The choice between use of public funds for development priorities such as health, education and nutrition on one side and the need to create a larger than life stature by riding on the need to uplift the self-esteem of the Bahujan Samaj by constructing statues of her own and her party symbol, elephant, on the other side – was very easy for Mayawati and led her to blow up a few thousand crores of taxpayers’ money.

Ironically when the election commission was faced with a similar choice, it took lesser time to choose between the use of public funds for expenses towards actual conduct of elections on the one side and towards undoing the potential ill-effects of Maya’s extravaganza on the elections by giving undue advantage to her party’s candidates on the other side.  The election commission directed public money to be used to fund the covering of those statues.

The statues of Mayawati and her elephant have been contentious ever since beginning of their construction which has since been also questioned before the Allahabad high court and the supreme court.
 
Earlier, the election commission had passed an order dated October 11, 2010 which inter alia provided that  at the time of elections, the commission would take appropriate steps and measures to see that the statues of Mayawati and the BSP symbol do not disturb the level playing field and give undue advantage to BSP vis- à-vis other political parties.

Even at the time of the general election to the Lok Sabha in 2009, the election commission had  on March 28, 2009 wisely issued instructions  to the effect that no photograph of the prime minster, chief ministers, ministers and other political functionaries should be displayed in any government/public building.  Thereafter, vide its subsequent circular letter dated April 1, 2009, the election commission clarified that the underlying intention of the instructions in the letter of March 28, 2009 was that the images of the political functionaries, who have deep influence on the minds of the electors and many of whom are still active in public life should not be displayed in government buildings and premises as that would have the effect of disturbing the level playing field vis-à-vis the political functionaries of other parties and candidates. It was made clear that while the photographs of PM, CMs, Ministers and other political functionaries should not be displayed, the instructions did not apply with regard to images of national leaders, poets, and prominent historical personalities of the past, and the president of India and the governors. Pertinent to add here is that the above-mentioned writ petition before the supreme court was filed by Ravi Kant.

On January 8, 2012 after taking all the aspects of the matter into consideration, and considering the need to ensure level playing field for all political parties and candidates in the interest of free and fair election, the election commission passed an order directing that each and every statue of elephant and each and every statute of Mayawati, constructed/erected in public places in Uttar Pradesh, at the government expense, which were the subject matter of the above-mentioned said writ petition  before the supreme court, shall be suitably covered so as to ensure that these statues do not influence the minds of the electors disturbing the level playing field during the current general election to the Uttar Pradesh legislative assembly.

The EC further directed that the expense for covering the statues will be borne by the local authorities under whose jurisdiction the various statues have been erected. The whole work of veiling the statues shall be completed by 5 pm on January 11. The district election officers of the districts concerned were also directed to submit to the EC a compliance report in this regard by 7 pm on January 11.

The otherwise welcome decision of the EC however has left a huge gaping hole in the taxpayers’ money which will now be blown to cover the extravaganza of Mayawati which already smacks of misplaced priorities in use of public funds.

The union government or the state government has to bear all expenditure incurred towards actual cost of conducting the election of parliament or legislative assembly of respective states. If election is being held only for parliament then expenses shall be borne exclusively by the union government and similarly the expenditure on the election of state assembly shall be borne by the government of the state. Further, for any capital expenditure for conduct of election, such as preparation of electoral roll and elector identity cards, the expenditure is usually shared equally between the union government and concerned state government.

Has the EC, which is hands on in preparing successive election budgets for conduct of elections, finding itself at a loss to verify whether the cost for covering these statues is indeed an expense for actual conduct elections payable by the state government or otherwise?  

If indeed, the EC has sufficient clarity as to what is an expense for actual conduct of elections and what is not, then would it kindly clarify as to why this expense on covering the said statues of elephants and Mayawati is being thrust on aam admi?

Interestingly, with respect to expenses towards dealing with defacement of public property at page 214 of the compendium of instructions for this very elections issued by the EC empowers the district authorities may take action to remove the defacement, and the expenses incurred in the process shall be recovered from the political party/candidate concerned. Further, such amount is also directed to be added to the election expenditure of the candidate concerned. Additionally, in the said the compendium, the EC further directs all expenses towards advertisement to be also accounted for in the election expenses of the candidates concerned.

When a political party turns public places into its private museum using taxpayers’ money only to be covered in order to maintain level playing field during elections, it is hard to distinguish what is an ‘advertisement’ and what is not and what is ‘defacement’ of public property and what is not.

Mindful and well aware of its own jurisdiction and limits on what expenses and be passed on the stare government and what expenses have to be passed on the political parties/candidates, the EC should not allow taxpayers’ money for covering the said statues and ought to instead direct the concerned political party/candidate to pick up its own tab in cleaning what looks like muck during elections process.