Content :
- Free and fair
- The assault on multilateralism and international law
- The challenge of policing digital giants
Free and fair
Context: The ECI’s Stand on Disclosing Booth-Wise Vote Data
- The Election Commission of India (ECI) has historically been reluctant to disclose absolute numbers of booth-wise votes cast in elections.
- In the 2024 general elections, it took the position that Form 17-C (part one) could only be accessed by candidates and polling agents, citing a lack of legal mandate for wider disclosure.
- The demand for greater transparency resurfaced in court, pushing for the public disclosure of scanned and authenticated copies of Form 17-C.
Relevance : GS 2(Elections , Polity , Governance)
Practice Question : The Election Commission of India (ECI) must view calls for greater transparency as a means to strengthen electoral integrity rather than as an attempt to undermine it. Discuss the significance of electoral transparency in a democracy and suggest measures to enhance trust in the electoral process. (250 words)
Recent Shift in ECI’s Approach
- The new Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), Gyanesh Kumar, has shown openness to engaging with stakeholders advocating for greater transparency.
- The Supreme Court has directed the petitioners to submit a formal representation to the ECI.
- While this does not guarantee immediate public access to absolute numbers, it indicates a possible shift toward a more transparent disclosure mechanism, including turnout figures in both percentage and absolute terms.
Issue of Voter Turnout Discrepancies
- A major concern in the 2024 elections was the significant variation (5-6 percentage points) between initial and revised voter turnout figures.
- ECI attributed this to logistical delays in collecting data from remote booths, but critics argue that since Form 17-C is available at the booth level, scanning and uploading within 48 hours is feasible.
- The absence of absolute vote numbers raises doubts, leading to speculation and mistrust in the electoral process.
Arguments in Favor of Greater Transparency
- Building Trust in the Electoral Process: Transparency in turnout numbers and vote counts strengthens public confidence in elections.
- Preventing Speculation and Misinformation: Delays and discrepancies in voter turnout data lead to unnecessary doubts and allegations of malpractice.
- Technological Feasibility: Given advances in digital governance, scanning and uploading Form 17-C within a short time frame is practically achievable.
- Global Best Practices: Many democracies ensure high levels of electoral transparency to maintain credibility and accountability.
The Need for Institutional Flexibility
- ECI’s willingness to discuss the issue is a positive step, but there should be a continuous reassessment of existing election procedures.
- A rigid stance against transparency reforms may be counterproductive, creating an impression of opacity and resistance to scrutiny.
- Implementing systematic improvements—such as real-time data collation and prompt publication—can enhance credibility without compromising security.
The Way Forward
- Institutionalizing the Publication of Form 17-C: A legally backed mandate for uploading scanned copies would remove ambiguity.
- Standardizing Data Disclosure Timelines: Ensuring that turnout data, both in percentage and absolute terms, is published consistently.
- Engaging Stakeholders: Regular consultations with political parties, civil society, and independent election monitors to address concerns proactively.
- Strengthening Electoral Data Management: Deploying technology for real-time transmission of turnout figures to minimize discrepancies.
Conclusion
- The ECI must recognize that demands for transparency are not challenges to its authority but efforts to reinforce trust in India’s democratic process.
- It is essential to move beyond a defensive approach and proactively enhance electoral credibility through procedural improvements.
- Transparency should be seen as a means to strengthen electoral integrity, not as an attack on it.
The assault on multilateralism and international law
The U.S.’s shift towards unilateralism under the “America First” policy threatens the foundations of multilateral cooperation and international law, leading to global geopolitical and economic repercussions.
Relevance : GS 2(International Relations)
Practice Question:“The retreat of the United States from multilateral institutions signals a shift towards unilateralism, impacting global governance and international law.” Discuss the implications of this shift and analyze the role of emerging powers like India in sustaining multilateralism. (250 words)
U.S. Shift Towards Political and Economic Isolationism
- The Trump administration’s “America First” policy has led to systematic disengagement from multilateral institutions.
- The DEFUND Act, introduced by Senator Mike Lee, proposes U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations (UN), repealing key legislations such as:
- United Nations Participation Act of 1945
- United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 1947
- Potential consequences of the DEFUND Act:
- Loss of financial support to the UN, crippling key programs like peacekeeping and human rights monitoring.
- Revocation of UN officials’ immunity, obstructing diplomatic activities within the U.S.
- Undermining the legitimacy of multilateralism, which has been the cornerstone of the post-WWII international order.
Attack on the International Criminal Court (ICC)
- February 6 Executive Order imposed sanctions on the ICC and its officials.
