Is Indian democracy at the crossroads? Certainly we have achieved a great deal; protection of freedoms, deepening participation, reasonable though sub-par economic growth, peaceful transfer of power and fierce political competition. And yet there is a sense of foreboding, a growing disquiet among senior leaders and concerned citizens. Politics is getting too polarised (Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh); there is great churning and rejection of the status quo (both the Congress and BJP were rejected in the recent state polls; the Congress and TDP are on the decline in Andhra Pradesh while the YSR Congress Party is on the rise); the buying of votes is rampant (it costs Rs 5-7 crore to contest an assembly seat in AP, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka); parties are forced to field criminals as candidates (UP, Bihar); reckless populism is hurting the exchequer; corruption is supreme; fiscal deficits are not under control; education and healthcare are in a shambles; governments in most states and at the Centre seem to be powerless to halt the slide, and politics is reviled as never before.
Where have we gone wrong? Blaming it all on politicians and parties is futile and counterproductive. The more we delegitimise politics, the harder it is to nurture good leadership and to summon the will and skill to improve things. For years, we pinned hopes on economic growth to somehow resolve our political crisis. But our political failures are undermining growth and opportunity for the poor. Modern economy cannot for long coexist with antediluvian politics.
We need to return to the initial conditions that existed when we gave ourselves democracy. During the freedom struggle, India was blessed with exceptional leadership across all regions and social groups. After independence, these freedom-fighters were the first-generation politicians and nation-builders. They did a great job integrating princely states, bringing order, building institutions and articulating a national vision. That is why India remains an oasis of robust democracy among nations liberated after the War.
The hapless citizen had only one lever to get even simplest things done—the vote. The politician who sought it was the only one who would listen—or be forced to listen! The local MLA thus became the disguised executive, an elected maharaja, to get everything done. But he had no real, legal authority, and no means of really delivering. However hard he tried to intervene on a daily basis to reach some services to the people, the results remained unsatisfactory.
Soon the politician realised that people depended on him for everything, but he had no ability to deliver. And he had no time for his family or for pursuing any economic activity for an honest livelihood. Yet, it was a thankless task. There was neither the glory of freedom struggle, nor the satisfaction of getting things done. Only the odium of having to beg for votes, and the criticism and grumbling of dissatisfied voters. The politician soon came to the conclusion that honesty was incompatible with survival in politics. Many honest politicians faded out. Sons and daughters of entrenched politicians, or those who made politics and patronage a means of personal profit, became the dominant players in politics.
Armed with the realisation that honesty didn’t pay in politics, a few politicians started inducing poor voters with money and liquor. Soon, most serious competitors followed suit. A large expenditure did not guarantee victory; but failure to spend almost certainly meant defeat. Big money became the entrance fee for political competition. Corruption fed the system. What started as a necessity became an opportunity, and natural resources, contracts, transfers, licences and permits—all became a source of private gain. With all major parties deploying big money in elections, more was needed to get votes. Intense populism and freebies became weapons in the electoral armoury. Instead of focusing on education, healthcare, skills and jobs, the poor began to be offered immediate, short-term palliatives (free rice, free power, colour TVs, bicycles, etc). However, after all parties caught on, freebies alone became insufficient to assure victory. The traditional caste, religious and regional divides in Indian society became fertile ground for political manipulation. It is easy to provoke primordial loyalties in a divided, heterogeneous society and pit one group against the other. The severe competition for patronage, higher education, jobs and political office could be easily channelised to provoke rivalries and jealousies, and fashion long-term votebanks. All these three—vote-buying, freebies and calling on primordial loyalties—are now the staple of electoral politics.
We can discern three phases of politics since 1947. The first phase (1947-67) saw nation-building and Congress monopoly. The second (1967-89) saw a challenge to Congress monopoly and the emergence of alternatives. The third phase (1989-2000) witnessed fierce competition for power in each state and at the national level. We are now entering a fourth phase—characterised by anger and ennui, delegitimisation of politics, cynicism, rejection of established parties, fragmentation, invoking primordial loyalties, zero-sum-game politics, rampant corruption, and increasing incapacity to address challenges or have an honest conversation with people, a failure of nerve, and intense, reckless populism.
