The recent statement made by Parliamentarians during the reservation debates and now the Presidential elections about them representing the ‘will of the people’ had sparked off a blog previously, and guess this would be just a continuation of the same.
The current political scenario and especially the incumbent administration is a consequence of a post-poll alliance. I feel that this in itself is a mockery of the ‘will of the people’. Individual parties and pre-poll alliances, at best, can be deemed worthy of the will of the people, as the people willfully vote in a said party or a certain alliance. But post-poll alliances are a backhanded way of getting power, come what may. That a certain party or alliance does not have the mandate to rule on its own should be sufficient enough to comprehend that it does not in truth represent the will of the majority of the people.
As it is, the ‘first-by-the-poll’ system of Indian elections allows for someone securing as low as 20 percent to be elected as the people’s ‘representative’. I find this a laughable prospect, and sometimes even disturbing. I mean, let’s say out of a total population of 100, 10 don’t come out to vote. So 90 people vote. Let’s say there are 10 candidates. Even if 18 people decide to vote for a single candidate A, and the rest vote for the remaining 9, such that neither candidate has more votes than A, A would be declared a winner. 18 people out of 100 voted for a candidate, and he becomes a representative of the will of the entire 100? And what about the choice of the remaining 82 people? Scary!
So, electoral reform is perhaps needed, whether urgently or maybe slowly is a matter of implementation, but it is sure that some reform is needed. I have some suggestions, and some possible fallout, as follows:
- Prohibit parties from forming any post-poll coalitions. Only those formations which were formed before the polls took place should be permitted to stake a claim for the government.
- This may lead to a minority government, but essentially if the largest formation has to come in power, then this will ensure that.
- Also, the proviso of a confidence vote can ensure that parties other than the claimant can certify whether the claimant has their confidence.
- This will also reduce the risks of horse-trading and defections, as no longer can legislators split their parties after the election on the basis of who wins the polls.
- The minority government continues till such time that it enjoys the support of the Parliament, both de jure and de facto.
- Discard the ‘first by the poll’ system, and adopt the runoff system, as in France. If no candidate secures a simple majority in a specific election, then the two candidates with the most votes proceed to a second round, from which all others are excluded.
- This may prolong the election process, and may increase costs.
- But, eventually, this might ensure that at least 51 people out of 100 have voted for a certain candidate.
These suggestions are neither infallible nor perfect; I am willing to accept that. There could be some measure which could be better placed to deal with my concerns. Therefore, I would appreciate your comments on my suggestions.
Reading:
10 comments:
This post is true Reddy ishtyle!
Informative and sure to draw opinions.
My two pence on this.
Liked the concept of Instant Run-off voting where people give their preferential choices of candidates(like we did during engineering admissions!!). Its an idea that can be explored for a country like India.
I'd tend to disagree with the idea of the run-off system ala France simply because of the costs associated with it. Take the mutiple phased voting that was used in recent UP elections and multiply that by 2. That's humungous!
In India, its difficult to get the a majority ppl out to vote even once, I can't see too much scope when we ask them to come twice.
Moreover, to use a business jargon, what is the "Cost of Quality?" Even if we assume that this system will give us the real people's choice, what will it cost us to determine that? Do a quick cost-benefit analysis and you'll figure that we might not need it.
Instead of sinking thousands of crores of rupees in adding precision to voting, lets setup people's pressure groups and empowered monitoring agencies that can keep a watch on the elected representatives and reprimand them if required.
Politicians in India get away with murder coz they know no one's watching. We need active citizens to make the ruling class accountable.
My suggestion. We have a large number of retirees who are well educated and have seen the working of the government over the years. Team them up with well-informed college students. Add ammo with RTI and you have a very potent force ready to battle inefficiency.
As a spill over effect, you may have some talented young men and women enter politics/administration and do a good job.
I know I've gone off a tangent but this isn't a bad idea this. Is it?
BTW, I forgot to comment on the first suggestion.
In the interest of the 3 dozen news channels, I strongly resist any move to ban post-poll alliances. It robs them of so much "content" and they'd have nothing to pull out headlines like "Soniaji Mayawati ke ghar pahunchi"... "Mamta Banerjee ne Advaniji ke saath chai pi"..
It denies us of the entertainment post the results are out.
On a more serious note. I'd rather have parties declare to the people on paper what are the parties they can strike an alliance with after the results and then be legally bound to strike deals with parties only from among those.
we must realize that a lot of thee deals are based on realpolitik and often results in regional parties to have their say in the govt. Though this is not always good, it isn't as bad that we demand a ban on it.
