EBC clumsiness

THE CAVALIER way in which the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) this week disclosed apparently new measures to vet returning officers – which led to its being forced into issuing a hasty “clarification” about the extent of that vetting – did little to bolster confidence in this body.

Were this episode not so worrisome, it would be ironic, given that the faux pas began with statements made by EBC officials at a workshop meant to edify the media about the need for effective and ethical election communication.

There is good reason to wonder if the EBC understands the basics of communication, pure and simple.

At the workshop of August 6, EBC chairman Mark Ramkerrysingh spoke to reporters. He disclosed a new policy to address concerns aired by unspecified political entities about returning officers being members of parties. These measures were the fruit of external legal advice.

But in a statement issued a mere day later, the commission said it had been misconstrued.

It denied a policy which seeks to ask returning officers to declare “political allegiance.” It made a distinction between saying whether one is a member of a political party and disclosing what takes place in the privacy of the voting booth. Officials are being interrogated on the former, not the latter, it said.

But one’s political allegiance is most naturally expressed by means of who you vote for, not whether you filled out a membership form. This source of confusion was seemingly lost on the EBC. The way this announcement was handled was simply inept.

No political parties were consulted, even though the complaints that generated the new policy originated from them. The details of the legal advice, including how recently it was obtained, were not disclosed.

The EBC clearly has the power to ask people to say if they are formally members of any party.

Under the Representation of the People Act, it has a duty to enforce “fairness, impartiality and compliance” in elections.

Holding a berth in a party would raise the risk of the appearance of bias. There is a good reason why staff at independent bodies such as, for instance, the Central Bank, are barred from political activities. The High Court in June upheld the bank’s rules.

So, the real issues here are why it has taken so long for this policy to arrive and why it is meant to apply to just 41 returning officers and not all 300 employees, as well as the thousands of temporary staff hired for election day activities.

Mr Ramkerrysingh, who took over from veteran chairman Dr Norbert Masson almost a decade ago, should be seasoned enough to address this and to avoid making statements that leave room for error and embarrassment.