Where do we go now? Is Indian politics bound to degenerate and lead to anarchy? Is our economy doomed because of failed politics? Will India be an also-ran, instead of being a major world economy? Will the next generation continue to suffer unnecessary poverty, pain and anguish? Is there a way out of the political morass? These are the inevitable questions today.
One critical factor trapping us into a vicious cycle is the importance of the marginal vote for victory in each constituency in our first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. In our system, a party or candidate is elected in each constituency on the basis of obtaining more votes than any other candidate. Such a system has the advantage of a comfortable majority for a ruling party. Only Britain and some of its former colonies, the US, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Canada have such a system. The US and the Philippines have a presidential system, and Pakistan has a president and cabinet sharing power, with the army dominating. Britain has different systems at other levels—local governments, regional parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, European Parliament and London city. The House of Commons alone is based on FPTP.
The FPTP works well in Britain. Its electorate is educated and well-informed; public discourse is intelligent and focused on issues and policies; there is no vote-buying; politics attracts the finest talent; parties offer alternative policies; new leadership and new ideas continue to emerge. In such a country, it makes no sense to change the electoral system.
In today’s India, FPTP has different consequences. In FPTP, the total share of a candidate’s or party’s vote has no relevance. What matters is getting at least one more vote than the nearest rival. One more vote means victory; and one less voter means defeat. There are no second prizes in a winner-take-all system. The candidate is therefore desperate to woo the marginal vote for victory. In a poor country with rampant corruption, vote-buying is inevitable to induce the marginal voter. In FPTP, people rarely vote for the best candidate or party; they tend to vote for the second-worst party, for fear of being saddled with the worst option in their estimation. Even when better candidates or parties are available, voters all over the world hate to see their votes “wasted” on sure losers. In FPTP, usually the two dominant candidates/parties alone matter; and all behave similarly to get marginal votes. No matter who wins, they adopt similar methods, and nothing fundamentally changes after elections. Many voters, particularly those not induced by money, stay away from elections. As a general rule, the polling percentage in FPTP is 10-15 per cent lower than in proportional representation. If candidates stop buying votes, our polling percentage in many constituencies will be closer to 40 per cent, not 60 per cent.
Given the compulsions of FPTP in today’s Indian conditions, parties are forced to deploy not the most desirable candidates, but those who can somehow win the marginal vote. Those with large amounts to spend on vote-buying (Rs 5-10 crore for an MLA in some states), or those who emerged as leaders of the caste that dominates in the constituency, or criminals with muscle power, money and caste-base emerge as ideal candidates for all serious parties competing for power. Even honest leaders genuinely striving to improve things have no choice but to deploy such candidates if they are to have a chance of gaining power and influence. Can we redefine victory and change incentives in politics? Can a different way of electing our leaders alter the course of politics? No electoral system is perfect. We have to look at practical and acceptable answers suitable to a society in a specific context. It is time we Indians focused on our electoral system, instead of reviling politicians and shunning public life. We need to create a framework in which incentives change, vote-buying is rendered unnecessary, honest politics is sustainable, policies and ideas gain precedence over prejudices, honest, competent and purposive citizens can get elected, and the vicious cycle of bad politics and corruption can be broken. A system which gives a party seats in the legislature in proportion to the votes it obtains—statewise—will radically alter our politics and outcomes.
