least represented groups in the ballot. The issue of disenfranchisement faced by migrant workers is not one arising out of deliberate denial of the right to vote, but for lack of access to vote. The Supreme Court, in a series of cases, has conclusively interpreted the freedom to access the vote as within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a).According to the 2011 Census, the number of internal migrants stands at 450 million, a 45 per cent surge from the 2001 census. Among these, 26 per cent of the migration (117 million) occurs inter-district within the same state, while 12 per cent of the migration (54 million) occurs inter-state. Both official and independent experts admit that this number is underestimated. Short-term and circular migration could itself amount to 60-65 million migrants, which, including family members, could approach 100 million in itself. Half of these are inter-state migrants.The root cause of the migrant voters’ issue is that the individual’s inalienable right to vote is conditioned by a rather strict residency qualification. As a consequence, it tends to disenfranchise the migrant population. In the survey report, ‘Political inclusion of Seasonal Migrant Workers in India: Perceptions, Realities and Challenges’ by Aajeevika Bureau, it was found that “close to 60 per cent of respondents had missed voting in elections at least once because they were away from home seeking livelihood options”.Most migrant voters have voter cards for their home constituency — 78 per cent, according to a 2012 study. Most cannot commute to their home states on polling day. One survey shows that only 48 per cent voted in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections when the national average was 59.7 per cent. These patterns have stayed consistent. In the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, major sender states such as Bihar and UP had among the lowest voter turnout rates at 57.33 per cent and 59.21 per cent respectively, while the national average was 67.4 per cent.Although electoral laws let people register at their place of “ordinary residence”, most face difficulties to get residence proof. Moreover, many migrant voters may not be as intensively involved in the political affairs and interests in their host locations as they are in their home locations. There is a clear trade-off. Not registering at the host location will lead to a lack of interest of political parties in providing facilities to them. The law should provide them with the option to choose the place for registration.What is the way out?Section 60(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 empowers the Election Commission of India, in consultation with the government, to notify “classes” of voters who are unable to vote in person at their constituencies owing to their physical or social circumstances. Once notified, the voters are eligible for the ETPB system (Electronically Transmitted Postal Ballot System).In the 2019 general elections, the ETPB system was accessed by 18 lakh defence personnel across the country. In 2019, in the backdrop of a PIL before the Supreme Court, a bill was floated to extend a similar remote voting possibility to over 10 million adult NRIs in order to “boost their participation in nation-building”. In the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, more than 28 lakh votes were received via postal ballots.In the existing system, remote voting within the constituency by voting via postal ballot is available to senior citizens, people with disabilities, and Covid-affected personnel. The postal ballot voting outside the constituency is available only to service voters, persons on election duty and persons on preventive detention.The Indian migrant worker too deserves the secured right to have access to vote through some mechanism.The Election Commission has proposed the use of remote voting for migrant workers wherein a modified version of the existing model of M3 EVMs will be placed at remote polling stations. In fact, the Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. has already developed a prototype of a Multi-constituency Remote EVM (RVM) — a modified version of the existing EVM which can handle 72 constituencies in a single remote polling booth. Technical details will be available only after the crucial demonstration.I hope the meeting on Monday proves to be a turning point in resolving the migrant voting issue once and for all. The task is daunting. Getting political parties to agree on a “remote” machine is a tall order in view of the persisting questions even about the existing stand-alone EVMs.I wish EC success in its stated objective of “finding a technological solution which is credible, accessible and acceptable to all stakeholders”. Acceptable: That’s the keyword that must be respected.The writer is former Chief Election Commissioner of India and author of An Undocumented Wonder — The Making of the Great Indian Election
