By Toki Blah
People, a great many of them fellow Indians, are more than ready to dismiss India and its people as a confused nation. Perhaps they are correct, but one thing is certain – as a nation, as a people we are all going through a churning process. We are a nation no longer prepared to take things for granted. This generation of Indians are raising questions about themselves; their political system; the social environment they find themselves in, where long cherished social values are constantly and mercilessly being pitted against self seeking trends of Globalisation. Perhaps this is what is being mistaken for confusion. As a society, we are no longer content to accept what is traditionally and culturally dished out to us. The inquisitive mind has taken over from the fear to question, the taboo to critique. The village is no longer a destiny to be born and to die in. An ordinary Indian’s horizon has now broadened to include the whole wide world. We are experimenting with sex; we are questioning authority and interestingly the whole issue of democratic secularity itself is an open item for debate in the India we live in today. Where all this will take the people and the nation is a moot point. The only certainty is that as Indians we are now acutely conscious of changes happening around us and in the process are no longer scared to question, probe and critique. We are masters of our own destiny and we have a right to decide the course and direction of this change.
In this journey of national introspection, as Indians, we have recognised and identified some major flaws in the present system. First and foremost of these defects is the blemish of rampant corruption that has infested and fouled up all strata of our society. It has eaten into the innards of our body polity; scarred and pockmarked the visage of India; shamed and embarrassed us as a nation and worst it has been the one and most singular cause that prevents India from taking its rightful place as the largest and greatest democracy in the World. Scams like CWG and 2G have time and again brought the raising profile of democratic India to its knees. People are fed up. The demands for change are getting shriller by the day. The body politic has been slow to respond to these demands. In desperation civil society has taken upon itself the role of a change agent and the onus to bring about an end to corruption. The Anna Hazares and the Baba Ram Devs filling up the socio- political vacuum that our politicians refuse to occupy! Above the din and commotion of battle a question hangs unanswered- Is corruption the real disease or is it simply a symptom of a deeper, larger malady?
Unseen and quiet but steady in its quest for a more just society in this democracy called India, is the call for better governance through electoral reforms. A national call for cleansing the system of its rot has now emerged. The need for Good Governance has never been more felt and the country, officially and unofficially, is responding to this call. Regional consultations on such reforms are going on and in the NE, confabulations on the subject were held in Guwahati on the 12th of June, spearheaded by the Chief Election Commissioner of India and the Union Minister for Law and Justice. Pertinent issues relating to (a) unsuitable candidates being thrust upon an unwary electorate(b) of a voting system that projects a candidate with the least percentage of votes as the winner(c) of non performing elected representatives(d) and last but not least, the detrimental and destructive role of money in electoral politics were discussed in the open. The gloves were off; the challenge out in the open; and incidentally it is not NE politics alone that were in the dock but issues that highlight Indian politics at its worst were openly discussed. If ever there was a call for a 2nd Republic of India, it happened then. Can we as Indians afford to ignore the call?
Corruption in public life is but one manifestation of mal-governance and the national call for the elimination of corruption echoes a universal resonance for better governance in all spheres of life. It pleads for a paradigm to bring forth elected representatives who really carry the faith and confidence of the people and the constituency they represent. It is the crying need of the day. Our present system of electioneering enables a person securing just 25% of the entire votes cast and 15% of the entire constituency, to be declared a winner of an election. Let me illustrate. Imagine a constituency with an electoral roll of 20,000 voters of whom only 12,000 or 60 % turn up to cast their votes on Election Day. There are five contestants A, B, C,D & F who respectively poll 2900, 1800, 2500, 3000 and 1800 of the votes cast. 9000 voters of the 12,000 who polled considered D unfit to represent them. 8000 more who didn’t turn up, more or less thought the same. 17,000 of the electorate out of 20,000 rejected candidate D, considered him unfit to represent them, yet in the end he was declared returned, simply because he was “First past the post”. A majority of Parliamentary seats and Assembly seats all over the country are thus filled by default. Can such a phenomenon be even remotely related to the democratic principles of elected representation that we all believe in? The above simply enforces the belief that political parties or individuals usually force themselves on an unwilling or unsuspecting electorate. It results in the imposition of unwanted candidates on whom the entire electorate have little or no faith in. It has given rise to the call for a “None of the above” button on the EVMs, which at best will provide for a negative choice but one that will not solve the basic issue of how to bring in candidates who command the faith and trust of the people of the constituency. The top down approach on candidate selection has failed. As a side effect it has spawned a repugnant phenomenon aptly called ‘Criminalisation of Politics’. The electorate is loathful of such a practice. A more participative and Bottom Up approach is therefore called for in electioneering. So why not preliminaries or screening exercises for all those who wish to contest? Preliminaries shall not return ‘First past the post’ winners but instead be designed to identify candidates whom the public are ready to repose their faith, trust and confidence in. In such an exercise only those who manage to secure 51 % of preliminary votes will be entitled to contest. It will be a reform to ensure basic connectivity between the electorate and the politician. It will enforce the democratic principle that the elected representative belongs to the people. He is their servant. Today he sincerely believes he is not. He sees himself as their patron; there to distribute goodies to his favourites and that, is the problem!
Patronised democracy begins right from the day polls are announced. Candidates as patrons doling out money in efforts to convince they are the best to represent me and you. A common electoral practice in India where democratic representation is For, Of and By the highest bidder. We decry the practice; demand its elimination and the best we can come up with is a proposal for an increase in election expenditure and that too by the state! Whom are we trying to fool? Does it mean that only those with enough money to spend can contest? In the first place, why should the state spend on behalf of a candidate whom in all probability is unacceptable to the electorate? Ridiculously it is a proposal from the political class, from those responsible for abusing the system! Suppose the proposal was to come from below; from the people from the electorate. What would they say? If it is from an electorate that is actively involved in the preliminary screening exercise of candidates proposed above, I have no doubts the answer would be “Let the community also undertake the election expenses for all candidates”! Why can’t the election commission fund such communities? It will be the best answer. Empowered communities controlling election expenses for candidates whom they have already expressed faith and confidence in. It will result in the emergence of representatives who know, and acknowledge the fact that they belong to the people. Party loyalty becomes redundant to be replaced by concern and commitment for the electorate. After all that is how it is supposed to work, isn’t it? (The author is President of ICARE an organisation that focuses on aspects of Good Governance & can be contacted at [email protected])