The carefully orchestrated ‘hi-tech’ inaugural of the CPN-UML general convention ended rather unceremoniously as the party returned to the age-old paper balloting for the party elections, instead of adopting the swadeshi electronic voting machines (EVMs), as was originally intended.

The two factions in the party, one led by an ex-prime minister and the other by the party’s parliamentary leader, might have had indistinct political economic visions for the country but they publicly took opposite stances on EVMs. Iphone holders in one faction repeated the manufacturer’s claim that the EVM’s design was easy, effective and culturally grounded. The suspicious in the other feared, rather vaguely, that the use of technology would somehow result in their electoral loss. It was a third party expert assessment by technologists that helped the party’s standing committee postpone the use of machine voting.

Dissect the digital

Curiously, the debate about voting technology generated widespread coverage in both print and social media. It is rather unfortunate that commentators found technologies related to killer bulldozer roads, precious leakages in electricity and water-supply networks and dubious Monsanto seeds a little too boring compared to the scattering of flowers from a four-bladed flying box.

Public discussions on the link between digital technologies and democracy need to be well informed and mature. Specifically, there is a need to pay more attention to the political and commercial interests behind the technologies on offer, particularly behind digital technologies of democracy, which would, to some people at least, help realise the futures imagined by policy documents such as the IT Roadmap and the e-Governance Master Plan.

Consider the case of EVMs. As the prospect of selling EVMs to the CPN-UML floundered, its promoters intensified their bid to entice the Election Commission into buying thousands of machines in view of the not-so-distant local government elections. Since the UML’s decision on July 7, promoters have published several online demonstrations for top politicians and organised presentations at media clubs. EVMs speed up the counting of the vote, which is usually a costly and time-consuming process with conventional paper ballots due to their sheer weight and number. But the technology’s merits should be assessed to guarantee more transparency, accountability and inclusion in the process, and not only in the sheer counting capacity of the proposed box.

The EVMs have been presented the world over as magic solutions to all old drawbacks while keeping the electoral process free from human errors and prejudices. Hence, public recommendations by two seemingly neutral Pulchowk Engineering College professors, the ignoble branding of caution by tech-savvy politicians as a call for a return to the Stone Age and Tweet promotions by a leader of the far right as a Made-in-Nepal product can all be ignored in service of the deeper issues at stake.

Not up to mark

Based on the scanty publicly available information, it can safely be said that the makers of the proposed EVMs have not modelled their machines on basic electoral procedures. They have not included the requirement, for instance, that the process leave auditable traces before, during and after the voting, and without such ‘balloting’, no election will be free and fair. Indeed, given the technical architecture of the EVMs, it will be impossible for the makers to comply with any order similar to the one the Constitution Assembly court recently gave to the Morang election officials requiring them to furnish details of contentious voting centres, including the ballot boxes, marked voters’ lists and vote-receipts.

The ingenuity of the Nepali makers chiefly lies in assembling smart components that appear to ‘do the work’ without passing the architecture through rigorous, verifiable and justificatory procedures. Further, not so obscure transformation of the push button signals into a vote count requires that the control of the EVMs be entrusted to a few hands. These technicians can easily tamper with the machines, both by replacing any component with a look-alike or by remotely altering the signals. Both methods have been demonstrated as feasible for Indian EVMs, which the Nepali EVMs are modelled on, leading the top court in India to order that the machines leave more paper trails. One may recall that Indian officials are still experimenting with their EVMs since the first appeals to digitise the elections were made in 1988.

Informed debate

Clearly, any decision to shift to EVMs should consider at least three issues, as the 2010 review by the Council of Europe argues. First, whether such a move makes the electoral process more inclusive for already marginalised sections of the populations. Second, whether voters trust the ability of their political and administrative authorities to make the process transparent and accountable. Third, whether the move comes only after an ample opportunity for technologists to cross-validate the nitty-gritty of the machines as effective solutions to design problems.

One may also add that the EVMs are not safe from problems they themselves introduce, such as the issues of unreliable power supply and remote manipulation through phishing and signal modulation. Finally, one may require a legal regime that can resolve disputes arising out of a flawed design and questionable interpretation of digital beeps.

The UML standing committee, therefore, rightly decided to reconsider its earlier decision to go for EVMs. The acceptance otherwise would have made some dabblers, a few geeks in colleges and fashionable politicians believe that the ills of Nepali democracy can be cured through the use of EVMs and other digital toys. Meanwhile, the Election Commission needs to learn from a comprehensive technology review on EVMs before it seriously considers any similar proposal. There has to be a more informed public debate on the necessity and feasibility of all digital technologies before some seasoned entrepreneurs sell them by citing a natural demand for digital democracy in Nepal.  

Raj is Research Director of Materials Transformations at Martin Chautari and Basnet is a researcher at the Centre for Research on Social Defence Technology, Nepal Engineering College