- The U.S. accuses the ICC of:
- Engaging in “illegitimate and baseless actions” against the U.S. and Israel.
- Overstepping its jurisdiction, despite the U.S. never ratifying the Rome Statute (1998).
- Contradiction in U.S. policy:
- The U.S. played a pivotal role in the Nuremberg Trials, establishing accountability for crimes against humanity.
- Robert H. Jackson’s principle at Nuremberg: Rule of law must triumph over power.
- The move weakens international law enforcement, increasing impunity for war crimes and human rights violations.
Trade Protectionism and Economic Nationalism
- The Trump administration’s aggressive tariffs in the name of national security parallel historical protectionist policies:
- Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930) worsened the Great Depression, contributing to WWII.
- Similar trade barriers today risk destabilizing the global economy.
- U.S. has blocked appointments to the WTO Appellate Body, rendering the dispute resolution mechanism ineffective.
- The looming threat of U.S. withdrawal from the WTO endangers the global rules-based trading system.
Implications of U.S. Unilateralism on Global Governance
- Weakening of international institutions that govern climate change, human rights, public health, and economic stability.
- Rise of unilateralism, where powerful states bypass global norms for national interests.
- Increased geopolitical tensions, as other nations might retaliate against U.S. policies.
- Diminishing credibility of the U.S., as allies and partners may seek alternative global leadership.
Opportunity for Non-Western Nations, Especially India
- India’s advocacy for multilateralism positions it as a key player in global governance.
- At the G-20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting (February 2025),S. Jaishankar emphasized:
- The need for inclusive multilateralism in addressing global challenges.
- The importance of upholding international law and peaceful conflict resolution.
- India’s long-standing call for UN Security Council (UNSC) reforms gains traction amid the shifting global order.
- A multipolar world order may emerge, with India and other non-Western nations assuming leadership roles.
Conclusion
- The U.S.’s retreat from multilateralism jeopardizes global cooperation but also creates leadership opportunities for emerging powers.
- The success of ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) is unlikely without multilateral collaboration.
- The international community must resist unilateralism and prioritize cooperative global governance for sustainable development.
The challenge of policing digital giants
Context : The Meta Case and CCI’s Order
- The Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a fine of ₹213.14 crore on Meta and banned sharing of WhatsApp user data with Facebook and Instagram for five years.
- The NCLAT granted a stay on this order, allowing Meta to continue data sharing, subject to a 50% penalty deposit.
- Key concern: The 2021 WhatsApp privacy policy update was seen as an abuse of dominant position, forcing users into a “take-it-or-leave-it” data-sharing agreement.
Relevance : GS 2(Governance ,Privacy Rights)
Practice Question : “In the digital economy, data is both the source and enabler of dominance. Discuss the challenges posed by data-centric monopolies in digital markets and suggest measures to strengthen India’s regulatory framework to address them.” (250 words)
The Role of Data in Digital Market Dominance
- Data is the new oil but unlike oil, it is limitless, reusable, and self-reinforcing.
- Platforms like Meta and Google use data pools to refine algorithms, create hyper-targeted advertising, and lock users into their ecosystems.
- Network effects: More users generate more data, increasing platform dominance and making market entry harder for competitors.
Global Regulatory Challenges and Precedents
- U.S.:
- The U.S. District Court found Google violating the Sherman Act for monopolistic agreements in search and advertising.
- Meta faces antitrust litigation over acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
- Europe:
- The Bundeskartellamt (Germany) found Meta violating EU competition law by aggregating user data without consent.
- EU has fined Google over €8 billion for anti-competitive practices.
- Australia: Implemented reforms to curb tech giant dominance in digital advertising and data use.
India’s Legal Framework and Gaps
- Competition Act, 2002 lacks provisions for data-centric monopolies; it focuses on price-based dominance.
- Proposed changes:
- Define “data monopolization” as a parameter for market dominance.
- Introduce interoperability mandates and data-sharing requirements to prevent monopolistic control.
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023:
- Can complement competition law but lacks coordination with the CCI, reducing its effectiveness.
- Lessons from EU: India could integrate competition law with Digital Markets Act (DMA) and GDPR to regulate data exploitation.
Broader Implications and Way Forward
- The Economic Survey 2024-25 emphasizes AI and digital transformation, highlighting the need for future-proof regulations.
- India needs a proactive approach to competition law, not just reactive penalties.
- Future regulations should anticipate technological advancements to ensure fair competition, innovation, and consumer protection.
Conclusion:
The Meta case is a critical milestone in India’s digital regulatory landscape, but it underscores the need for comprehensive, forward-looking competition laws to tackle emerging challenges in the digital economy.
