Notes

Election Commission insists on inner-party elections

Contact Counsellor

CategoryPolity

Last Updated24/09/2022

The Election Commission of India recently rejected the idea of a ‘permanent president’ for a party in a case involving a regional party of Andhra Pradesh.
The party reportedly elected Andhra’s Chief Minister as its president for life in July 2022.

Anti-democratic.
Undermined internal democracy; no individual should be elected leader for life.
Any party participating in a democratic process should include formal and periodic election of office-bearers.
Prevents domination of single coterie or a family
Fragmentation of India’s polity into a federalised, multi-party system has given way to domination by “charismatic” individuals/ families backed by financing structures.
Will ensure apt contestation
As several parties today do not insist on thoroughgoing internal elections.
Even if they do conduct polls, they lack sufficient contestation and are done to reaffirm the dominance of the high command.
Democratic elections ensure that members of the political party fight for the leadership..

Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
To remind parties to conduct elections and to ensure that their leadership is renewed, changed or re-elected every five years.
But the commission does not have any statutory power to enforce internal democracy in parties or to mandate elections.
Leads to parties carrying out the ECI’s edicts in a mechanical manner.
No legal ground on which elections can be mandated within political parties
Rules and regulations apply more to candidates than to political parties
- The phrase “political party” [was] nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.
The definition of a political party for the first time entered through the anti-defection law in 1985.
Also, nothing in Article 324 of the Constitution, or Section 29A of the RPA, 1951 holds that the ECI can actually regulate internal structures, organisations or elections of the party.
Hence, parties have not been conducting internal elections properly.

If a party follows a single leader, it can lead to a high command culture.
In it, only the favorite of the said leader gets promoted over the actually popular leaders.
Political parties don’t have to be homogeneous in terms of both ideas and leadership.
Political parties are aggregations of interests; so there are going to be differences within.
Internal elections are key for upward mobility.
Internal elections could be counter-productive as they may cause friction between the members of the same party.
Undermines the spirit of party democracy as elections are divisive.
An election can happen only if there are two or more candidates in the fray.
Getting elected unopposed is also a valid election.
So, organizational elections are mostly only an exercise in tokenism.

Arguments in Favor	Arguments against
* If a party follows a single leader, it can lead to a high command culture.	* Internal elections could be counter-productive as they may cause friction between the members of the same party.
* In it, only the favorite of the said leader gets promoted over the actually popular leaders.	* Undermines the spirit of party democracy as elections are divisive.
* Political parties don’t have to be homogeneous in terms of both ideas and leadership.	* An election can happen only if there are two or more candidates in the fray.
* Political parties are aggregations of interests; so there are going to be differences within.	* Getting elected unopposed is also a valid election.
* Internal elections are key for upward mobility.	* So, organizational elections are mostly only an exercise in tokenism.

ECI needs to re-interpret the existing laws, as happened in the 1990s.
ECI has to imagine its role as a regulator of political parties.
And in some ways they have to try out milder options.
The parties should be required to inform the ECI about changes in their office-bearers.
They need to submit a document of expenditure incurred during elections and in the non-election period.