CEC needs to correct course, not just damage control

When the Election Commission of India met on Saturday, for the first time after this newspaper’s investigation into the disquiet within, it did well to break an untenable silence. In the immediate aftermath of it coming to light that two of the three Election Commissioners had recorded their objections, 14 times in 10 months, on the Commission’s decision-making — on matters relating to registering new voters, deleting and restoring names in the electoral rolls and control of the system through which the rolls are maintained — the Commission sought to paper over the cracks. The four-page note issued after Saturday’s meeting, therefore, is welcome. Its nine decisions address several of the objections recorded by Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. And yet, there are important leftover concerns. Given the record of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar — of rendering the three-member Commission’s functioning unilateral and opaque — the Commission needs to break more silences. A new normal inside it needs to be clearly spelt out. Steps must be taken to ensure that the ECI does not slide back into a one-man show.

The onus is still on the ECI because the poll monitor’s weakening is an especially disquieting prospect when political polarisation is rising and institutions are fraying. It is the ECI that underwrites a fundamental democratic compact — the voter has the power to decide who rules, and the rules of the game are larger than those who win or lose power. In distrustful times, it is even more necessary that people’s trust in the ECI’s credibility as an impartial referee, and in the checks and balances within, is protected. The ECI’s press note on Saturday, however, falls short. While it gives some relief to voters by exempting from in-person hearings those issued notices for “logical discrepancies” and for being “unmapped”, it does not say who inserted the question on the applicant’s parents into Form 6 in July, and who allowed it to stay there even after Commissioner Sandhu called it “unauthorised/illegal” in August. It says that agendas will now be circulated before every ECI meeting and minutes issued afterwards, the system will provide EROs more flexibility and a committee will be formed to review ECINet. But it is silent on what, if any, action will be taken against DG(IT) Seema Khanna and senior deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, whose controversial conduct was flagged by the two ECs. It is still not known who authorised the appeals against voters whose inclusion was ordered by judicial officers in West Bengal. And why the requested software was never enabled to restore voter names in Goa.

Overall Analysis

The editorial critically examines the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and argues that addressing immediate controversy is not enough; the institution needs deeper changes in transparency, accountability and internal checks and balances.

The title itself uses a contrast — “correct course, not just damage control.” “Damage control” refers to actions taken to reduce the negative consequences of an existing problem, while “correct course” suggests addressing the underlying problem. Thus, the title immediately establishes the editorial’s central argument: the ECI needs institutional correction rather than merely a temporary response to criticism.

The first paragraph begins by acknowledging a positive step: the ECI’s meeting and subsequent four-page note are described as “welcome.” However, the writer quickly introduces a contrast with “And yet”, signalling that significant concerns remain unresolved. This is a characteristic feature of balanced editorial writing: the author recognises what has been done while explaining why it is insufficient.

The paragraph uses several metaphorical expressions. “Paper over the cracks” means to conceal problems without actually solving them, while “leftover concerns” refers to unresolved issues. The expression “one-man show” is particularly striking. It conveys the author’s concern that decision-making within a three-member institution may become excessively concentrated in one person. These expressions make an institutional and technical subject more accessible and forceful.

The writer also uses enumeration effectively, mentioning issues involving voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, and the management of electoral rolls. This accumulation of examples establishes the seriousness and breadth of the concerns being discussed.

The second paragraph shifts from specific allegations to the larger democratic significance of an independent election authority. The sentence “The ECI… underwrites a fundamental democratic compact” is particularly important. “Underwrites” is used metaphorically here to mean that the institution provides essential support or assurance for the democratic system. The author then explains this “compact” in simple terms: voters decide who governs, while the rules governing elections must remain larger than the interests of individual political winners and losers.

The editorial also uses institutional vocabulary such as “impartial referee,” “checks and balances,” “credibility,” and “polarisation.” The metaphor of the ECI as an “impartial referee” makes the idea of electoral neutrality immediately understandable: a referee must apply the rules fairly regardless of who benefits.

The final portion adopts a more interrogative and accountability-focused style. Instead of merely stating that questions remain unanswered, the author repeatedly asks who authorised particular decisions and why certain actions were not taken. The repeated use of “who” and “why” creates a rhetorical effect of demanding institutional accountability.

Overall, the editorial moves from acknowledgement → criticism → institutional analysis → democratic significance → demand for accountability. Its language is formal but forceful, using metaphors and rhetorical questions to make a complex institutional issue accessible to readers.

Important Vocabulary – 5

1. Untenable – impossible to maintain or defend, especially because of serious problems.
2. Opaque – lacking transparency; difficult to understand or see how decisions are made.
3. Onus – the responsibility or duty to do something.
4. Disquieting – causing anxiety, concern or uneasiness.
5. Polarisation – a situation in which people or groups become increasingly divided into opposing positions.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that the ECI’s recent measures address some concerns but leave important questions of accountability, transparency and internal decision-making unanswered. The author argues that restoring public confidence requires structural safeguards rather than short-term responses to criticism.

Tone: Critical, concerned, analytical and accountability-oriented.

Language Takeaway: This editorial is especially useful for learning institutional and constitutional vocabulary. It also demonstrates how metaphors such as “paper over the cracks,” “one-man show,” and “impartial referee” can make complex governance issues more vivid and understandable.