New vote, new hope

Will proportional representation work better than our present winner-take-all electoral formula? Chances are it will

Salman Khursheed Delhi

Despite repeated celebrations of the success of Indian democracy, particularly in stark contrast with our neighbours, there remains great dissatisfaction with the end product. How often does president's rule have to be imposed due to failure of the constitutional government and how much worse does it become when, for political reasons, such extraordinary measures are prevented by political compulsions?

Critics of democracy often speak of distortions in the matter of making electoral choices. Ronald Dworkin, an Oxford professor of jurisprudence, distinguishes between the correct manner of choosing something one wants — from the impermissible choice about what one believes others should not get. There are, of course, degrees in the matter of choice: a 'stop a particular candidate' kind of campaign in the US presidential elections would be an example of the lesser degree while voting against a person's caste or religious beliefs per se might be the extreme.

In India, such issues about democratic choice have seldom received public space, preoccupied as we remain with the concern about criminality and use of illegitimate money in the election process. The desperation felt by liberal parties and candidates about the increasing grip of caste and communalism is another matter calling for urgent attention. But generally self-conscious endeavours of activist groups are confined to platitudes and sermons from the political pulpit. Though the Election Commission has made some effort to check these aberrations, it is handicapped by the tardy response of the courts. In these areas rules alone cannot make the difference because democracy is ultimately about peoples' choices.

Instead of tinkering with the rules and patting ourselves on the back for cosmetic accomplishments, it's time we looked at fundamental issues and addressed them. Expectations from MPs and MLAs are increasingly looking like the job description of councillors and municipal representatives. If an outstanding parliamentarian loses an election because of a craftily strategised candidature list or having refused to submit to unreasonable demands of individuals or groups, the loss is of the entire country. Crime and caste have become so closely associated that any attempt to de-link them from each other, or indeed from politics, is defeated by the very legislators who have feasted on them. Indeed, crime and caste need a context and a familiar territory; deprived of their familiar surroundings they will wither away like the proverbial Marxist State!

However, as long as the combination of reservations (including in the electoral system for Dalits in the assembly and Parliament and other backward castes in panchayats) and First Past the Post (FPP) remains the basis of our elections, there can be no immediate hope of a dramatic change. Citizen's groups can cavil at upward or downward trends in criminal influence over elections but the reality will remain the same. Therefore, the answer lies in switching to the Proportional Representation (PR) system as it is called in some countries, or the List system.

Essentially, the difference between the two systems is that in FPP system, governments are formed and candidates elected by highest number of votes secured and not necessarily a majority; while in the PR system, the exact percentage of votes is reflected in the number of a party's candidates being elected and the support reflected in the shape of the government.

Thus, in our present system, assuming that about 80 per cent of eligible citizens are registered voters and about 55 per cent of the enrolled voters turn up to vote, the total vote cast would be about 44 per cent. Of the vote cast, a winning candidate getting 30 to 35 per cent would have done well by prevailing standards but in reality would have only 11 per cent of the population's support. Similarly, as in the case of the current Uttar Pradesh assembly, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) has 30 per cent of the votes cast but more than 50 per cent of the seats in the house. Samajwadi Party, with four per cent less votes, is way behind with less than half that number of seats. Even the Congress, with approximately 10 per cent votes, has 22 seats whereas the PR system would have given it 40!

In the PR or List system, each party announces a complete list of candidates for the seats in the house and the list follows the precedence of importance. No candidate represents any particular constituency and the voter is required to vote for the party in light of its declared programme and the list offered. Depending on the percentage of votes obtained, names from the top of the list would be declared elected. In a large country like ours, the list will have to be cosmopolitan in nature to attract votes from every part of the country and voters would inevitably want to notice the priority given to their region or preferred candidates.

No candidate would need to make wasteful expenditure and subjective local factors like criminal influence or caste affiliations would not be relevant. One cannot imagine that the passions that lead to booth capturing and other desperate behaviour would be as visible for an aggregate list of candidates that the voters may have no personal nexus with. All the negatives of the present system will be dramatically obviated or at least diluted.

Over 120 countries follow that system and only a few hold on to FPP. The objection was often made that the PR system would lead to fractured minority, mandates was important for the Congress in the formative years when a clear or even two thirds majority was possible with a minority but a substantial vote. All that has now changed as majority governments are getting very rare and the winners and losers both get similar votes. If majority governments are not to be, the PR system can at least allow for honest, planned coalition governments rather than chance or opportunist alliances, sometimes after those very partners have fought a hard battle against each other.

Another objection is about the parties becoming unduly strong in drawing up the list but that somehow underestimates the present control that parties exercise in the selection of candidates. The chance of being placed in a position that would ensure a seat in the legislature would undoubtedly raise the stakes. But that is no reason for not taking steps towards a mature system. Perhaps parties can, in due course, develop a primary system of assessing public support for individual candidates.

Finally, the PR system deprives the constituencies of the attention of a locally elected and responsible representative. Depriving Parliament or Vidhan Sabha of outstanding public representatives is not a minor matter for a democracy. Public policy cannot be sacrificed at the altar of nurturing self-centred aspirations of constituents. In any case, third-tier democracy at the panchayat level can and must take care of local development issues. Besides, there is also the mixed model of Germany in which half the seats are PR and the rest contested territorially. Many variations can be thought of provided we make up our mind to address the problems of our democracy in an honest and meaningful way.

The writer is a senior Congress leader and Supreme Court lawyer