An excess of bureaucracy coupled with a lack of empathy has rendered the special intensive revision (SIR) hearing process distressing for many, discussions with officials and politicians have indicated.
Many of them spoke of “over-bureaucratisation” and the failure to engage local agencies more efficiently to help anxious citizens.
The Telegraph has highlighted in recent days the difficulties encountered by those summoned for hearings related to the ongoing SIR. Many individuals, such as office employees who must take time off and homemakers who leave tasks unfinished, are being called for reasons that are unknown to them and their booth-level officers.
For many, the ordeal lasts for hours, without access to drinking water or washrooms, as they bear the inconvenience to protect their voting right.
Most people have to wait around two hours before reaching the assistant electoral registration officers to produce documents. After verification, they face further delays for a photograph.
A bureaucrat and a politician spoke to Metro about what they thought were the reasons for such mismanagement.
The bureaucrat
The chaos that we are witnessing is a typical illustration of over-bureaucratisation. As sociologists have repeatedly argued, under- and over-bureaucratisation are both avoidable evils.
Under-bureaucratisation leads to chaos, while over-bureaucratisation leads to choking and claustrophobia, and in the process, another kind of disorder, which we are witnessing during the current SIR hearings.
Bureaucratisation had its golden period in the 19th century. Feudalism had declined, while political democracy was not yet fully evolved. Both in Europe and in colonies like India, the bureaucrats then often played the role of actual governors. Initially nominated and later selected by merit, the officials did take fundamentally important decisions in public life. They had the training, habit, and aptitude for those kinds of roles.
From the 20th century, the rapid development of democracy, empowerment of public representatives in every domain, explosion of public demands, and revolutionary disruptions by technology have given birth to an era when civil servants are actually no longer the masters of any important decision. They are more like cogs in the wheel. More of machines, less of rulers.
So, today, when in exceptional moments, the bureaucrats try to play the roles of governors of destiny, their ineptitude and inefficiencies come to the fore. Without the guidance or assistance of public representatives, today’s bureaucrats are often ill at ease navigating a sea of humanity.
The current electoral process has suddenly catapulted a set of bureaucrats to the seats of governance, but without some help of public representatives or political agents, they remain ill-equipped to steer or handle or understand or anticipate the anxieties and worries of the large number of people who flood the arena in these critical moments. Lack of practice of empathy and imagination hamstrings them.
While the electoral process needs to remain non-partisan and politically sanitised, there could be no harm if disadvantaged and particularly old people could be provided with some handholding assistance at the grassroots level by trained public workers.
Some provision of elementary assistance at the booth level from the local social workers could hardly damage the purity of the electoral process, while the actual hero of the game, the last common man, could feel hugely confident and empowered if he was allowed a walking stick on the uneven playing ground that he is being forced to tread at the moment.
The politician
The fundamental problems in the hearing process are the lack of humane face and the inability to address the panic among voters.
People called for the hearings are puzzled and panicked. It is like a job interview, and they are scared that if proper replies are not given (in this case, proper documents), they will be thrown out of the electoral system. These people trust local political workers who give them confidence. But Election Commission officials are unknown faces.
During the distribution of forms, the involvement of political workers in the form of booth-level agents (BLA) proved effective.
Bureaucrats are not equipped to handle voters, but a booth-level political worker is. These workers have been involved in the electoral exercise for years. Involving them would have increased the trust factor.
The BLAs’ agenda is that no eligible voter should be omitted from the list, and so, they have an interest and incentive in protecting the rights of people. However, there is no such incentive for bureaucrats who are conducting the process. They don’t have a personal connection and are not bothered if someone’s name is struck off. The onus on the bureaucrat is much less.
Also, the exercise could have been better managed. Now, no one is asking whether an elderly person is capable of waiting. The humane face is missing.
The BLAs should have been involved and allowed to visit the houses of those called for hearings. These BLAs could have explained what documents are needed to be produced for the hearing. Instead, a bureaucratic process of summoning voters is proving disastrous.