So retired chief election commissioners (CEC), like judges, civil servants, et al, compromise themselves and put a question mark over their neutrality if they join active politics after they retire — if we are to go by T.V.R. Shenoy’s argument (‘A Model Code for the EC?’,IE, March 25).I have often wondered why neutrality is so often equated with not having views of one’s own. It is not in keeping with the spirit of the law, we are told, although the letter remains un-breached. And yet, is it true that joining a political party after retirement necessarily means that during his or her period of service, the individual concerned was partisan and favoured the party he/she ultimately joined?Perhaps we need to look at this notion afresh. Most people who go through an educational process can, and should, have views of their own. If the educated can make up their minds about the accuracy of the theory of evolution why should it be assumed that they must have no views on politics?Those who have studied theories of liberalism must decide whether they are correct or whether it is only the neo-conservatives who have a place in modern life. If they cannot do this, their education has been wasted. Viewed thus, it becomes clear that a person need not be devoid of political convictions merely because he holds high office under the state. But if such people hold strong political views does that diminish their ability to act with impartiality? We are told that when T.N. Seshan and M.S. Gill joined the Congress after their retirement, it militated against the spirit of the law and could quite conceivably have undermined people’s faith in the electoral process. It is extremely unlikely that people’s faith in the poll process is shaken by the mere fact that a retired official joins a political party. What is far more likely to shake public confidence is any decision in the public domain that is palpably partisan. The important point is that someone who holds strong political views can be absolutely impartial when he is in office even if he is called upon to deal with parties that hold opposite views. By the same token, mala fide and perverse decisions can be taken by someone who holds no political views at all but is guided by greed and avarice. Personal integrity and not political ideology is what counts.The problem lies with our firm conviction that a series of bureaucratic rules and procedures can substitute for absolute integrity. The article approvingly quotes the rule that forbids retired civil servants from seeking employment for at least two years after they retire. This is one more placebo that gives us immense satisfaction but is of very little practical significance. If someone is determined to milk the system he/she does not need to wait for retirement to get (un)just rewards. He/she can be well paid for favours done while in service.If every constitutional, bureaucratic or judicial post at the higher levels were to be barred to all those who hold political views of their own, we would have a remarkably small pool of people from which to select persons to occupy such posts. Why cut ourselves off from a large collection of good men and women whose only disqualification is the fact that, being educated, they make up their own minds on the pressing issues of the day?