Such a proportional representation system would not depend on the marginal vote in a constituency for gaining seats. The parties will get seats in the assembly and Lok Sabha in proportion to their votes in each state. Vote-buying will be redundant because a few more votes in a constituency at the cost of the overall party image will not be desperately important to survive. The parties can put up decent and worthy candidates who can enrich public life and be electoral assets—many such people can only be nominated to the Rajya Sabha now. The parties will also not be desperate to make unholy compromises for electoral survival. They can honestly seek vote on their vision and policies. The corrupt and cynical politicians will give way to the honest and competent leaders who share a broader vision for society. A class of leaders similar to our freedom-fighters will emerge from the younger generation to build a new India. More and more disenchanted voters and citizens will return to polling booths and participate. A democratic rejuvenation will take place.
In addition, if we also genuinely transfer power and resources to local governments, and build a robust, third tier of federalism, our democracy will mature. People will see the link between their vote and consequences in terms of public good. The person who is elected will start making a real difference. There will be greater transparency as the way taxes and resources are deployed will be visible. People will ensure that services improve. Authority will be fused with accountability, and there will be no alibis for non-performance—those who deliver will be empowered.
FPTP vs PR: Which Is Better?
Which countries follow the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system?
The US, UK, Canada, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Malawi and Zambia.
What’s wrong with the FPTP system?
If there are only two choices (two parties or two candidates), FPTP can be a reasonable reflection of public will. But where there are multiple choices, the results are often skewed and distorted, and the elected house may not be truly representative.
Does it mean FPTP may result in minority governments?
In both the 2004 and 2009 general elections, the UPA secured less than 40 per cent of the votes polled. In other words, a majority of the voters—60 per cent and more—were not in favour of the UPA. But FPTP gave UPA a majority of seats.
What’s the relationship between voteshare and seats under FPTP?
A small change in voteshare may lead to a disproportionate increase or decrease in the number of seats won by a political party. The Samajwadi Party, for example, increased its voteshare in Uttar Pradesh from 25.43 per cent in 2007 to 29.15 per cent in the 2012 assembly election—an increase of 3.72 percentage points—but it won an additional 127 seats, an increase of 131 per cent. The Congress also increased its voteshare by 3.02 per cent in the state this time but gained only six additional seats.
Which countries follow the proportional representation system?
By far, the majority of the countries. Germany, France, Austria, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Russia and many other countries follow different variations of the PR system while some mix it with the FPTP system.
Why is the proportional representation system more useful?
Besides being a better and more representative reflection of popular will, the PR system will cut down on electoral expenses and reduce the use of both money and muscle power. Byelections too can be avoided.
Why are Indian political parties opposed to PR then?
Regional parties are apprehensive that proportional representation will reduce their strength in Parliament and therefore their political clout. National parties argue it will be more complicated, will lead to instability.
Does the Constitution allow for proportional representation?
Nothing in the Indian Constitution prescribes that we should have the first-past-the-post system. A suitable amendment in the Representation of People Act is all that is required. The Constitution merely mandates a government which is collectively responsible to Parliament and prescribes that members of the Lok Sabha be elected directly.
Congress and BJP have negligible presence in the UP assembly. National parties reduced to insignificance.
(Doctor-turned-civil servant-turned legislator, the author is Lok Satta party convenor and NAC member.)
In an evolving or developing democracy, change has to come from the top (A Call to Order, Jul 23). A visionary, constructive leadership is a must until strong democratic institutions can take over. I remember ntr saying once, in response to the Supreme Court ruling some measures as unconstitutional, who are these people when the people have elected me and I am serving them. Blind subservience to authority, a remnant of traditional feudalism, is still rampant, and our insecure leadership encourages this at the cost of the system. Jayaprakash Narayan has long been an advocate of decentralisation of power. Civic polls too should not be party-based.
Gopal Reddy, Fresno, US
Putting 272 together is becoming increasingly difficult in an age of fractured verdicts. With proportional representation (PR), it’ll become impossible.
