Damage caused to the environment by publicity material connected with the General Election has been a hot topic of discussion since Nominations Day. Disturbingly painful as the eyesore may be, it is well to realize that it was only the tip of the iceberg. Over attention on the subject appears to disable seeing the wood for the trees. The real ‘wood’ is treating, undue influence, misuse of public property and canvassing through public media. These are the malpractices that would affect the outcome of the election, far more than pulp, paper and polythene.

I personally believe that the poster campaign harms the perpetrator far more than it helps him. The monotony of a face posted wherever one turns his head, must naturally lead to aversion, rather than to appetency. It repels the voter more than it attracts him. Nevertheless candidates persist in their attempt to attract voters by display. They are caught up in a rat race and appear to believe that the more the number of posters, the more the number of votes they get. Only the voters can disillusion them.

From where do the funds come?

What calls for deeper reflection is the sources of resources that go to cover the Poster Jungle. The other day a Minister was reported to have said at a Press Conference that the cost of publicity material that a certain candidate had put out in one day would have cost him more than all the emoluments he could have received for his five years as a MP. From where have these funds come? What are his other sources of income? Were they adequate to cover the millions he is estimated to have spent on the posters?

These questions are relevant not only to the MP mentioned above. There are many others whose publicity campaign ought to have cost them far more. Thus the propaganda campaign of a candidate necessarily reflects more eloquently on his integrity than on his good taste. It is this aspect of posters that should receive the closest scrutiny of a voter. The Election Commissioner himself will serve the cause of elections more meaningfully if he devotes to this aspect the time he appears to be wasting on posters. Only the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) does not appear to give him a chance to do so.

Experience has shown that it is an exercise in futility to be preaching to the candidates on the matter of illegal posters. It is a waste of funds to be removing posters after they have come up. Besides why should the taxpayer bear the cost of frolics indulged in by law-breakers striving to be law-makers? Where there is no cure, prevention is the only alternative. This calls for a more effective approach to poster prevention.

The other side of the coin

There is a positive side to posters that does not appear to receive adequate attention. Once I blamed a lawyer friend of mine who was contesting the election, for putting out a few posters as a part of his campaign. "You are looking at the problem only from one angle." he retorted with indignation "I have nearly 60,000 voters in my electorate. The district has over 1.5 million. Only a limited number of them know me personally. I have to introduce myself to them if I am to stand a chance of getting elected. A Minister in the fray often appears on state television free of charge. He gets publicity at public expense. I have to pay Rs. 12 to print a poster and another Rs. 6 to have it pasted, an expense I can ill afford. At the end of it, the Minister gets the votes and I get the blame".

People cannot be expected to vote with their eyes blindfolded. They should cast their votes knowledgably if democracy is to have any meaning. Provisions made by the PEA are woefully inadequate to impart the information that the occasion demands. A few minutes over the radio or television is only a flash in the pan. It may have been adequate for the limited numbers that contested when the PEA was enacted. In any case the law allows only a maximum of 90 minutes for a political party or an independent group. That is clearly inadequate for the competing candidates to publicize their respective claims over others. With ballot papers measured in meters now, the state media cannot cater to that demand even if they stop all other programmes and provide time for contestants round the clock.

Party Leader as Manager

The onus of avoiding posters should be placed on the party leaders. The Election Commissioner’s parleys with them are reported from time to time, at which agreement is supposed to have been reached on the avoidance of posters. Leaders sanctimoniously make public pronouncements, admonishing their followers not to break the law on election propaganda but they are disregarded with impunity. What respect can the little crab have on the big crab’s instructions to walk straight?

Judging from the results of surveys, some political parties appear to have a greater control over their members than others in managing their propaganda machine. That gives an implied indication of party discipline that should impress the voter. Any party wishing to prove itself should go all out to be the organization with the minimum breaches of the law on election propaganda. That target cannot possibly be achieved by reading the Riot Act to the membership. There should be a positive effort to satisfy the thirst of members for publicity. One way in which that objective might be achieved is by devising an instrument that could give equal opportunities to all members to ‘sell’ themselves to their voters.

Election Commissioner as scapegoat

At the moment the Election Commissioner is at the receiving end of the blame for not controlling the poster epidemic. Once he threatened to take all culprits who exhibit illegal election propaganda before the Supreme Court for contempt. The enthusiasm created by that move turned into nothing when he failed to do so. Perhaps he was advised that a person is not liable for contempt for violating an order made on a third party in a different case. This warning could have avoided embarrassment if it was given before the announcement.

The inability to control illegal election propaganda is intrinsically inherent in the weakness of the law on elections. This is the penalty that the PEA prescribes at Section 74 (2) for violating the law ‘relating to display of handbills, posters &c:

How much time it would take to go ‘poster catching’ and bringing their authors before Magistrates may be best imagined by looking at the thousands of posters, banners and cutouts staring in the voter’s face from all directions. One hundred rupees is fast becoming the beggars’ ‘minimum charge’. An imprisonment of one month on a first offender is statutorily suspended. How can the Commissioner pick one culprit from thousands for a test case? Even if he does so, selective prosecution may end up in the Supreme Court as unequal treatment. The crying need is to reform the antique election law - not to make a scapegoat of the Election Commissioner.