Readers' Forum
Election code of conduct
Those who drafted the voluntary code of conduct (CoC) for the recent Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trusteeship elections need to be complimented as it was because of their efforts that candidates were largely restrained from mindlessly spending cash to lure the voters.
It is a sad thing that several of the top runners seem to have bypassed the code on the plea that it was voluntary. However, voters were wise enough not to be carried away by such tactics. They made their choice very clearly and were not influenced by unfair practices adopted by some candidates.
To be prepared for future elections, I suggest that some relevant changes be made in the CoC which should be made compulsory after being duly approved by the court. A chief election commissioner should be empowered to disqualify candidates for any violation of the CoC.
Advertisements in the media and leaflets must mention the cost of such publicity. Candidates should not use national dailies for their campaigns. The minimum deposit amount should be one lakh rupees. This will deter every Tom, Dick and Harry from filing a nomination just to be in the limelight for a few days or to act as stooge candidates to divide the votes. It may not be out of place to state that out of 23 candidates, eight (33%) could not get 10% of the votes and five could not touch 19%. Only 10 candidates got over 20% votes.
Also, the seven-year term should be reduced to five years. Only Zoroastrians residing in Bombay should be permitted to vote in BPP elections. No doubt it is an apex body, but it is palpably absurd that Zoroastrians not residing in Bombay are permitted to cast their votes. I fail to understand the logic of this, especially since Zoroastrians residing in Bombay have no voting rights for other punchayets like the ones in Poona or Surat.
The term of all trustees should end concurrently. This will eliminate the need for holding by-elections. If a vacancy arises due to resignation or death of a trustee, the place may be filled by co-option by inducting the candidate who secured maximum votes among those unsuccessful in the earlier election. If such a candidate declines, then the one next in line should be offered the seat.
Many high profile members of the community recommend or support candidates of their choice. Or a candidate may approach eminent persons seeking endorsement of their candidature. I have found that sometimes such brand ambassadors are not even registered as voters and, even if they are, they do not bother to vote. Is it not surprising that a candidate who was recommended by some 37 prominent community members lost the election? I feel this is a lesson for those who endorse candidates without having proper knowledge of the BPP’s working and politics. One such supporter withdrew support on one day and changed his mind the very next day, reaffirming support, thereby defeating the very purpose. HOMI DALAL
homeedalal@gmail.com
It is a sad thing that several of the top runners seem to have bypassed the code on the plea that it was voluntary. However, voters were wise enough not to be carried away by such tactics. They made their choice very clearly and were not influenced by unfair practices adopted by some candidates.
To be prepared for future elections, I suggest that some relevant changes be made in the CoC which should be made compulsory after being duly approved by the court. A chief election commissioner should be empowered to disqualify candidates for any violation of the CoC.
Advertisements in the media and leaflets must mention the cost of such publicity. Candidates should not use national dailies for their campaigns. The minimum deposit amount should be one lakh rupees. This will deter every Tom, Dick and Harry from filing a nomination just to be in the limelight for a few days or to act as stooge candidates to divide the votes. It may not be out of place to state that out of 23 candidates, eight (33%) could not get 10% of the votes and five could not touch 19%. Only 10 candidates got over 20% votes.
Also, the seven-year term should be reduced to five years. Only Zoroastrians residing in Bombay should be permitted to vote in BPP elections. No doubt it is an apex body, but it is palpably absurd that Zoroastrians not residing in Bombay are permitted to cast their votes. I fail to understand the logic of this, especially since Zoroastrians residing in Bombay have no voting rights for other punchayets like the ones in Poona or Surat.
The term of all trustees should end concurrently. This will eliminate the need for holding by-elections. If a vacancy arises due to resignation or death of a trustee, the place may be filled by co-option by inducting the candidate who secured maximum votes among those unsuccessful in the earlier election. If such a candidate declines, then the one next in line should be offered the seat.
Many high profile members of the community recommend or support candidates of their choice. Or a candidate may approach eminent persons seeking endorsement of their candidature. I have found that sometimes such brand ambassadors are not even registered as voters and, even if they are, they do not bother to vote. Is it not surprising that a candidate who was recommended by some 37 prominent community members lost the election? I feel this is a lesson for those who endorse candidates without having proper knowledge of the BPP’s working and politics. One such supporter withdrew support on one day and changed his mind the very next day, reaffirming support, thereby defeating the very purpose. HOMI DALAL
homeedalal@gmail.com
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive