What Ails our Governance?

M C Raj When the British left India everyone thought that India would enter into a phase of prosperity and freedom. Little did we realize that India would be caught in a whirlpool of oceanic problems. There is not yet a Shiva who would church the ocean and swallow the poison. All countries have their woes of governance and India is no exception to this rule. However, most other countries have done something substantial to overcome roadblocks to efficient and inclusive governance. Indian rulers have not only failed in demolishing roadblocks but have been efficient in creating insurmountable bottlenecks in governance. Subsequent governments have positively led India into multifarious nightmares. Good governance in India seems to be a wild goose chase and people are simply chasing eternally without ever knowing what and where is the goose. Let us put it straight. We borrowed an electoral system from the British despite that fact that some of our Fathers of Constitutions argued vehemently against the British type of FPTP, the First Past The Post Electoral system. What is so special about an electoral system? If our elected members are not corrupt everything in governance should be alright. So goes the pedestrian argument of the intellectual and the common man alike. An electoral system is not a panacea. It does not address all the problems of governance. The role of an electoral system is to lead a country towards the formation of stable governments. Governance is the role of the government and not of the electoral system. But in order that good governance may be ensured for all the people of a country it is of paramount importance that electoral system in a country should lead to the formation of good governments. If the electoral system does not match the type of good governance that is needed then in all likelihood the people, voters and both tax paying and non-tax paying citizens will be screwed without any inhibition and scruple. Unfortunately in India many are under the false assumption that there is only one type of electoral system. Even the half enlightened intellectuals who often had read blurred textbook writings on other types of electoral systems often look at them through the prism of FPTP. No blame game here. That is what they can do best, as they know only FPTP well and they look at all other systems through their jaundiced eyes. Those who have read Ambedkar for example have been harping on separate electorate without ever realizing that Ambedkar himself 1

discounted it on 27 August 1955. He also discounted reserved seats in the same resolution that he passed as the chairperson of the National Federation of Scheduled Castes. It is there for all to see in his first volume. But unless one has a clear vision of Proportional Representation system, what Ambedkar means by the resolution will go only in the wind. Ambedkar even speaks in the resolution against the Constitutional provision for FPTP. Remember he was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution. The man was humble enough to acknowledge the mistake in the Constitution. Is there any doubt that FPTP throws out election after election the type of trash, I mean governments, that is the antithesis of good governance? And we have two typical stereotypes. Those in governance who are the greatest beneficiaries of FPTP keep constantly diverting the attention of the people from bad governance by heaping praises on the way India has promoted democracy. The recipients of bad governance have been all the time taken stones, brickbats, slippers and the like to throw on the very same people they have elected through FPTP. This ball game keeps going providing intermittent democratic entertainment to the voters and citizens. The jaundiced vision of good governance has never allowed both the intellectual and the citizen to have a deeper and clearer vision of the malady that is affecting Indian democracy. We are a huge nation that believes in the writing on our foreheads. We refuse to see the writing on the wall. Fate is not a deterrent but it is the determinant not only in our morals but also in our governance. We resign ourselves to it immediately after voting. We only have to run, have to participate in Olympics and not win medals. Did not Krishna tell Arjun to only do his karma without expecting the result? While those in governance plunder away our wealth and resources from under our feet trespassing the moral teaching of Krishna, the ordinary citizen is still under the terrible spell of Krishnas perverted theory of Karma. FPTP is the obvious perversion of our political class. But in India we cannot single out a political class as in the rest of the world. Our political class is simultaneously the social caste and the economic class, a sort of all in one, dancing merrily on the woes of the rest of Indians. They are very confident that as most Indians apply the white powder with their three fingers covering their forehead, no Indian would have the clarity to stand against their shenanigans. What is so bad about FPTP? First things first! FPTP is not a bad electoral system. It is an electoral system that does not fit into the Indian society and therefore, throws up governments that cannot govern India efficiently. When an unsuitable system is artificially made to fit into the governance of

