Election Commission bans mock polls after results in Maharashtra—but why?

It was at best a symbolic, if innovative, protest by villagers of Markadwadi in Solapur. Not convinced by the count of votes from the village’s polling booths on 23 November, they had decided to hold a mock poll — with ballot papers, this time.

They wanted to know where their votes had actually gone, being dissatisfied with the electronic vote count. They were going to bear the expenses of printing the ballot papers and arranging for ballot boxes and polling officials themselves.

The innovative protest generated mild national and regional interest — until the Election Commission stepped in the day the event and reportedly ‘banned’ the mock poll.

Local police imposed prohibitory orders, banning the assembly of more than five people. The police officers also sought to dissuade the organisers and informed them it was illegal to hold a ‘repoll’ and that only the Election Commission was authorised to conduct elections in the country.

Heavy police deployment was seen in the village on 3 December, Tuesday, to prevent ‘untoward incidents’. The organisers finally informed the media that they were forced to call off the mock poll.

The incident, however, has raised several questions.

Since the mock poll in a single village could neither reveal any meaningful data or affect in any way the result, what exactly has the Election Commission achieved by banning the mock poll? More importantly, what is the Election Commission’s responsibility in the aftermath of conducting a ‘free and fair’ election and declaring the result?

Losing candidates dissatisfied with the result are required by law to file an election petition in a high court. Neither the Election Commission nor the courts entertain complaints and grievances once the elections are over.

The protest was a futile exercise in any case; so what explains the Election Commission’s haste to ‘ban’ it?

The Election Commission does, notably, allow opinion polls and both pre-poll and post-poll surveys by agencies that are not monitored by the commission nor required to follow any standard operating procedure. Was this significantly different?

Political parties also routinely hire marketing agencies and consultants to conduct surveys on poll issues and potential candidates.

There is no law guiding such exercises. So, why would the Election Commission step in to stop a harmless exercise by the people?

There's an even more contentious question: While the local administration reports to the Election Commission once the elections are notified and until the results are officially declared, does the Election Commission continue to hold the authority or the mandate to stop any ‘mock polling exercise’ or protest by the people?

If the Commission is telling people there is no law under which they can be allowed to hold a mock poll, will the Commission inform the people under what law can it ‘ban’ a mock poll after the elections conducted by it are held and the results declared, thus concluding its responsibility and its jurisdiction?

“How can ECI ban any polling after election and counting are over? A survey typically asks who you voted for. With one hundred per cent sample from the village, does a survey become illegal?... What's there to worry about if villagers conducted this exercise?” posted columnist and political scientist Suhas Palshikar on his social media handle.

By banning the villagers’ planned ‘repoll’, he added, the ECI has only contributed to the growing suspicion and questions about the legitimacy of the election in Maharashtra. ‘Not exactly a way to earn trust!’ he quipped.

Of course, the Election Commission itself holds mock polls before elections.

It has taken EVM machines to villages to demonstrate how votes are to be cast and to allay suspicions about the EVM as well.

Why not allow the people to do the same exercise, then, with both paper ballots and the EVM, which would go a long way in educating the voters — especially when no election is due in the state for the next four-and-a-half years?

What if a political party wants to conduct the tests during this period? Why not hand over a set of electronic voting systems to each political party and a trained person from the ECI to supervise the campaign?