Voting for the Zilla Parishad elections that took place on Saturday passed off smoothly by and large. However, the elections were marred by two major complaints -- the first that time tested principle of ‘secret ballot’ appears to have been compromised and secondly by complaints about exclusion of the NOTA (None of the Above) option.
It was immediately clear to most voters that during the voting process, the voter was expected to sign on the counterfoil of the voting slip that contained the serial number of the ballot paper with the same number being printed also on the ballot paper.
While it is understandable why ballot papers are numbered serially, what compromises the process is the fact that the election officials are keeping track of which ballot was issued to respective voter. A simple crosschecking of the serial number and linking it to which voter it was issued to, will reveal who the said voter voted for. While in some polling booths the allegation was that the serial number was announced loudly thereby allowing the agents of the political parties to track the ballot numbers, this wasn’t the case in all polling booths.
This isn’t the first year this is happening. During previous elections conducted by the state election commission that involved voting on a physical ballot paper, a similar loophole existed thereby violating and compromising the principle of a secret ballot.
After an issue was raised, the Election Commission sought to reassure the agitated complainants that not only the ballot papers, but also the counter foils would be sealed and access would not be granted to anyone -- be it political parties or others. However, assurances such as these hold little water. For the voter to have faith in the system, there needs to be a system that is fool proof. Telling the voter that they would trust the people manning the system rather than trusting the process itself, does not inspire confidence.
This isn’t the first time this is happening either. At previous ZP elections, the same issue was raised. An easy fix would be to retain the serial number on the ballot and the counterfoil, but keep no track of which ballot was allotted to a voter. It remains unclear, what purpose asking the voter to sign on the counterfoil and keeping track of which voter is allotted which ballot serves.
Voters can be asked to sign on a separate list to self attest the fact that it is they who voted. Neither does signing on the counterfoil prevent rogue elements from voting on unused ballots and dumping them into the ballot box -- as that can happen regardless. The demands made by alert voters that their secrecy be protected are not unreasonable either.
It is incumbent upon the State Election Commission to draw up a foolproof system that prevents even the possibility of tracking the ballot back to the individual voter. That they haven’t been able to do so, despite the issue being flagged at previous elections, is testament to the fact that they haven’t even tried to improve the system between last election and this, and serves to further reduce the trust between the electorate and those tasked with holding free and fair elections. Once lost, faith in the system will be difficult to recover as the public at large will turn to other methods of making their dissent heard if they no longer see hope in change via the ballot box.
Something for those in charge to think long and hard about.