a country then this system is bound to become bad for that country. FPTP is suitable and was originally designed to throw up majority in democracies with two parties. It simply does not fit into a country where there are more than two parties. In such countries it will lead to formation of governments by parties that do not have mandate from a majority of voters. It is called Majoritarian or Plurality electoral system but when it is applied in multiparty democracies it becomes a contradiction in terms. That two members are sitting in our present Parliament as winners with less than 10% of votes speaks volume for the type voter power we have in the FPTP electoral system. India has already arrived at coalition politics irreversibly both at the Center and in the States, and many of our electoral problems, sometimes even crisis such as corruption, violence, communalism and casteism are because of this misfit of our electoral system to the composition of democratic governance of our country. The present system of reserved seats is one of the most efficient ways of co-opting the Dalits and Adivasis. One does not need magnifying glasses to see that it does not provide power to these sections. Even then the question remains as to why religious minorities are left out of such provisions in representation. How can a country that croaks about being the best democracy in the world and being inclusive ensure only 7% of representation for Muslims while their population has reached about 15%? The crux of the issue is that while the rulers speak of inclusion what they actually mean is access. There is a huge difference between the two. Providing legal measures for accessing governance is not the same as including citizens in governance. In our education system, for example, access is legally provided for all. But inclusion would mean also ensuring the economic empowerment to sustain the access that one gains. All are free to take admission in any college is grossly inadequate to provide inclusion. If communities do not have any right to learn about their history, culture, religion etc. and have to learn only about a dominantly designed Indian history, culture, and religion the ultimate sufferer will be inclusive and good governance. One cannot hide for along such democratic anomalies under the blatant bullshitting that we have the best accommodative governance in the world. India, as a multicultural society is in need of special provisions for historically oppressed minorities, Dalits, Adivasis/Tribals, MBCs and women. Such provisions have to be integrated into the electoral system itself in order to enable such communities to come to level playing fields and gradually grow out of the present reserved seats for only SC/ST categories. This should be very clear. Reservation is a provision that has to be provided by mechanisms of governance and

should not be equated with electoral system. An electoral system cannot make, for example, provisions for seats in Parliament according to population of any community. Electoral system deals with votes, parties, counting and seats according to the number of votes that a party gains. Any provision for inclusion has to be made by the parliament and integrate it into the electoral system. Many countries in the world with PR system have done this to make their democracies as inclusive as possible. The present FPTP system has proved beyond doubt that from the time of independence it gives leverage only to certain dominant groups in India to capture and retain power of governance without sharing power with all sections of people. Indias caste mindset is known for accumulating power in the hands of particular caste groups and clinging on to it like leeches sucking the blood of victims without sparing any thought for survival issues of the victims. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely on the foundations of caste in India. In the FPTP system, parties with less than 25% of votes have proved capable of gaining adequate number of seats and subsequently forming governments. This results in huge wastage of votes, which is the antithesis of representative democracy. Genuine representation genuinely skewed in India both through FPTP and through reserved seats. Any democracy that wastes nearly 75% of its votes can only be called a sham democracy. By its very core principle FPTP professes to declare a candidate with more vote than the others as winner. Similarly it also declares a party with more seats than the other parties as eligible for forming the government. The high risk for democracy in this case is the huge disparity between the share of votes and the share of seats. This often is not a representation of the will of the people. This has the potential to lead to manipulative politics. Rightly or wrongly, a general impression in India has been created that political parties are accountable to none either before or after elections. Gone are the days when cadre of political parties used to have street battle in order to get their candidates in high positions in the party elections. Such was the euphoria of internal party democracy in the 1960s and 70s. FPTP has gradually demolished internal party democracy and has rendered it a mythical endeavour. With a small minority of votes as the winning vote it is bound to lead to dynastic rule, family rule, mafia rule, goonda raj etc. Instead of crying foul at such emergence under the FPTP India should simply usher in a different electoral system to save itself from a possible disaster in the name of democracy. Most countries in the world that have opted for PR system have ensured such inner party democracy.

