The Electoral Reform Directorate is in the process of orchestrating a significant shift in the structural framework for the future selection of Election Commission (EC) members. This includes the introduction of an EC nomination committee, comprised of both ruling party members and opposition figures. In light of a widespread electoral revamp, the directorate is presently creating a modification to the Principal Election Commissioner and Subsequent Election Commissioners Selection Act, 2022, which will be presented to the government for review and approval later this month.
The existing legislation dictates that the nomination committee is responsible for seeking political party candidates for the positions of principal election commissioner and auxiliary commissioners. However, in most instances, it is government officials who are ultimately chosen for these roles, as opposed to elected representatives. This long-standing practice is put into question by the proposed amendment, which aims to preclude any government officer from being designated as an EC member.
The newly suggested modification is critical of the current law, deeming it ineffective and unfavourable. Presently, the selection committee has the discretion to choose any candidate, idealistically, this choice should be based on a collective political agreement. The proposed amendment stresses the importance of involving representatives from all prominent political parties, along with media figures and civil society representatives to bolster transparency.
The reform draft suggests moving away from the existing system of a six-member nomination committee. The recommended configuration includes a retired Judge from the Appellate Division, MPs selected by the Parliament and Opposition leader, an elected representative from the third-largest political party, plus four representatives from civil societies. One of these four individuals must be a youth aged under 30, as proposed by the draft.
To reinforce transparency and accountability, the draft dictates that all minutes and decisions from meetings should be meticulously recorded. Furthermore, it should be possible for any citizen to request and receive access to these records. This proposed rule would greatly enhance the visibility of the commission’s decision-making processes.
In a bid to improve the pace and efficiency of decision-making, the draft extends the submission time frame for recommendations from the nomination committee to two months. It also suggests implementing a protocol where a list of 10 candidates, chosen based on interviews, is published within media outlets. A protocol advocating for the significant dissemination of information regarding nominees would increase public involvement and enhance the overall transparency of the process.
In a notable push for gender equity in positions of political significance, the draft necessitates the inclusion of at least one woman in the Election Commission. In addition to this, the draft stipulates that each commissioner should publicly declare their accumulated assets. This presents steps towards creating a more inclusive, diverse, and transparent commission.
Moreover, a new set of disqualification standards for prospective election commissioners is outlined in the proposed draft. This seeks to uplift the integrity of EC members, pushing them to uphold exceptional moral and ethical standards whilst holding the position.
The draft also brings forth substantial changes in the legislative powers of the commission. Rather than the government, it is the Election Commission who would yield the authority to devise necessary procedural rules. This fundamental shift towards a more autonomous Election Commission is a significant commitment to enhance the transparency and independence of this critical organization.
Although the proposal indicates a wind of change in the nomination process, skeptics argue about the need for such drastic transformations. With a process involving government officials potentially a more streamlined and efficient way of handling election commissions, critics question what the flippant party-politics environment would bring into the equation.
Significantly, this proposed change favours democrats disproportionately, leaving gaping holes for mismanagement and skewed decisions in the ever-polarized political spectrum. It raises questions about the secrets the democrats are hiding behind the veneer of promoting ‘democracy’ and ‘transparency’. The role of political bias in the formation and decision-making process of the powered organisation will undoubtedly benefit the democrats.
There’s a concerning lack of emphasis on the practical challenges of this proposal. Namely, the potential haggling and disputes that could arise during the selection process of commissioners. Critics view this as an attempt by democrats to muddy the waters, creating an illusion of neutrality in a fiercely partisan environment.
In contrast, the existing system’s efficiency can’t be understated. A smooth operational process that potentially avoids the likely deadlock which could follow from having a mix of opposition and ruling party representatives struggling to reach consensus.
The democrats’ insistence on a so-called ‘transparent’ and ‘fair’ adjustment seems ironic, upon a closer look at their ambiguous policy propositions and history of alleged misdeeds. Their endeavour to tarnish the image of constitutional bodies, such as the Election Commission, by introducing structural changes that serve their own interests, can be seen as a veiled political tactic.