The election commission (EC), along with the judiciary and the CAG, has done a fine job of keeping the political class under check. Its achievements, after negotiating all the landmines, have earned it the people’s trust. The EC ranked above courts in an opinion poll carried out by CVoter for Governance Now to gauge people’s faith in public institutions [read it here].

However, landmines it will have to continuously negotiate, fine dividing lines it will always have to respect. In particular, showing a red card to politicians for their dubious, controversial, below-the-belt or factually incorrect statements is a job best left to the electorate.

On November 13, the EC pulled up Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi for his allegedly communal remarks. He had told a poll rally that Pakistan’s ISI was in touch with victims of riots in Muzaffarnagar in Uttar Pradesh – the point he was trying to make was that BJP was fomenting communal trouble for political gains but the nation would have to pay price for it.

Also on November 13, the impartial referee that the EC is, it served a notice on BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi for adding an adjective to the Congress election symbol – “khooni panja”, or the bloody/killing hand, as well as “zaleem haath”, or the cruel hand.

Going by the letter of the model code of conduct (MCC), the EC indeed has some justification. Rahul arguably erred because MCC prohibits speeches that aggravate differences between religious communities. Modi arguably erred because the MCC would want him to confine his criticism of the Congress to its “policies and programme, past record and works ...” and avoid “unverified allegations and distortions ".

The model code has indeed cleaned up elections, but there’s a fine difference between cleaning up and sanitising, and that is what is happening here. No “communal speeches”? No “unverified allegations”? Only discussions of “policies and programmes”? Then it would not be an election rally; it would be a late-evening political debate on Doordarshan.

Then Modi may as well stay put in Gandhinagar and Rahul in his Congress office.

Yes, the political discourse – following politics itself – is hitting new lows, and the coming national elections are going to see a lot of crude street-lingo expressions enter the political lexicon. But the MCC is not an effective filter against them – or against spin-doctored half-truths. If an efficient gatekeeper is needed, then it is a role best left to the media and civil society organisations.

However, education implies a certain naivety on the part of the voter. Does she need to be educated? Yes and no. On one hand there are hard facts where a farmer in a village may need some education. Has ISI indeed got in touch with Muslims of Muzaffarnagar? Did Nehru go to Sardar Patel’s funeral? An average voter may not have answers and the media has to fill in, hoping the word will eventually reach the farmer.

Then, on the other hand, are allegations that are not just unverified but unverifiable: khooni panja, maut ka saudagar. In this area, the average voter may not be as naïve as the MCC assumes her to be.

Here is the crux of the story. The MCC and its precursor rules and regulations have assumed the Indian voter to be a gullible bumpkin, an easily impressionable teenager:

• No campaign in the last two days: the poor chap needs to make up his mind and if Party A comes canvassing he will end up voting for it because he has short memory.
• No canvassing material within 100 metres of polling booth because the poor chap will end up voting on the basis of last-minute impressions.
• Opinion polls? No way, lakhs of voters will change their mind after hearing who the same lakhs of voters are going to vote for.

This model of the Indian voter is the very antithesis of what the US system assumes its voter to be – like a consumer who positively wants all information at her command to make the best decision.

This mythical naïve voter, by the way, is the same chap who according to another narrative, knows best, always speaks his mind, gets the best deal out of elections, steers the course of history, speaks only once in five years and teaches all politicians a lesson or two.

The reality is somewhere between this paradoxical dichotomy. EC should consider replacing parts of MCC with a pro-active campaign to reach out to voters and educating them.