One of the significant features of India’s electoral record has been its progressive betterment on two major counts — in registering eligible citizens as electors, and achieving increased participation of electors in voting. While only 17 per cent were registered and 45 per cent of them turned out to vote in 1951 in India’s first general election, in 2019, India’s latest general election, over 91 per cent of its eligible citizens were registered with 67 per cent of them coming out to vote, which is the highest voter turnout in the nation’s history.It is, however, worrying that a third of the eligible voters, a whopping 30 crore people, do not vote. Among the many reasons, including urban apathy and geographical constraints, one prominent reason is the inability of internal migrants to vote for different reasons.The Election Commission had earlier formed a “Committee of Officers on Domestic Migrants” to address this issue. The Committee’s report submitted in 2016 suggested a solution in the form of “remote voting”. On Monday, to further address this serious problem, the EC invited representatives from all recognised national and state political parties to discuss the legal, administrative, and statutory changes to resolve the issue. The discussion took place in the presence of a technical expert committee. It is important to recall that the last major decision about the voting system was the introduction of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT), with the consensus of all political parties in 2010.The consensus approach is imperative not only to keep intact the democratic heritage of the Commission but to help further entrench its popular trust and institutional integrity, which, in recent times, have been noticed to be in peril.The Constitution guarantees freedom of movement to every citizen and freedom to reside in any part of the country. However, migrant workers, especially circular or short-term migrants, constituting tens of millions of citizens are some of the least represented groups in the ballot. The issue of disenfranchisement faced by migrant workers is not one arising out of deliberate denial of the right to vote, but for lack of access to vote. The Supreme Court, in a series of cases, has conclusively interpreted the freedom to access the vote as within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a).According to the 2011 Census, the number of internal migrants stands at 450 million, a 45 per cent surge from the 2001 census. Among these, 26 per cent of the migration (117 million) occurs inter-district within the same state, while 12 per cent of the migration (54 million) occurs inter-state. Both official and independent experts admit that this number is underestimated. Short-term and circular migration could itself amount to 60-65 million migrants, which, including family members, could approach 100 million in itself. Half of these are inter-state migrants.The root cause of the migrant voters’ issue is that the individual’s inalienable right to vote is conditioned by a rather strict residency qualification. As a consequence, it tends to disenfranchise the migrant population. In the survey report, ‘Political inclusion of Seasonal Migrant Workers in India: Perceptions, Realities and Challenges’ by Aajeevika Bureau, it was found that “close to 60 per cent of respondents had missed voting in elections at least once because they were away from home seeking livelihood options”.Most migrant voters have voter cards for their home constituency — 78 per cent, according to a 2012 study. Most cannot commute to their home states on polling day. One survey shows that only 48 per cent voted in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections when the national average was 59.7 per cent. These patterns have stayed consistent. In the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, major sender states such as Bihar and UP had among the lowest voter turnout rates at 57.33 per cent and 59.21 per cent respectively, while the national average was 67.4 per cent.Although electoral laws let people register at their place of “ordinary residence”, most face difficulties to get residence proof. Moreover, many migrant voters may not be as intensively involved in the political affairs and interests in their host locations as they are in their home locations. There is a clear trade-off. Not registering at the host location will lead to a lack of interest of political parties in providing facilities to them. The law should provide them with the option to choose the place for registration.What is the way out?Section 60(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 empowers the Election Commission of India, in consultation with the government, to notify “classes” of voters who are unable to vote in person at their constituencies owing to their physical or social circumstances. Once notified, the voters are eligible for the ETPB system (Electronically Transmitted Postal Ballot System).In the 2019 general elections, the ETPB system was accessed by 18 lakh defence personnel across the country. In 2019, in the backdrop of a PIL before the Supreme Court, a bill was floated to extend a similar remote voting possibility to over 10 million adult NRIs in order to “boost their participation in nation-building”. In the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, more than 28 lakh votes were received via postal ballots.In the existing system, remote voting within the constituency by voting via postal ballot is available to senior citizens, people with disabilities, and Covid-affected personnel. The postal ballot voting outside the constituency is available only to service voters, persons on election duty and persons on preventive detention.The Indian migrant worker too deserves the secured right to have access to vote through