Let us think and Act with an open mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 3

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.)

Frequency of elections: The aim of elections is to have a Parliament, and state assemblies which can represent the people truly and effectively and help to manage governance with efficiency and accountability. With regard to the first aim of selecting true representatives of people the election system has failed miserably as clearly pointed out in Article 2. With regard to the second aim of an efficient system of governance also this system has failed because the mode and frequency of elections unnecessarily obstructs continuity of good governance as explained below.

When elections are carried out once in five years (or sometimes even earlier), number of efficient representatives who are fulfilling the above aims admirably are unnecessarily weeded out along with the inefficient and the tainted ones, unlike the management machinery which has continuity because it is not broken up completely and reassembled. This lack of continuity in top levels of governance leads to avoidable distortions and distractions in functioning of democratic and other institutions. On the other hand, if these are functioning efficiently, why should we not continue these beyond five years and save huge amounts of tax payers’ money spent on present system of elections? There is no guarantee that the new set of representatives will be better. They can even be worse as has happened quite often in the past, even making it difficult to form a cohesive government.

Obviously, election is a costly gamble using huge amounts of public money. Why should we not seriously think of a better method for giving voice to the people, not just once in five years as an ineffective ritual as at present, but more frequently and effectively?  

The present system of elections also diverts attention of government from govrernance to re-election and results in lack of efficiency and sincerity in governance, particularly  during pre-election periods. Further, the need for large amounts of money for participating in election leads to undesirable and illegal activities and generation of black money. All these harm the economy, besides distorting governance to satisfy fund providers. If elections are held after longer intervals, these two dismal situations can be mitigated, besides saving enormous public funds.

A fixed five year period may allow inefficiency and lack of transparency to continue for five years. When this is happening only, we should replace the undesirable democratic institutions which have been incurring expenditure on a set of representatives who have not justified the faith placed on them by people. Unfortunately, the possibility of the new set of representatives being equally bad or even worse cannot be ruled out. This will sound the death knell of democracy unless innovative corrective measures are taken immediately instead of waiting for five years and then again failing to get more cohesive and efficient institutions as shown by the history of elections.

To avoid distortions and distractions in functioning of Parliament, Assemblies and machinery of governance, it is better to have a flexible election system guided solely by the need for improvement in governance. This will reduce the enormous amounts spent on elections, part of which can be used for the two stage voting suggested in Article 2, to avoid grossly inadequate and perverted representation of people.

Another definite advantage of the flexible system of elections is that the machinery of governance, which has adjusted to a political power system, will not have to waste time and energy to readjust to another political power system once in five years or even less.

Neglecting these aspects is the third obstacle which results in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

These problems can be solved by having flexible durations for democratic institutions and leaders based on an efficiency driven approach for making desirable changes.  The present governing system has efficiency assessments for all officials of the management machinery except legislators who occupy the most crucial positions.  To remove this serious anomaly, at the end of each year, efficiency of all elected representatives in democratic institutions should be objectively ascertained and those not performing efficiently should be given a warning to improve. Those who do not show improvement after one year should be disqualified and their seats filled up by new election. Others should be allowed to continue till they happen to become inefficient in later yearly evaluations or cross a prefixed age limit or voluntarily retire. This will ensure continuity of governance and inject a sense of responsibility and accountability among the representatives which, sad to say, is not being ascertained now because there is no system of evaluation for this most important wing of governance!! An appropriate election system should avoid discarding efficient representatives along with inefficient and tainted ones, particularly because the former are rarer to find.

This new system of flexible elections based on yearly assessment will, besides ensuring continuity of all efficient democratic institutions, reduce expenditure on elections to a much smaller number of seats every year.  A small part of the enormous amount thus saved can be used to have two stage elections (refer Article 2) to ensure that the fewer persons elected as per the new system of elections represent majority of people.

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 revised system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the revised system of democracy, for public debate to arrive at a consensus.

You can help to save 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 ideas to save our sinking democracy.

Let us think and Act with an Open Mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 2

A revised version using results of 2014 elections

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.)

Representation 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.

[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.]