Ashok Lal, Mumbai
I completely agree with JP on the need to strengthen the third tier of governance. Perhaps we can reorganise our districts into units of 15 lakh population each, divided into 100 taluks with 15,000 people each. Every taluk can elect a councillor to a 100-member district council which can have an executive committee with a chairman and four vice-chairmen for financial and administrative functioning as well as coordinate with the district collector. The taluks in turn can have a committee of five members or more, directly elected by the people. There can be 10 assembly segments in each district by combining 10 contiguous taluks which can elect members to the state assembly. Each district—they’ll number 750 in all—in turn can be deemed a parliamentary constituency and can elect its representative to the Lok Sabha.
Narasimhan P., Bangalore
Even better than PR, draw up party lists to which a party can nominate members based on voteshare along with two PR winners representing the constituencies (we can even create larger constituencies). That way we can have 60 per cent PR winners and 40 per cent party lists. Make the upper house more functional. Just drop the nomination nonsense and make it an electable post similar to the American Senate with powerful parliamentary committees that take charge of many government affairs.
Exemplary as a civil servant, a doctor by training, and driven by a genuine desire for reform, you could consider JP for your poll on The Greatest Indian After Gandhi.
K.B. Murthy, Hyderabad
Is proportional representation more ‘democratic’ or does it allow the extreme fringe to become more entrenched?
R. Saroja, Bombay
Coalition governments are the proverbial ‘Bhanumati ka kunba’ and the casualty is governance and public interest.
M.C. Joshi, Lucknow
Unless the trend of national parties surrendering to regional chauvinistic stands in inter-state disputes is reversed, their weakening is inevitable.
As most of the readers pointed out the time has come for a long debate on the proportional voting vis-a-vis polling to elect the legislators. As one reader from Taiwan hailed Dr JP ;s views and it is the common man and woman should also start thinking and start implementing. The so called distribution of liquor and money during the elections should now be abolished by the common. The recent developments in Andhra Pradesh politics like YSR Party casting for Pranab Mukherji in support of Cong and 4
Proportional representation sounds a good idea in principle but one must consider the reality in India,where we have a nation diverse in terms of caste,religion, language and geography and occupation..
Suppose we have a hundred per cent proportional representation, we will automatically see the emergence of caste and religion based parties which will try to get seats just by appealing to a specific caste, and then dictate agenda. We will thus see the repeat of 1930s and even a second partition can happen..
But at same time, the present political representation system, though wisely devised in 1950s by great minds like BR Ambedkar , is probably dated and needs a revision.. The basic flaw in current system is exposed in the way a party like Congress, led by a dynastic family, never got more than half of nation's votes in any election since 1952, yet has decided the national agenda...
The following alternatives could be considered instead:
1. Give voters right for voting "None of Above candidates".. Thus a situation like Dimple Yadav getting elected unopposed wont happen..
2. Have a concept of run off election whereby the first and second most popular candidates in every MP/MLA seat are made to run election again...
3. Have strong laws preventing a particular family from dominating or owning a political party. Make laws to define inner democracy within political party must..
4. Consider introduction of electing CMs/PMs through popular vote like in USA...
5. Ensure that all the important governing institutions are depoliticised starting with CBI. the CBI should be no different from Judiciary and election commission..
6. To eliminate political corruption, ensure fair compensation for political representatives (MP/MLA) irrespective of whether they are ruling party or opposition.. give benefits such that a one term MP should be able to live with legally earned wages for rest of his life.
7. Another important but never mentioned point is - PSUs/PSEs of all kinds, be it at center or states should not be ruled and administered by politicians. Any business enterprise built out of tax payer money and working on a for profit basis should have maximum autonomy and not driven by politicians. Thus, we will not have tamashas like Indian Oil waiting for Prez elections to be over to raise diesel prices.
"There are parts of our country where there is lot of hostility towards 'outsiders'. "
That is more to do with us and politicians use it if they see an advantage to get votes or be power brokers.
"What do you have to say about NIA, many states were objecting to it?"
