For systemic change on the democratic path ....By V.R. Krishna Iyer.

Some reflections on the Indian system of elections and possible alternatives.

The Constitution has made India a socialist, secular, democratic Republic geared to a dialectically dynamic infrastructure, on a parliamentary basis modelled on the British pattern. What is a secular democracy? Government, “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” going by Abraham Lincoln’s classic definition. It should be founded on humanist materialism sans caste, theology, and feudalist obscurantism. Government by the people being an imperati ve, it is their franchise that decides who will have title to engineer state power. So it is that Winston Churchill observed: “At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth with a little pencil making a little cross on a little bit of paper — no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.” The fundamental nexus between the little man and grassroots democracy takes practical shape through elections, rooted in universal adult franchise. This is a basic feature of our Republic.
Willing votes, fairly cast with secular ubiquity, is the oxygen of elections.

Everyone has a voice and a vote, and his or her franchise must have free and fearless opportunity for expression. The right to cast votes and to be a candidate are provided for by a non-negotiable basic structure operated by an independent Election Commission with constitutional status. Having regard to the huge population above age 18, our constituencies are large.

Election campaigns are expensive. Very few can find the funds to contest for seats without violating legal and monetary limitations and codes of conduct and publicity proprieties. The initial deposit, as well as the manifesto, canvassing, propaganda and other plural financial commitments are large. The small person with socialist, non-communal convictions stands no chance. Only candidates of wealthy parties or fronts, or rich independents, can dream of it. Gandhiji symbolised the axiom small is beautiful, but bourgeois India with creamy layer class domination has alienated the masses from candidature or chance of success.

We have adopted the party system on the British model. But even the two-party system does not work; multi-party coalitions have a crazy appeal. They have come to stay from panchayat to Parliament. Often the process of getting into the voter’s list with photographs and other formalities is so complicated that many eligible adults are not listed.

Electoral performance hardly represents the will of the people. When parties in the fray are many and independents make for further confusion among largely illiterate electorates, the winner hardly has the support of 15 or 20 per cent of the total voter population. Thus the election becomes a charade. In a situation of plurality of parties, which govern with a majority of seats, the House does not reflect the voice of the entire community. He who gets the majority in the first-past-the-post system and sits in the House has the support of only 30 or 40 per cent of the adult population. We are in reality ruled by a minority. Many of the members have criminal antecedents. This system must change.

But what is the alternative? The proportional representation system with lists of nominees means any system of voting designed to ensure that the representation of voters through each party is in proportion to their numbers. In the list system, the number of candidates on a party’s list who are elected depends on the proportion of ballots they receive. Most European countries (but not the U.K.) have the proportional representation system. The case against it is that it produces unstable coalitions, and breaks the bond between MPs and their constituencies. The government and its policies become slippery.

While better representation for parties that have secured a percentage of the constituency enhances the quality of democracy under the proportional representation system, there are other practical difficulties that go against a stable administration on a sound policy foundation with majority backing. Britain and other Commonwealth countries are used to a single party or front wielding state power with legislative majority. The Cabinet system cannot function on this basis with many parties claiming proportional voting power to run the administration. Therefore, proportional representation may have a certain fascination but a government with manifesto-based collective responsibility necessarily requires the dual party or front or a minority government with the firm and convinced ideological backing of parties from outside the Cabinet, when there is a challenge in Parliament.
Majority in Parliament is the essence of democratic rule. That is why proportional representation is incongruous with a strong government with defined policies. If a presidential system is adopted an element of authoritarian power weakens democracy. True, when Parliament functions with lunatic or fanatic fury, the rule of law withers. But the Cabinet system, with a ceremonial President enjoying supervisory jurisdiction and special constitutional authority, as in our case, is indubitably preferable.

We have a Cabinet system with a President who is the head of the nation with ceremonial powers and advisory authority. He is not a glorified cipher and has an important elder statesman’s role, with the right to get information from government and authority to advise the Cabinet, as has been explained by the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh’s case. In a presidential system the President is powerful. In such contexts, proportional representation has more relevance. But our Constitution is based on the Cabinet system and this basic structure cannot be changed.
Our democracy is conceptually excellent, rendering the noble Preamble, Parts III, IV, and IV A integrally. Even so, although ideologically we have a progressive, people-oriented structure, functionally there are deficiencies, drawbacks, shortcomings, and perversions.

We must focus on these deformities from a dialectical angle. Fifty years have revealed grave flaws and egregious deviances in the executive, legislative, and judicative instrumentalities.
A national discussion and creative as well as imaginative methodology may bring out new viewpoints on this subject. Then, “We, the People of India” will speak, not merely the ruling party.

(Courtesy : The Hindu)