Election Commission defends decisions after commissioners raised objections

The Election Commission has had to issue a clarification over what happened inside the body over the last ten months. A report had revealed that two commissioners had recorded objections on separate decisions at least 14 times. Following this, the Commission said differences of opinion or observations among commissioners are a normal part of any institution's decision making process. The Commission also said the matters that were objected to were at the draft stage, and the final decision was taken jointly by the full Commission, by consensus.

While the Commission's clarification has attempted to address the issue of internal differences, the real question still stands: what ultimately happened to the objections raised by the two commissioners, and how was the consensus reached. It is not yet clear how those objections were resolved in the final process for the decisions that were objected to. If the Commission were to explain the complete process between these two stages, the matter could become clearer.

According to the report, commissioners had objected in some cases to issues such as registration of new voters, addition or deletion of names from the voter list, and centralising voter related software. The report said some objections had also used words such as "unauthorised" and "illegal".

If the final decisions after the objections were reached by consensus, making public the copy of those decisions or their necessary details would clarify the entire process. This would also reveal which issue was objected to, what discussion took place in the Commission on it, and for what reasons consensus was eventually reached. However, it is not possible to make every internal Commission discussion or document public, so balancing transparency with institutional confidentiality is also an important question.

According to the Commission's clarification, recording of different opinions or observations before a decision is taken is itself part of the decision making process. This means that the mere recording of objections cannot be used to draw any conclusion about the final decision making process. But since it has already come to light that two commissioners repeatedly recorded objections, it becomes necessary to explain how those objections were resolved. Because merely stating that the final decision was reached by consensus is far less important than explaining what the objections were and how they were resolved. Only then can the public get an accurate picture of the Commission's decision making process.

The information available so far shows that objections were recorded, while the Commission says the final decision was taken by consensus. Information clarifying the link between these two facts needs to come out, only then will it be clear how consensus was eventually reached after the differences.

The Election Commission is a constitutional body, so transparency in its decision making process is of particular importance. Differences of opinion are not unusual in themselves, but it is important from the public's point of view to clearly understand how final consensus was reached after such differences.