Derecognition is, perhaps, the harshest punishment the Commis-sion can mete out to a political party. It should serve as a warning to all political parties which have boycotted elections in the past or consider this an option. Elections are the essence of democracy and no political party can shy away from them, whatever the provocation. In this particular case the NPC, which is one of the leading political parties of the state, boycotted the polls at the instance of the extremist National Socialist Council of Nagaland. By boycotting the polls the party deprived the voters of their right to exercise their political choice. In constituency after constituency thevoters did not have this right as the ruling Congress candidates were elected unopposed. For a party which professes to stand for the people's cause this is an inexcusable lapse deserving of the severest punishment. The very fact that the Congress stood up to the threat gave a lie to the NPC's claim that it had no option but to boycott the 1998 polls.

But however justified the EC decision, the point that some other parties whose candidates too withdrew from the contest when pressures were mounted on them have gone scot-free cannot be missed. For instance, the BJP too willy-nilly boycotted the polls when all its candidates developed cold feet about resisting extraneous pressures. In the past, the parties which boycotted elections had to pay a heavy price. In Punjab the Akali Dal once made the mistake of boycotting the polls and allowing the Congress a walkover in a majority of the constituencies. As a result, the Akalis could only sulk on the sidelines through the five-year period the Congress ruled thestate. The Akalis are unlikely to repeat such a mistake in the future.

Some other parties have learned similar lessons in Kashmir and Assam.Political parties can have genuine differences of opinion with the government over the timing of elections or other issues. Elections, in fact, provide the ideal forum for the parties to take up such issues and seek the people's mandate. Boycotting the polls is a negation of democracy. Often, the call for boycott emanates from extremist forces. In the last elections in Kashmir the militants had given a call for boycott. It would have served their publicity purpose well if the elections had failed to evoke enthusiasm among the people and there was a low turn-out at the polling booths. In such situations it is the duty of every political party to stand up to this threat and mobilise resources to ensure that there is a larger turnout of voters at the polling booths to give them a fitting rebuff. In Jammu and Kashmir the mainstream parties succeeded in squaring up to thethreat whereas in Nagaland all of them, except the Congress, failed. If the EC's decision succeeds in dissuading political parties from thinking of boycotting elections in future, it would have served its purpose.