he single most important factor that has contributed to the strengthening of democracy in India has been the role of its election commission. It was established in 1950, three years after the withdrawal of British rulers. The British had introduced electoral politics as part of the process of introducing representative institutions and ‘Indianisation’ of the state institutions. They had held local and provincial elections and transferred power and responsibility to the elected representatives of various political parties in different parts of India. The first four decades of the 20^th Century had witnessed the extension of the representative principles to the British India and the ‘Indianisation’ of the civil service and military officers’ corps by inducting an increasingly bigger proportion of Indians than the British.

Resultantly, some representative institutions and a culture of constitutionalism and lawful opposition were in place, albeit in an underdeveloped form. This had provided Indians an opportunity to acquire firsthand experience in administration. This process of a planned withdrawal of the British got a further fillip after World War II. The franchise was expanded as was the share of the representative Indians in the British Indian government. The ‘Indianisation’ of services was meant to allow Indians in the civil as well as military services to eventually outnumber the British.

One of the many legacies of the British Raj in India was an electoral democracy. It was primarily the electoral principle that pushed the minorities, including Muslims, into an identity crisis that ultimately led to the partition of India. After independence, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Indian prime minister, showed extraordinary wisdom to ensure the autonomy and independence of the election commission. He believed that success of a democracy depended on the willingness and trust of the candidates and political parties to accept the election results. This acceptance and trust, in turn, depended on the neutrality and competence of the commission.

The Indian leaders also ensured that there should be no political interference in the working of the commission. The commissioners were given security of service and complete autonomy. Moreover, there would no interference by government in the counting of votes and declaration of results.

According to the constitution of India, the election commission is under a constitutional mandate to hold elections to constitute new Legislative Assemblies for central as well as provincial legislatures. Dr Ambedkar, one of the most important minority leaders, had contended that Article 324 of the constitution proposed “to centralise the election machinery in the hands of a single commission, assisted by regional commissioners working under supervision, direction and control of election commission and not under the control of state governments as envisaged earlier.”

Under Article 324, the election commission had the following functions and responsibilities: follow the constitutional duties for conducting free, fair and peaceful elections to the parliament and the state legislatures; ensure that political party/ parties in power, including ruling parties at the centre and in the states, and contesting candidates follow the model code of conduct; ensure that official machinery is not misused for electoral purposes; and ensure that electoral offences do not occur. Corrupt practices such as impersonation, bribing and inducement of voters, threat and intimidation to the voters were to be prevented by all means.

Over the last seven decades the commission has been working independently and impartially as well as efficiently. It has fulfilled its constitutional obligations and never tried to go beyond or overstep its mandate. When the election commission held the first general elections in 1951-52, the number of registered voters was approximately 173 million. The number of voters had increased to nearly 912 million in the general elections of 2019. Although the Indian people’s faith in democracy, its institutions and political parties has waxed and waned, their faith in the election commission has consistently strengthened and fortified.

After none of the elections held in India, there has been an agitation premised on allegations of cheating in the counting of votes or administrative interference. It can be claimed, therefore, that the Indian experiment with democracy has been a success story as far as holding of free and fair elections is concerned. It is also due to the role of the election commission that elections have been held regularly and produced changes in the composition of provincial and federal legislatures reasonably reflective of the public opinion. Since it has always worked within the framework of the constitution, it has gained legitimacy and confidence of the electorate.

Like its Indian counterpart, the Election Commission of Pakistan can play a vital role in ensuring that the elections are held fair and free, with a greater measure of transparency, that a level-playing field is available to all the political contenders for power. However, the success of whatever system it proposes and implements depends critically on the degree of commitment by political parties and leaders to the democratic process and the well-being of the people. The ECP’s autonomy must be guaranteed and the politics should be entrusted to political actors only. This will allow them to evolve and improve upon their mistakes and transgressions. Neither political nor electoral engineering has served the purpose in the past. Nor can it be expected to do so in the future.

The writer has a PhD in History from Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad. He heads the History Department at University of Sargodha. He has worked as a research fellow at Royal Holloway College, University of London. He can be reached at abrar.zahoor@hotmail.com. He tweets @AbrarZahoor1