Even after the spectacular success in 2014 elections, the BJP has the support of only 31% of the electorate!! (Times of India dated 17-05-14, page 1) In other words, it does not have the support of 69% of the electorate, besides all the millions of people below the age of 18, who include modern day teens capable of balanced thinking and energetic action to safeguard democracy (refer Article 1). This proves beyond any doubt the utter inefficiency of the election system!!

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. This expectation is a grave fundamental lapse of the election system. To overcome this to some extent, it is essential that people should be asked to select only from a list of candidates who have the requisite qualifications and experience. Though essential for good 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 during a long period of more than 65 years because of a hardened laissez faire attitude. As a result, people are often electing not only persons without adequate 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 that “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 a notice to the Attorney General on the petition. After a long lapse of seven years (i.e., in 2012) SC woke up and agreed to examine this important petition and in July 2013 (a year later) 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) preventing criminals from registering as voters, as required under the Constitution and (b) other subsections of Section 8 and Sections 9 and 11A mentioned in the original petition. 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.

All these prove the utter inefficiency of the election system. Should we continue to be hoodwinked by this system and hide 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.

Such grossly inadequate and perverted representation of people is the second obstacle which results in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

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, with a managerial component 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. Fresh election, in which the rejected candidates cannot take part, should be held if NOTA option is used by large number of voters. This assurance will lead to elimination or at least reduction of 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.

Let us think and Act with an Open Mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 2

A revised version using results of 2014 elections

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.)

Representation 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.

[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.]

Even after the spectacular success in 2014 elections, the BJP has the support of only 31% of the electorate!! (Times of India dated 17-05-14, page 1) In other words, it does not have the support of 69% of the electorate, besides all the millions of people below the age of 18, who include modern day teens capable of balanced thinking and energetic action to safeguard democracy (refer Article 1). This proves beyond any doubt the utter inefficiency of the election system!!

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. This expectation is a grave fundamental lapse of the election system. To overcome this to some extent, it is essential that people should be asked to select only from a list of candidates who have the requisite qualifications and experience. Though essential for good 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 during a long period of more than 65 years because of a hardened laissez faire attitude. As a result, people are often electing not only persons without adequate 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 that “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 a notice to the Attorney General on the petition. After a long lapse of seven years (i.e., in 2012) SC woke up and agreed to examine this important petition and in July 2013 (a year later) 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) preventing criminals from registering as voters, as required under the Constitution and (b) other subsections of Section 8 and Sections 9 and 11A mentioned in the original petition. 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.

All these prove the utter inefficiency of the election system. Should we continue to be hoodwinked by this system and hide 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.

Such grossly inadequate and perverted representation of people is the second obstacle which results in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

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, with a managerial component 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. Fresh election, in which the rejected candidates cannot take part, should be held if NOTA option is used by large number of voters. This assurance will lead to elimination or at least reduction of 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.

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.

Let us think and Act with an Open Mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 1

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.)

Eligible voters: For good reasons, only adults are allowed to vote in elections to Parliament, Assemblies, Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samithi, Zilla Parishad and Municipalities / Corporations (the pillars of our democracy). But this leaves out a large percentage of our population which unfortunately includes many teenagers who are (unlike in the past) more capable of balanced thinking and energetic action to safeguard democracy than a much larger number of adults, particularly among lakhs of illiterates. Lack of balanced thinking among most eligible voters is forcefully brought out by the Press Council of India Chairperson Justice Markandey Katju’s statements: “Ninety percent Indians vote in droves like sheep and cattle”,…many are ”voting along caste and religious lines.”….many say “I won’t vote because my vote is meaningless.” (Deccan Chronicle dated 31-03-13, page 6). What is worse, many voters are only interested in selling their votes and making a mockery of democracy. This has been emphasized by the anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare: “It often happens that after facing injustice, people decide to teach [parties] a lesson in the elections. However, they forget to do so after being treated to a party at a dhaba or after getting a Rs.200 or Rs.500 note.” (The Hindu dated 18-03-14)

A large proportion of educated adults do not vote probably because their votes are meaningless in the context of the overwhelming 90 % who vote in droves or sell their votes without any intention of safeguarding democracy.  Callousness or laziness may also play a part. Further, there are errors in voters’ lists (both human and manipulated) which distort elections. Sad to say, effective attempts have not been made to overcome this dismal state of voting, even after about 65 years.