some mechanism.The Election Commission has proposed the use of remote voting for migrant workers wherein a modified version of the existing model of M3 EVMs will be placed at remote polling stations. In fact, the Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. has already developed a prototype of a Multi-constituency Remote EVM (RVM) — a modified version of the existing EVM which can handle 72 constituencies in a single remote polling booth. Technical details will be available only after the crucial demonstration.I hope the meeting on Monday proves to be a turning point in resolving the migrant voting issue once and for all. The task is daunting. Getting political parties to agree on a “remote” machine is a tall order in view of the persisting questions even about the existing stand-alone EVMs.I wish EC success in its stated objective of “finding a technological solution which is credible, accessible and acceptable to all stakeholders”. Acceptable: That’s the keyword that must be respected.The writer is former Chief Election Commissioner of India and author of An Undocumented Wonder — The Making of the Great Indian Election
MUMBAI: The selection of candidates for the legislative council teachers constituency election on January 30 is dominated by the BJP even as the party claims that it is fighting the poll in alliance with the Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena (BSS), the Eknath Shinde faction of the Shiv Sena with which it shares power in the state.On Monday, BJP state unit president Chandrashekhar Bawankule at the Dadar office of the party announced the name of Dnyaneshwar Mhatre as the party candidate for the Konkan seat (Thane teachers constituency). He will be given the BJP's AB form. Bawankule said his candidature has been approved by the central leadership as well as chief minister Eknath Shinde and deputy chief minister Devendra Fadnavis. Mhatre's family was formerly associated with the Shiv Sena. Addressing a press conference along with Uday Samant of the BSS, Bawankule said the party had so far won only the Amravati graduate constituency seat.Bawankule said the Nagpur seat had always been contested by the Shikshak Parishad, which is ideologically inclined towards the BJP and this time too they would be announcing a candidate for the seat. "In Aurangabad the parishad did not have a candidate so we gave them Kiran Patil. In Amravati it is the BJP's Ranjit Patil," he said, adding that the Shikshak Parishad had been asked to withdraw its candidate for the Konkan seat. While the election is by first preference votes, the BJP is not taking any chances.For the Nashik graduates seat, Bawankule said a decision would be taken soon. The Shinde group of the Shiv Sena is keen to contest the seat as all the councillors of the Nashik Municipal Corporation had crossed over to its side after the split in the Shiv Sena.
MUMBAI: The selection of candidates for the upcoming MLC teacher’s constituency is clearly being dominated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) even as the party claimed it was fighting the elections in alliance with the Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena (BSS), the Eknath Shinde faction of the Shiv Sena.The elections are to be held on January 30.BJP state unit president Chandrashekhar Bawankule on Monday announced the name of Dnyaneshwar Mhatre as the party’s candidate for the Konkan MLC seat (Thane Teacher’s constituency).He will be given the BJP’s AB form. Bawankule said his candidature has been approved by the central leadership as well as chief minister Eknath Shinde and deputy CM Devendra Fadnavis.Mhatre’s family has been formerly associated with the Shiv Sena. Addressing a press conference along with Uday Samant of the BSS, Bawankule said the party had so far won only the Amravati graduate constituency seat.The Nagpur seat, he said, has always been contested by the Shikshak Parishad that is ideologically inclined towards the BJP and this time too they would be announcing a candidate for the seat. “In Aurangabad the Parishad did not have a candidate so we gave them Kiran Patil. In Amravati it is the BJP’s Ranjit Patil,” he said, adding the Parishad had been asked to withdraw its candidate for the Konkan seat.While the election is by first preference votes, the BJP is not taking any chances.For the Nashik graduates seat, Bawankule said a decision would be taken soon. The Shinde group is keen to contest this election as all the councillors of the Nashik Municipal Corporation had crossed over to its side after the split in the Shiv Sena.It is therefore intent on fielding a candidate here. However, given Nashik’s religious importance the BJP is not willing to cede the seat to its alliance partner, said political observers.(With inputs from PTI)