What then did they find so fascinating about PR system? Many Indians with vested interests have quite evangelically propagated the lie that PR system is a Western product while in the same breath they also say that American and British electoral systems are much better. How come something that is Western is not good for India and something that is British and American is good for India? They somehow puke out the hidden interest of excluding many communities in India from genuine representation and subsequent sharing in power. In the same breath they also acknowledge that the Blacks and the Native Americans are not duly represented and they do not share power in the US. What value then can the US democracy have if the most vulnerable sections of citizens are excluded? This fact about any democracy with FPTP is as clear as broad daylight to the rest of the world. India is no exception. Has India then arrived at a political quagmire without any possibility of retrieving its governance? No, not at all! If Indias electoral systems changes to the Proportional Representation system there is still the possibility of restoring sanity to Indian democratic governance. More than 89 countries in the world with democracy have already shifted from FPTP to PR system. India, being the largest democracy in the world with multi party system and coalition politics is ripe to adopt the Proportional Representation electoral system. Not doing it now will perpetuate corruption, family rule and accumulation of power in certain caste groups. No amount of fight against corruption will be adequate enough to find a lasting solution to the need for good governance in India unless its electoral system is changed. Countries with concern for providing representation to minorities, laboring class and migrants have taken recourse to PR system. India, with different types of minority groups, ethnic, linguistic and religious communities, will do well to change to PR system of election in order to provide adequate and meaningful representation as well as share in power to all sections of people. The efforts to tinker with the FPTP system to the already changed political scenario in India is much more complicated and problematic than developing an understanding of the PR system among voters. Some dominant caste groups have developed the argument that PR system is complicated. It must be known well that though PR system requires greater understanding among voters it is not complicated if an India specific PR system is adopted. Since PR system translates all votes into seats it has the best possibility of providing representation to all voters in the first place and also to all minority groups in India. PR system creates a win-win situation to all parties, as there is the

possibility of more than one member representing a constituency through the List PR. This will drastically reduce the play of money and muscle power, corruption, violence, communalism and casteism. As long as the FPTP system is in practice all the efforts to reduce corruption in elections are bound to be only a half way journey to a majority of voters, as the system itself promotes cutthroat competition. Since voters are bound to vote for parties and their ideologies through the List PR, the convergence of voters on ideology based parties will be enhanced much better and correspondingly it will reduce foul play at the time of elections. Many keep on lamenting on the absence of ideology in Indian politics. Needless to say that an ideology based governance is destined to create a strong nation. An ideology bereft electoral game is the natural consequence of FPTP in a multiparty democracy. There is also a misunderstanding about PR system, promoted assiduously by vested interests that the direct contact between the candidate and the voters will be missing in List PR system. This is a gross misunderstanding. A Mixed Member Proportional system, as it is recommended for India as well as a full List PR system identifies candidates with constituencies and ensures direct relationship between candidates and voters before and after elections. Countries with PR system have already proved to provide more stable and more inclusive governments. The anomaly of parties with less percentage of vote share forming governments is simply not possible in the PR system. This explains the reluctance of some political parties to usher in PR system in India. Ultimately it is the Parliament of India that has to take the final call on this type of electoral reform in India. There is no need of a constitutional amendment. It will be adequate to bring about necessary amendments in the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, of course with Parliaments approval. Experts of electoral systems from all over the world gathered in October 2011 for three days to deliberate and have worked on an India specific PR system. This will considerably reduce the work of any Parliamentary Committee that may be set up in due course of time for this purpose. Nepal, our neighbour has done away with monarchy and has ushered in a semi-PR system in their nascent democracy. Though the Nepal Congress opposed the introduction of PR system it was the major beneficiary of this system when election results were declared. Let us hope that political parties in India will become a bit saner and opt for an electoral system that will make democracy and governance in India more inclusive, meaningful and efficient.