Really don't know much about NIA details - I am sure it is a mixed bag of some beneficial things and some which the centre can mis-use. I think the problem happened because of the way we do things in getting buy in as a culture. In this case the Congress culture not used to alliances and opposition doesn't help - they can buy their way thru but that isn't consensus building. Unfortunately, Chidambram also is not one of those guys who can build consensus ... he comes across as "my way or you are stupid so take the highway". By all accounts Atal Bihari Vajpayee was a different but he was an exception - the BJP since then is suffering too. In the US a NIA type approach works because of a culture of consensus building (which includes arm twisting and buying people too but not just that). Also, there are "checks and balances" and since the "rule of law" works, people are less fearful for mis-use. We of course don't have that either. Anyways, in principle I do support something like a NIA but the devil as always will be in the details.
"Really I wish we had a professional investigating agency like FBI free from political interference."
It is not that FBI is truly free of political interference. It is just that those trying will have to be very very careful because if it comes out, a heavy price has to be paid. Edgar Hoover, also made it as a culture one that pushes for indepedence. The almost complete lack of CBI being effective is - much to do with them (capability/capacity of investigation) and of course it being a political tool. A person like Sheshan, what he did for EC, force the indepedence available to it, take advantage of it and make it sustainable, can help CBI too. But remember Sheshan was also the right man and the right time (the regional parties were asserting and wanted a strong EC as the only way to fight the big parties, especially the dominant Congress. Hence, I have liked the idea of moving the CBI away from the PMO.
Our challenge is not as much structure (Presidential, Parliamentary - FPTP, PR) but systems/processes of checks and balances not working mostly because "rule of law" is non-existent. Structure of course can help and to that extent I prefer Presidential system but by itself it won't work until we can "rule of law" to work.
Methods of voting can bolster or undermine popular government, as the Italian electorate has learned to its dismay. Italian elections have mostly been based on proportional representation, a system that guarantees minority parties legislative seats in proportion to their popular vote. By contrast, other nations use a system in which the winner takes all, meaning those who finish second and third in a race for Congress or Parliament are just out of luck and office.
Proportional representation sounds like the ultimate in democracy -- no voice too small to be heard. But its great defect is that it can spawn too many splinter parties. It tends also to create a permanent class of power brokers, since national parties choose lists of candidates and winners owe nothing to their constituency, providing less accountability than in other systems.
Other democracies, notably Israel and Poland, also suffer from the fissiparous effects of proportional representation. Dreamed up in the 19th century, the system is pure in theory, sometimes calamitous in practice. Typically parties prepare lists of candidates, and voters, either on a national or regional basis, indicate their preferences. It is rare that a single party gains a majority of seats; thus the system favors weak coalitions and corrupt bargaining.
The procedure contrasts with what the British call first-past-the-post, in which candidates with the most votes are declared the winners in single constituencies. That is a method tilted in favor of bigger parties, since winner takes all. Depending on how third-party votes are distributed, a victorious party can turn 40 percent of the vote into 60 percent of parliamentary seats.
Every democracy has to formulate its own approach to reconciling majority rule and minority rights. Yet it is a historical oddity that Italy, Poland and Israel have replicated the proportional system used by the Weimar Republic, whose disastrous failure opened the way to Hitler's takeover. www.nytimes.com/1993/04/24/opinion/proportional-representation-flunks.html
What it effectively means in Indian setting is that A.Rajas and Mamata Banerjees will set the agenda or block the agenda or whatever and we will have coalition Dharma.
In case of crisis as happened in Germany in 1929 with Wall Street crash, an absence of or perception of absence of strong government can bring fringe parties into greater prominence than would have been the case in the First Past the Post system.
I agree to what you say about devolving more power to the states. I was objecting to presidential form of govt. and to 'domicile' issues. There are parts of our country where there is lot of hostility towards 'outsiders'. What do you have to say about NIA, many states were objecting to it? Really I wish we had a professional investigating agency like FBI free from political interference..
why this upa govt arrest Balkrishana (yoga guru ramdev maharaj assosiated).
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT