Imagine a cricket match where only one team is allowed to choose the umpire.
The other team can complain. They can object. But finally the decision rests with that one team.
Would we call that cricket?
Not for one second.
Television commentators would explode with outrage. Former cricketers would hold heated discussions in studios with giant screens behind them. We would hear the word “rigged” shouted from every direction.
And rightly so.
Because the first thing people look for in any game is fairness.
Yet strangely, when it comes to our democracy, we seem willing to quietly surrender the very thing we would scream about in sport.
The Supreme Court has observed that the selection of the Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner effectively remains in the hands of the government. An opposition member may sit on the committee. May speak. May protest. But being only one out of three, and the other two, being from the ruling party, he or she is a mere spectator in a match which has already been decided.
And what surprises me is not the ruling. But our silence.
Perhaps freedom from the British came too easily to us. Most of us never fought for it personally, nor did the ruling party members go to jail for it. The freedom fighters who struggled, marched, went to prison and sacrificed careers understood the value of democratic institutions. They knew that once institutions become weak, freedom itself begins to wobble.
Today we are content with appearances.
As long as elections happen, we think democracy exists.
As long as people stand in queues and press buttons on voting machines, we tell ourselves all is well.
As long as the rituals continue, we do not ask whether the spirit behind those rituals is slowly disappearing.
Imagine after a controversial cricket series, the umpire who repeatedly favoured one team was immediately rewarded with a luxurious position on the cricket board. The public outrage would be deafening.
Yet when similar things happen in public life, many simply shrug.
We are now told that the former Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal who oversaw the 2026 assembly elections, has been appointed the new Chief Secretary of West Bengal.
Howzatt!
The moment citizens begin to feel that the umpire belongs to one side, the game is over.
And that is the danger before us today.
Not dictatorship by tanks. Not emergency rule. But something far more dangerous. Which is a democracy where the scoreboard still works, the crowds still cheer, the commentators still shout, the players still walk onto the field, but where the result is quietly managed beforehand.
And once people stop believing their vote can honestly change the outcome, they stop fighting, stop hoping and finally stop caring.
That is how democracies die.
Not with gunfire. But with applause from people who think the match is still real…!
____________________________
HERE’S MORE THE AUTHOR CAN OFFER YOU…. JUST CLICK HERE..
————————————————
Would love to hear from you in the COMMENTS section below…and IF YOU WANT TO RECEIVE BOB’S BANTER EVERYDAY, PLEASE SEND YOUR NAME AND WHATSAPP PHONE NO TO [email protected]
————————————————–
Robert Clements is a newspaper columnist and writes a daily column, which has graced the pages of over 60 newspapers and magazines, from a daily column in the Khaleej Times, Dubai, the Morning Star, London, and in nearly every state in India, from The Statesman in Kolkata, to the Kashmir Times in Kashmir to the Trinity Mirror in Chennai.
On the button. In a small way it is like the Nepal scene
I am appalled that you insinuate that the W.Bengal Election commissioner was in any way partisan, favouring the BJP in the recent elections. From all reports Mamata had compromised the civil service thoroughly and made them her flunkies. So if at all one would have expected such a flunky to favour her. But in this case the issue is quite different.
The elections in Bengal were conducted/overseen by the Central Election Commissioner based in Delhi. The State Election Commissioner – who you have alluded to – had very little, if anything, to do with the recent State assembly elections. The State Election Commissioner oversees & conducts elections to LOCAL governing bodies – municipalities, Panchayat raj etc. NOT STATE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS ! This just shows a lack of understanding of his role on your part.
Thirdly you refer to the Supreme court’s critical observation on the selection of the Election commissioners. But is that not a case of the Pot calling the Kettle black? At least in the case of election commissioners there are THREE people on the committee – The PM, the CJI and the LOP. What stops the CJI from ganging up with the LOP? But then look at the question of appointment of judges – where a Collegium- made up SOLELY of the 5 senior most SC judges make all the choices. Is that fair or democratic ? I don’t see you crying foul in this case.
While i enjoy your column on a daily basis, I am sorry to say that your bias against the BJP is quite apparent.
Ok, I am wrong is suggesting that the CJI is part of the committee that selects the EC. It is a threesome of the PM< LOP and a Cabinet minister.
But earlier , during Congress rule, the opposition was not even consulted and the govt. appointed whomever they chose to. M.S. Gill, T.N. Seshan, Navin Chawla and Nagendra Singh were all appointed – unilaterally by Congress, or congress supported govts. and later REWARDED for their "services" to the party.
Ok, I am wrong is suggesting that the CJI is part of the committee that selects the EC. It is a threesome of the PM. LOP and a Cabinet minister.
But earlier , during Congress rule, the opposition was not even consulted and the govt. appointed whomever they chose to. M.S. Gill, T.N. Seshan, Navin Chawla and Nagendra Singh were all appointed – unilaterally by Congress, or congress supported govts. and later REWARDED for their “services” to the party.
This is amusing. Prior to 2023 before the current appointment system for the EC was implemented, during the CONgress RAJ, EC was appointed by the PM and his committee of ministers. No consultation with the opposition!
Now, in the current system and independent body of lawyers scouts for eligible candidates and recommends the top five candidates to the committee which comprises of the PM, a cabinet minister and the LOP.
It is very rich coming from the opposition now that the process is unfair. When they themselves appointed CEC without any consultation with the opposition. And to say that these appointments did not follow any clandestine favours passed on to these candidates is simply laughable. If not anything, CONgress was known for running a govt which was purely based on political barter.
Finally, it is amazing how the CEC seems to be fair in Telangana, Keralam, Himachal Pradesh, Tamilnadu and Karnataka…but is supposedly baised where the BJP wins!!! What are there morons High on???
😃😂