Absence of the truly democratic and sensible right to reject all candidates when none are suitable had swelled the group of uninterested voters.  The NOTA option recently allowed by the Supreme Court (SC) order may not change the situation. Those who do not vote because they feel their vote is meaningless (because of the reasons explained above) or out of callousness or laziness may not come forward to exercise the NOTA option. They cannot be blamed because the SC order does not lead to rejection of the election even when NOTA voters form the majority!! In other words NOTA option, which should have been respected as peoples’ voice, has become meaningless. Only a guarantee from the Election Commission that such a clear expression of peoples’ rejection of all unsuitable candidates  by  majority of voters will lead to fresh election in which the rejected candidates cannot take part will help to get over the feeling of meaninglessness of NOTA. 

It is pertinent that while the non-voting group may or may not exercise NOTA option, those who vote in droves or sell their votes will not exercise the NOTA option because they are influenced by other factors and are not at all bothered about safeguarding democracy. The fact is that both these voting groups together form a large proportion of actual voters and will vitiate the aim of elections even with NOTA provision.

To sustain a vibrant democracy, quality of voters is much more important than extent of coverage of multiform adult population.

Inability to confine voting to only voters who are interested in safeguarding democracy and to make them vote is the first obstacle which has resulted 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 proportions may not be fully relevant for these.]

The main reason for including uninterested and unsuitable voters is blind enforcement of the adult franchise requirement, even when all adults are not interested in voting or are not capable of making proper independent choice. To overcome this to  a large extent, while preparing voters’ lists, it should be ascertained from each adult whether he / she wants to exercise his / her night to vote or not, after the responsibility of a voter is explained to him / her. Those who do not want to vote should be considered ineligible for voting by their own choice and asked to sign an affidavit in a prescribed form as a record of their voluntary rejection of their right to vote. A copy of the affidavit should be given to such persons to avoid doctoring of the list. However, chance should be given to withdraw this affidavit during any subsequent revision of voters’ lists.

The remaining interested voters with confirmed eligibility should be told that voting is not only their right but also their responsibility to elect suitable representatives and that if they do not perform their responsibility without valid reasons their right will be withdrawn. Similarly, if there is sufficient reason to believe that a voter has “sold” the vote or has voted in droves, he / she should be educated about the harmful effect of this wrong action and warned not to repeat it.  In both cases, the relevant fact should be entered in the list and his / her signature obtained. In case they repeat either of these twice (i.e., the third time), their names should be deleted when revising the voters’ lists. However, they should be given a right to appeal to safeguard against misuse or genuine mistakes.

The above modifications are based on two principles: (1) no right can be thrust upon an uninterested person and then blame him if he does not exercise it and (2) no right is absolute and can be withdrawn if the responsibility arising from this right is not fulfilled or the manner of exercising the right invalidates the reason for giving this right. However, any voter should have the truly democratic and sensible right to really reject all candidates when none are suitable (not notionally as per Supreme Court judgment). Till then non-voter’s name should not be deleted.

As stated earlier, confining eligibility to adults only will exclude a large number of younger persons who are capable of balanced thinking and energetic action to safeguard democracy because of modern (technological) advances in education and knowledge environment. To reduce such illogical exclusions, eligibility should be extended to all those who have completed 15 years of age (United Nations, World Health Organization, China and Australia have fixed the lower limit of age for youth as 15 years.) A better alternative is a lower limit of 14 years because a child is defined as below 14 years for child labour. Among the so defined age group (15+ or 14+), eligibility should be confirmed only for those who have expressed their interest in voting, after the responsibility of a voter is explained to them.

It is a pity that even after more than 65 years, most voters do not have the bend of mind and capacity to use their franchise independently and effectively  to develop a sound democracy (resulting in 90% voting in droves or large numbers selling votes – see paragraph 1 of this Article). Most likely, they will not be able to develop these capacities for many more years, in the absence of any mission to rectify matters. Therefore, should we not seriously think with an open mind about other options for exercising peoples’ voice effectively? This aspect will be further explored in later articles.

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.