Guidelines for the Political Parties by ECI
Article 324:
- An Election Commission will have supervision, guidance, and control over elections.
EC’s functions include:
- Political parties’ and their members’ communication that is inclusive of disabled people.
- Information accessibility.
- incorporation into party structures.
- The communication rules address dehumanising or utilising persons with disabilities (PwDs) to portray incapacity or reinforce stereotypes, as well as the use of ill-health terminology for PwDs.
- The accessibility guidelines include information accessibility on political party websites and hosting events in locations that are easily accessible.
- Party workers can create disability training modules according to the Guidelines for Inclusion inside party frameworks, which aims to incorporate PwDs at all levels of a political party.
The necessity of these guidelines:
- For instance, a Tamil Nadu leader disparagingly compared Sanatan Dharma to individuals who had HIV and leprosy in 2023.
- Disability has been dehumanised by national leaders, particularly in election speeches.
- Examples of PwD dehumanisation and stereotype perpetuation: According to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016, this creates a “attitudinal barrier.”
What difficulties exist?
- While some of the standards’ wording is mandatory, overall, they are just “advisory.”
- For example, the disability-inclusive communication head’s recommendations employ the terms “should” and “shall” both before and after the instructions.
- Guidelines are still included in ambiguous language, such as “may,” particularly when they are included inside the political party structure.
- There must be a single mandate for all three categories.
MCC: The Model Code of Conduct still does not include these rules:
- The warning states that political parties and their members may face legal prosecution under section 92 of the RPwD Act for violating norms pertaining to disability-inclusive communication.
- It’s unclear if violating further rules will make this clause applicable as well.
- A punishment clause for crimes committed against PwDs is found in Section 92.
- When it comes to using particular phraseology, there is some ambiguity in the requirements.
- Words like “blind,” “deaf,” and “dumb” are mentioned as instances of incorrect terminology.
- These are technical terms used to describe people with visual, hearing, and speech disabilities, even though their translation into Hindi or another language could be disparaging.
- The UN Disability Inclusion Strategy’s comprehensive collection of terminology and expressions that are disability-sensitive might serve as a guide for the ECI.
- There was no political inclusiveness component in the proposed National Policy for PwD that was made available for public comment.
- “Political parties must endeavour to include PwD at all levels as members and party workers,” according to the ECI advice.
- It requires political parties to follow accessibility guidelines, which is the first time PwD have had access to political space.
- By incorporating them into the MCC along the lines of gender guidelines, these rules must be given teeth.
- The national policy ought to include a chapter on political inclusion since it is anticipated that these rules will spur PwD’s political inclusion.
- The tenets of UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 29, will be in line with this.
- The number of legislators with impairments is not publicly available.
- There isn’t a disability column in the ECI nomination forms or affidavits submitted by candidates running for office.
- The absence of data has been a major factor in PwDs’ political marginalisation.
- The 2024 elections present a chance to remedy this deficiency.
- It might be a move in the direction of PwD’s political inclusivity.
