Case Study 3: It was Assembly election times, and you were deputed to a constituency on election duty where one of your responsibilities was to monitor candidates' campaign expenses and supervise the campaigns' videography. As you take charge and start working, you realise the challenge you have got into. Two of the candidates had a criminal background, and the whole contest was more or less between these two only. As the campaigns picked pace, you noticed that both the candidates indulged in inciting the voters on caste and religious grounds. Further, they were doling out monetary inducements in blatant violation of the election code of conduct. You had all of it on record, thanks to your videographer. You decided to warn them before taking any strict action, so you called them and confronted them with the evidence. Much to your relief, they quietly accepted the mistake and promised to comply with the codes. Two days after the meeting, you get the news that one of your videographers was severely beaten by the goons of one of the candidates. And the beating of the videographer was meant as a warning to you. Further, the same evening you get a call threatening you with dire consequences if you interfere with the campaigns. You realise that your decisions are proving to be dangerous for the people working with you. You didn't feel good about endangering the safety of your staff. 1. What are the issues involved in the above case? 2. Is it ethically justified to be devoted to duty at the cost of the personal safety of the staff? Discuss. 3. How will you go about doing your election duties without compromising the safety of your staff? Explain.

a) Issues involved in the case.

1. 'Fear as a weapon' → By beating the videographer the goons wanted fear and silence.

2. Moral corruption → Lack of ethical conscience as the candidates complied but were hypocritical.

3. Safety of staff vs Responsibility towards duty as an ethical dilemma.

4. Criminalization of politics → Society's representatives do not have people's concern or drive for service but only seeking power.

5. Institution's deterance decreasing due to earlier inaction. (Election Commission's Model code of Conduct violated and no timely action)

B) Ethically justified devoted to duty at cost of safety of staff

1. No, as a good leader has to keep in mind the safety of their staff and keep proper safety checks for them.

2. He is responsible for their well being and accountable to their families.

3. His devotion to duty, should however serve as an inspiration for others to be as courageous and face challenges together (leader like kalam, army generals made great teams).

4. All safeguards should be made so staff feels safe, keeping in mind the value of Kant's Categorical Imperative of humans as end and not means (so cannot use staff or force them towards danger).

5. But must always strive to create a brave team and finally be responsible. 'A good leader knows the way, goes the way and shows the way'.

6. Election duties without compromising staff's safety.

My course of action will have priorities of

i) Along with video footage as proof, take the case to the higher authorities like 'electoral commissioner' in District, local law enforcement.

1. I will continue acting as 'One must do their duty and not fear the evil'.

2. Ensure police protection for staff during their official duties of election observers.

3. Move a petition to cancel the candidature by writing a formal report of the case in detail. → exercise my power as election observer → Talk to their party representatives and highlight violation of law.

4. Thus my duties will be aimed for resolving the issue and acting as deterance as people in democracy deserve good representatives.