Let us think
and Act with an Open Mind to
Develop a Vibrant Democracy –
Article 2
SRB
Introduction: I have identified thirty obstacles which cause a distorted
and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. Because very few
people have time / inclination to read long articles, these are presented in
separate brief articles for pointed attention and easier assimilation. I hope
this will lead to spreading of awareness and facilitating point by point debate
on each of these for saving our sinking democracy.
(Please keep these articles within easy reach for
referring back till the series is completed.)
Representatives of people: Let us assume that, at best,
an average of about 70 % of eligible adults vote during elections to Parliament
and Assemblies. Most elected persons receive much less than 50% of the total
votes cast. Therefore, at best,
most elected persons represent less
than 35% of adult population, often much less. This proportion
will be lower than 35% if we exclude
votes of those who do not really contribute to a proper choice of
representatives because of their interest in selling their votes or voting
in droves! (Refer Article 1). It is a matter of serious concern that out of 543
MPs elected in 2009, the vast majority of 78% had the approval of only less than
half of the electorate (Times of India dated 23-03-14). All these clearly
show that the claim of the MPs and MLAs that they are
representatives of people is hollow.
The situation is likely to be similar for the MPs elected in 2014. If
this happens should we continue to be hoodwinked by the
false claims of the MPs and
pass it under the carpet or should we seriously
consider an alternative system for having true
representatives of the people? This
aspect will be further explored in later articles.
A representative of people has to perform important
functions of governance. It is
naive to expect that all voters have the capacity to recognize and elect
persons who can perform these functions efficiently. Therefore,
it is essential that they should be asked to select only from a list of candidates
who have the requisite qualifications and experience. Though essential for
god governance, the Constitution could not lay down requisite qualifications
because of shortage of such candidates more than 65 years back. But the fact is
that voters have still not been provided an opportunity to elect suitable
representatives by taking steps to remove this shortage of candidates with the
requisite qualifications and experience. Sad to say, such steps have not even been thought of because of a hardened laissez
faire attitude. As a result,
people are often electing not only persons without recognized qualifications
and experience required for good governance but also anti-social persons. As
many as 30 MPs elected in 2009 and 127 MLAs have themselves declared in their
affidavits to the Election Commission that they have been involved in electoral
malpractices. These include corrupt ways to win votes, threatening voters,
tampering of electronic voting machines and preventing voters from exercising
their franchise (DNA dated 22-1-13, page 9). The Association for Democratic
Reforms, which examined the sworn affidavits of a total of 4,827 MPs elected in
2009 and MLAs, found “14 per cent had declared serious criminal charges against
themselves” (The Hindu dated 26-09-13). A study by Association of Democratic Rights
has shown that “money, muscle and criminal background are sure-fire
qualifications to ensure a victory in the elections” (DNA dated 30-07-13). All
these confirm a dismal picture of the election system.
A petition was filed in the Supreme Court (SC) in
2005 stating that Sections 8, 9 and 11A of the Representation of Peoples Act,
1951 (RPA) allows convicts to be legislators
even though these violate Articles 84, 173 and 326 of the Constitution which
had expressly put a bar on criminals getting registered
as voters or becoming MPs / MLAs. SC had then issued notice to the Attorney
General on the petition. After a long lapse of seven years
(i.e., in 2012) SC agreed to examine the petition and in July 2013 it struck
down article 8(4) which had protected elected representatives with criminal background
from disqualification, despite conviction, if they filed an appeal within three
months. This order had only prospective effect. Thus, SC has allowed convicted
legislators to continue till a High Court takes a decision about their disqualification,
which may take years. The High Court decision can even be distorted
because witnesses may be afraid to depose freely against such powerful persons
with criminal background. What is
most damaging is that as many as 162 Lok Sabha members and 1,268 MLAs who have
declared criminal records can continue to function (DNA dated 12-07-13). According
to newspaper reports, SC has not bothered to order quick disposal of
their cases. Neither has it allowed disqualification when the High court takes a
prima facie decision that the charges
are sustainable, in view of long delays in final disposal. Moreover, the
judgment seems to be silent about (a) other subsections of Section 8 and
Sections 9 and 11A mentioned in the original petition and (b) preventing
criminals from registering as voters. It is not clear whether these provide
loopholes which can be exploited for non-application of the new section 8(4).
All these clearly show that (1) representatives with criminal records are
continuing and (2) neither SC nor Government is sincere about quickly removing
such perverted representation of people even though it is forbidden by the
Constitution.
Such
grossly inadequate and perverted representation of people is the second obstacle
which results in a distorted and ineffective democracy.
[Note: Since information about elections to the
three tiers of Pamchayat Raj institutions is not well publicized, the above
remarks about proportion voting may not be fully relevant for these.]
If the changes in the system suggested in Article 1
are implemented, those who are not interested in voting do not need a
representative and will be excluded from the denominator for calculating
representativeness. Because voting will be considered as a responsibility of
the remaining confirmed eligibles and those not voting repeatedly will lose
their eligibility, only very few among them will not vote. Those who
mock at democracy repeatedly by selling their votes also will lose their
eligibility and, therefore, will not pervert the election. These three situations
will result in the elected person representing a
very large proportion of those who are interested in having a representative.
One reason for the low proportion of votes for the
winning candidate is that there is no limit to the number of persons who can
compete in elections for any constituency. To ensure that the elected
representative has majority votes conduct election
in two stages. The two candidates who secure first and second
positions in number of votes at the first stage only will become eligible for
the second stage of voting. Winner of second stage will then have majority
support. Though this two stage voting will increase the burden for conducting
elections it will satisfy an important requirement of a democracy. Further, one way to
reduce this burden is suggested in a later Article.
To ensure that voters are asked to select only from
a list of qualified persons, aspiring candidates should qualify themselves
as graduates or post graduates in political science or social welfare for
which recognized colleges should
start suitable courses. A reasonable time frame has to be given for acquiring
these qualifications by sufficient number of persons. RPA has to be amended to
ensure that, after a fixed date, only persons who have the requisite
qualifications and experience will be eligible to become peoples’ representatives because the important functions of enactment of laws and
governance should not be left to persons
who do not have the required qualifications and experience.
NOTA should be considered as a clear expression of
peoples’ rejection of all candidates when none are suitable and fresh election,
in which the rejected candidates cannot take part, should be held if NOTA
option is used my largest number of voters.
This will eliminate or at least reduce the number of criminals and unqualified persons
getting elected as representatives.
Amendment of the Constitution will be necessary to
introduce these changes in the system
Comments
(especially those which point out errors or deficiencies, if any, in this
article and thereby help to improve it) and
other suggestions to overcome this obstacle
are welcome. Please send these to StartRemovingBlocks@gmail.com. I shall make use of all befitting
suggestions to prepare the last two articles of this series – Articled 23 will
spell out the basic principles which will guide formulation of the reformed
system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the reformed system of
democracy for public debate to arrive at a consensus.
You can help to save our sinking democracy
by making as many people as possible aware of these obstacles
and possible solutions, through e-mail and social media like face book and
twitter so
that we can have healthy
debates and arrive at some innovative solutions to save our sinking democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment