Disabilities of our democracy
When an electoral system structurally discriminates against particular
categories such as persons with disabilities, it is tantamount to a
failure of the democracy as a whole
The citizens of India are in the process of casting their votes in
what is being widely hailed as the largest election in human history.
By sheer size, the 16th Lok Sabha elections signal a triumph not only
for India, but for democratic exercises around the world.
However, more important than elections themselves are the principles
of civil rights, equality, freedom of speech, and inclusivity that
underpin any true democratic activity. When an electoral system
structurally discriminates against particular categories of people,
such as persons with disabilities, it is tantamount to a failure of
democracy as a whole. While there have been Supreme Court orders to
make electoral infrastructure more accessible for voters with
disabilities, these measures do not go far enough. Looking beyond
physical accessibility, substantive equality and full participation
can only be achieved with a rights-based approach that values access
to the public sphere and a robust protection of civil and voting
rights for all citizens.
While the Census of India reported 21.9 million persons with
disabilities in 2001, more recent estimates by the World Health
Organization (WHO) and others put India's disabled population at more
than 80 million persons, and possibly as high as 150 million.
Numerous hurdles prevent voters with disabilities from full
participation in the electoral process. Barriers range from the
obvious, such as lack of access ramps and unavailability of voting
mechanism for the hearing or sight impaired; to the more obscure, such
as lack of accessible campaign material which results in a difficulty
in making an informed decision.
Mental illness and suffrage
Lack of voting rights for persons with intellectual and psycho-social
disabilities represents a particularly insidious barrier to electoral
participation. The overarching framework, comprising qualifications
and disqualifications for being a voter in the general and assembly
elections, is outlined in Article 326 of the Constitution. It
enshrines the value of universal adult suffrage and states that every
person who is a citizen of India and of legal age has the right to
vote, with a few exceptions.
One such exception is "unsoundness of mind." Additionally, the
Representation of People's Act, 1951 ('RP Act') provides the
procedural framework for elections in India and similarly disqualifies
a person from being registered to vote if he or she is of "unsound
mind", and is found to be so by a "competent court".
But what exactly is an "unsound mind"? The term is vague and
undefined, and there is no objective criterion laid down to guide the
"competent court" in determining what constitutes unsoundness of mind.
Even if a person's disability in no way interferes with his ability to
understand the positions of candidates and to make a choice, he can be
deprived of the right to vote under this legal framework.
Secrecy of voting
Voting is a political act of free expression, and as such should be
done independently and in secrecy. The over-reliance on the
"companionship" model to provide access for persons with disabilities
is an infringement of this right.
In practice, voters with disabilities are often allowed to take a
"companion", with them, who is usually a family member, or a voting
facility presiding officer, clerk, or agent, to physically assist them
in voting. This policy, while typically upheld as a means for making
electoral participation possible for persons with disabilities, fails
to give voters their full right to vote by crucially depriving them of
autonomy and secrecy.
Section 128 of the RP Act provides for the "Maintenance of secrecy of
voting" and stipulates that no other elector should be allowed inside
when an elector is inside the voting compartment. Secrecy and autonomy
are key elements of the free expression of the will of the
electorship.
The Electoral Commission of India, however, still refers to the
Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which provides for "permitting a
companion to accompany a blind/infirm elector to assist him/her to
cast the vote."
These rules are outdated and stem from a charity model of
understanding disability and not from a rights-based model. The
presence of another person in the voting booth, even if he is a friend
or family member, opens the door to questions of influence, which
infringes on the right for voters with disabilities to vote
independently and in secrecy.
Violation of rights
By disenfranchising voters with disabilities and thus violating their
fundamental right to voting and citizenship, we are undermining the
foundations of our democracy. This is not just an issue for persons
with disabilities or senior citizens; this is an issue for us all.
We can begin to address these problems by scrapping the "unsoundness
of mind" exception, and tying any voter registration disqualification
to the lack of specific cognitive abilities in making an informed
electoral choice only when declared so by a competent court. Indeed,
in some U.S. States, persons with developmental or mental disabilities
are presumed competent to vote unless a court specifically determines
otherwise.
We should also pursue the use of assistive and new technologies that
would make voting accessible for persons with disabilities, to ensure
secrecy and independence in voting. Taking physical accessibility of
the voting site seriously by making building entrances, rooms, voting
tables and Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) accessible would do away
with voters with disabilities needing assistance. Policies in other
jurisdictions categorise companion-assisted voting as a measure of
last resort, and even when utilised, stipulate detailed rules
regarding the selection of the companion, giving priority to the
preference of the voter.
After the people have spoken and the votes have been counted, we must
not forget the tens of millions who could not make their voices heard.
(The writers are with the Centre for Law and Policy Research, Bangalore)
Source:
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/disabilities-of-our-democracy/article5944384.ece?homepage=true
--
With best regards,
Sanchit Katiyar.
E-Mail:
[email protected]
Skype ID:
sanchit.katiyar11
facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/sanchit.katiyar.5
Mobile:
+919013816320.
Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of
mobile phones / Tabs on:
http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in
Search for old postings at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send a message to
[email protected]
with the subject unsubscribe.
To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please
visit the list home page at
http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
Disclaimer:
1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the
person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity;
2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent
through this mailing list..