On January 8, supporters of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro stormed and ransacked important government buildings in Brasilia, including the country’s Congress, the Presidential Palace and the Supreme Court. In scenes reminiscent of the January 6, 2021 insurrection in Washington DC, Bolsonarists demanded that the result of the presidential election of October 2022 be overturned.The uprising, lasted a little more than three hours. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has vowed to “punish” the wrongdoers and has blamed Bolsonaro, currently living in Florida and yet to officially concede defeat, for inflaming his supporters with false rhetoric on election fraud.Bolsanaro and Trump are among the rightwing populist leaders who have come to power in several countries by harnessing popular anti-establishment sentiment through intense anti-globalist and anti-minority rhetoric, and who have subsequently gone on to attack and subvert a range of democratic institutions in their countries.Trump and Bolsonaro have openly expressed support and admiration for each other, and Trump has earlier urged Brazilians to vote for the “Trump of the Tropics,” as Bolsonaro is often called.The events in Brazil on January 8 were a near-replay of what happened at the United States Capitol two years ago. In both cases, angry supporters of a president who had been defeated in an election — unfairly, they believed — stormed government buildings with the intention of “taking back” their country. In both cases, they were egged on by their leaders — Trump and Bolsonaro — with baseless claims of election fraud.In a speech on December 2, 2020, Trump said, “If we don’t root out the fraud, the tremendous and horrible fraud that’s taken place in our 2020 election, we don’t have a country anymore.”Two years later, Bolsonaro’s son used almost identical language, claiming that his father was the victim of “the greatest electoral fraud ever seen”.Both claims were debunked by authorities and the media in the two countries. But the claims of the leaders and their repeated parroting by their diehard followers was “proof” enough for many. Social media was used to spread disinformation and to organise demonstrations and protests against the “stolen elections”.The parallels between the uprisings in Washington DC and Brasilia are not coincidental. Rather, they are a part of a common playbook that rightwing populists have used to exploit anti-institutional anger and ultra-nationalist urges.Thomas Traumann, a Rio-based political expert, told The Guardian: “Trump is his (Bolsonaro’s) idol and his model. And what did Trump do? He contested, he didn’t accept defeat, he called people on to the streets and encouraged violent protests and left power without backing down and continued to engage his followers so they didn’t recognize the authority of the new government and thus kept his base fired up. This, for me, is Bolsonaro’s roadmap.”Brian Winter, a Brazil specialist, told The Guardian that Bolsonaro’s tactic of questioning the elections after he lost was “100 percent Trump inspired”.“They (Bolsonarists) have noticed that January 6 and Trump’s continuous denial of the election has not cost him his future – as a matter of fact it may have saved it. Because this image of invincibility is so important to both of these movements – and the only way that Donald Trump could lose and survive was by insisting that he didn’t lose,” Winter said.It takes years of undermining rhetoric and action to persuade almost half the population of a country to begin doubting the sanctity of its democratic elections and institutions.The attack on “Washington elites” and vows to “drain the swamp” became central to Trump’s rhetoric in 2015-16 as he launched his election campaign. Bolsonaro came to power after Brazil was rocked by corruption scandals and a crippling recession, and he promised to “clean things up”.Both men promised to deregulate businesses and reduce taxes, they sought to dismantle environment protection frameworks in their countries, and pushed unscientific and dangerous public policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic.They exploited racial tensions and nativist insecurities to push their agendas. Importantly, both Trump and Bolsonaro expressed vocal opposition to “political correctness”, and engaged in openly racist, misogynistic, and homophobic messaging to pander to their base.The rise of leaders like Trump and Bolsonaro – also Viktor Orban of Hungary, Marine Le Pen of France, Geert Wilders of the Netherlands – has been situated in the context of growing wealth inequalities and changing racial and gender dynamics that have put people’s lives and identities in flux and engendered widespread insecurities. Right wing populism is a direct outcome of this, and grows by channelling people’s fears and frustrations.Philosopher and political scientist Noam Chomsky said in an interview that right wing populism is a manifestation of the “general collapse of the centrist political institutions during the neoliberal period.”He said, “What is taking place is reminiscent of Gramsci’s observations about an earlier period, ‘when the old is dying and the new cannot be born’; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”
Supporters of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro stormed Congress in the capital on Sunday, climbing on top of its roof and breaking the glass in its windows. Others demonstrators were gathering outside the presidential palace and Supreme Court, although it was not immediately clear whether they had managed to break into the buildings.The incidents, which recalled the Jan. 6 invasion of the U.S. Capitol, come just a week after leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was sworn in on Janauary 1st.Bolsonaro supporters have been protesting against Lula’s electoral win since Oct. 30, blocking roads, setting vehicles on fires and gathering outside military buildings, asking armed forces to intervene.