The Run-off voting seems to be a superb solution...But again, it could be implemented only if parties are not allowed to join hands, once the election procedure starts...
In case it is mandatory for the parties to have pre-poll alliances, there would be only one party left to vote for. All parties will form some kind of an alliance so that they would ensure they would have some say in the ‘power decisions’. In such a case, the election itself will not be required. And let us consider that only pre-poll alliances are allowed and we have a robust voting system in place, basically an ideal situation. In such a scenario, reflect on the candidates for whom we have to vote. We as a nation are very young. Majority of the population is below 35 years of age. How many young leaders do we have to represent such a young nation?
Mayuri:
I doubt that all parties would join together to form one huge 'rainbow' coalition. Firstly, the current dispensation itself belies such expectations from our political class. So we can expect at least two distinct groupings, considering you have such disparate viewpoints about how the nation should progress and whether the nation should progress at all.
Your statement about young leaders is pertinent, however, the behaviour of the current breed of 'young' leaders neither impresses nor inspires, causing some to question whether youth is fit for politics, a sad reversion to the days when the Young Turks made the nation shake with fear at their pronouncements.
Instant run-off maybe a good idea but as neeraj says,am not sure if i'd stick up for it considering the costs involved.These political parties end up spending so much of taxpayers' money as "election expenses".Another round of mandate,and I can't imagine our situation getting any better than it already is...
And my view on neeraj's point that pur politicians get away with murder and that they should be made accountable:
I don't even think it's possible.They'd come up with some stupid Reforms bill of the sort that may cripple us from questioning them at all.Although,in hindsight,I do admit that the RTI act is one of the best things ever to happen to our country.
- Maya
Maya: Over time, it is my firm belief that our populace can be made mature enough to make electoral decisions on issues more profound than mere caste and religion. It will not be an easy task, and it will not be overnight. It will also not be a cheap affair, but will be a rewarding experience in the long run.
I would like to remind you that election expenditure, as of date, is not state-funded. Parties and candidates are required to bear their own expenses. There is a proposal, which is slightly controversial, to make a part of election expenditure state-funded, but I don't feel it will be of much use to the common people.
Accountability comes when the representative is truly representative of his constituents. Having become a MP because of 20-30 pc of the populace dilutes his resolve to work for all; he prefers to then work for only those who supported him.
We must remember that sometimes the best of legislations have come not because of political resolve, but public pressure. We are a democracy, and it is time that we demonstrated that it is the 'demos' who possesses the sword of 'cratos'.
You have raised good points in this topic vivek.... Fully agree with you... The way that things happen now is scary... the issue of 'mandate' has become a flimsy concept... coalitions being the best example of this..
One simple thing that comes to my mind is encouraging more people to come forward & vote.... the very basic thing...
The mindset shift has to begin with the educated middle class.. notoriously the most disengaged group..
But then... I have no ideas on how the election process can be reformed.... fact is that rules need to amended & strictly enforced, across party lines, that only candidates with an impeccable record would be allowed to contest elections...
As raj puts it we need to be concerned in this whole voting process as more than half of the educated lot doesn't vote.
Then the political groups influence the poor by providing them with their basic necessities and making great promises just before the elections just to secure more votes and sometimes even forcibly bringing people to vote for the political party.
So when the system right from its root is corrupt then wat can be expected at the level of government formation.
One thing as u have mentioned that parties shouldn't be allowed to form post election coalitions.
But nowadays one party getting the majority of votes to form the government seems almost impossible which leads to coalition govt.
All because people do not vote in their full majority!
Raj, Roops:
That a significantly large section of our electorate chooses not to exercise its franchise is indeed distressing. However, as far as I believe, mandated voting is not the solution. The people must come to empathize with the system, with the issues that are afflicting our democracy, before their franchise can be truly 'exercised'.
On one hand, we have those who know of the issues that matter, but do not care to vote, and on the other we have those who do not have any knowledge of why a particular stance is just or unjust and care to vote on solely emotive grounds.
The devil, as always, lies in the implementation of the norms and regulations. The Election Commission is empowered to monitor and even debar political outfits indulging in bribing voters. That it chooses not to exercise its prerogative is not so puzzling, considering the clout and the might of the political class.
I must make it absolutely clear that I am not against the idea of coalition governments. In truth, they are a welcome concept, considering that they sometimes ensure that all 'like-minded' parties, encompassing nearly all conceivable mindsets, come together to form a 'working' government. What I am opposing are post-poll opportunistic arrangements, like the current Left-Congress alliance. If they are 'like-minded', then I am the thinnest man in the whole universe!
Post a Comment