Too little, too late?

After widespread criticisms about the accuracy of its revised electoral roll -- revised last August -- and pressures from the caretaker government advisers, the EC has finally decided to remove glaring errors from the roll. To this effect, it issued a letter to its field offices on December 5, replacing another letter of November 26. Based on the available information, the commission will give temporary appointments to 140,000 individuals who will go to households during December 8-11 for identifying names for deletion and getting the relevant form completed. Later, during December 13-15, the assistant registration officers will hold hearings and make the necessary corrections in the revised roll. The whole correction process will be done in a week at a cost of about Tk 10 crore.

Since an accurate electoral roll is an essential prerequisite for fair elections, the EC's initiative to once again revise the electoral roll is very significant. In fact, if we are to hold elections on time with the participation of all major parties, which is a constitutional obligation, this is our last opportunity to make the electoral roll truly and reasonably error free. We, therefore, welcome the initiative of the EC. However, we are afraid that it is too little, too late, and is unlikely to succeed.

The commission's initiative has serious flaws. One of the main shortcomings is that its efforts are only to delete names. Its instructions call for using Form-9, which is meant for only deletion of names of voters who are either dead or have lost eligibility. Nothing is said in the commission's letter of December 5 for inclusion of names, although the earlier letter of November 26 had instructions for inclusions in the electoral roll.

It is well known that the errors in the revised electoral roll are not only due to duplicate registration of same names and fictitious names in the roll, many eligible voters also failed to be enrolled in the revision process. The recent National Democratic Institute (NDI) survey clearly provides evidence for it. The survey shows that 13 percent of the voters in the revised roll are false, of which 6 percent are fake and 7 percent are duplicate voters. In other words, the revised electoral roll contains at least 1.21 crore questionable voters. In addition, 2.5 percent genuine voters could not be enrolled. Thus, deleting names from the revised roll is not enough, it will also require inclusion, by using forms 2 and 7, of those voters who were left out. The Commission has not so far taken any initiative for such inclusion.

Another serious concern about the EC's initiative arises from the fact that the same individuals who were involved in the earlier revisions would be again employed for the task ahead. There have been many media reports about the ineptness and partiality of these individuals. We know from our own experiences that some of these temporary hires in the past did not go to households themselves, instead they sent their students for the job. It was alleged that many of these students belonged to the student wings of certain political parties. In addition, they did not go to many households and consequently many eligible voters were left out of the electoral roll. How can we be sure that these individuals will be more serious and careful this time?

Other serious questions about the EC's initiative are: What would be the procedures for corrections? How would they be different from the previous procedures which did not work in the first place in identifying duplicate voters? If the offenders or their family members do not volunteer the information about the duplication, how would the task be accomplished?

Another serious concern is about the publicity, or lack of it, about the initiative. To the best of our information, during the previous revision, advertisements were placed for two consecutive days only in five newspapers which did not include the dailies with highest circulation. This time also there does not seem to be a serious media campaign planned. In addition, only three days may not be enough for this gigantic task while 22 days allowed for the last revision could not produce a reliable electoral roll. Thus, we are concerned that the Commission may not succeed in bringing the errors in the electoral roll to an acceptable level.

We cannot help but raise another question. Why did the EC send only 30,000 forms to its field offices? The number of households in Bangladesh is at least three crore. In addition, if we go by the NDI estimate, the revised roll has at least 1.21 crore questionable voters. How could 30,000 forms be enough for the task?

Given the above concerns, we specifically propose that:
*Electoral roll be prepared afresh for major cities, especially for Dhaka and Chittagong. For such fresh preparation, the exiting electoral rolls will have to be cancelled first under Article 7(7) of the Electoral Rolls Ordinance 1982 on account of major errors. Then enumerators will have to be sent from door-to-door for collection of information, a draft roll prepared and published using the information collected, and then the final roll published after the necessary revision.
*The EC publishes the electoral roll revised last August as a draft roll. After it is available for public inspection, which is so far not available, necessary amendments and deletions could take place under a Revising Authority set up per Article 9 of the Ordinance.
*The EC initiates a major media campaign using both the print and electronic media to inform the general public of the initiative. The campaign must emphasise that having names in the electoral roll more than once is a punishable offence. The opinion makers of the society should be used in the campaign.
*A permanent electoral roll be prepared and kept in display in Union Parishad, Paurashava and City Corporation Ward offices. Such display will enable the continuous revision of the roll. Photo ID cards for voters will also have to be issued in the future as part of the permanent roll.

The publication of the revised electoral roll as a draft roll is attractive on several counts. First, this will ensure full compliance with the last April's Supreme Court judgment on electoral roll. In the above judgment, Justice Tafazzul Islam directed:

"[B]efore the 9th Parliamentary elections, it is the existing electoral roll, i.e. the electoral roll of 2000, with some addition, deletions and modification as may be necessary, is to be published as draft electoral roll." Three other justices -- Chief Justice J R Mudassir Husain, Justice Md. Ruhul Amin and Justice M M Ruhul Amin -- concurred with this opinion of Justice Islam.

Furthermore, if a draft roll is published, it will create opportunities for activists of political parties to be involved in the correction of the electoral roll. If the opposing political parties are engaged in the process and a competitive environment is created, it will pave the way for developing a reasonably reliable, and more importantly, an acceptable roll.

According to media reports, our Acting Chief Election Commissioner Justice Mahfuzur Rahman mentioned that because of the Supreme Court judgment, the EC is not able to touch the electoral roll prepared in 2000. This is far from the truth, as can be seen from the direction of Justice Tafazzul Islam, quoted above. Furthermore, the main judgment written by Justice Amirul Kabir Chowdhury, clearly directs the EC to revise the electoral roll taking into consideration the roll prepared in 2000.

In other words, the court directives call for amendment and modifications of the exiting roll. In addition, Rule 20(6) of The Electoral Rolls Rules 1982 states that: "When an electoral roll has been amended under this rule by the Registration Officer, corresponding amendment or correction shall be made in the copy of the electoral rolls in his custody as well as in the copies of the rolls kept at other places under rule 22." The law also does not provide for "supplementary electoral roll," as prepared by the commission. Thus, we are deeply puzzled by Justice Rahman's claim.

It is also often claimed by the EC as well as other important personalities that a voter can include his/her name in the electoral roll until the day before the election. This is a misleading claim in that such inclusions require the permission of the commission. After the declaration of the election schedule, the field level officers of the EC can no more amend the electoral roll until the election is over. Thus, ordinary citizens even from the Dhaka city, not to speak of potential voters from distant areas, do not have ready access to the option.

To conclude, by all accounts, the electoral roll revised by the EC last August has serious errors. Thus, the commission so far has clearly failed in its constitutional obligation to prepare a reliable electoral roll for the coming Parliamentary elections. Its most recent initiative to once again correct the revised roll -- the initiative taken as result of the prodding by the advisers of the caretaker government -- is half-hearted at best in that it only seeks to delete the duplicate names from the roll. But the duplication of names is not the only problem with the revised roll.

Thus, it seems that we are losing this last opportunity to correct the electoral roll before the elections. Is it because of the incompetence of the EC or its lack of concern for public interest or both? The commission, unfortunately, has the dubious record of acting against public interest in the past. The best example being its unwillingness to fully and completely implement last year's historic High Court judgment on disclosures of antecedents of candidates running for national office. We hope that the "reconstituted" EC, if reconstituted with public interests in mind, will do better in the future.

Dr Badiul Alam Majumdar is Secretary, Shujan (Citizens for Good Governance).