Has India's vote proved its utility?

Has India's vote proved its utility?

By G. S. Edwin

JAKARTA (JP): A general election is statutorily required to be
held in India once in five years. Held accordingly since 1951, it
has upheld India as a committed practitioner of democracy. With
the enormous increase in the number of voters (590 million),
political parties (155), and candidates (1300 in one
constituency), the success achieved in conducting the election in
a free and fair manner has been rightly hailed as a Napoleonic
feat. But, sadly, the election is disappointingly seen as an
elaborate but empty ritual, and the celebrated and covetable
vote, disfunctional.

When one assesses the success or otherwise of Indian
democracy, actually the vote is on trial. The question to be
asked is: The vote has value, but has it proved its utility? A
motor car is, undoubtedly, an object of value, but it needs to
prove its utility. It cannot prove it in a swamp.

Applying this acid test, the vote, 45 years of age, has not
proved its utility. Democracy in India has not succeeded (India's
per capita income is US$ 360 and Indonesia's, with a belated
start but where the vote is kept focussed, $900 because the vote
had no utility.

India became a sovereign democratic republic in 1950. The
first general election was held in 1951 under universal
franchise, empowerment of all through vote, and secret balloting.
Trust in the vote, novel and intoxicating, produced an euphoria.

The euphoria had a quaint but a remarkable logic: Without the
power of vote to galvanize, the British, with a three-century fix
on India, were chased out; with vote, the grass-root energizer,
everything could be chased out: poverty, backwardness, cast
systems, and its genius for centrifugal stress and pull. In
short, the vote promised a new India, a Westminster type
democracy, the ordained road to deliver it.

The 1996 India, after nine elections, is certainly not a New
India. It is an India battered and worsened by the vote. Its
failure, India limping and lagging, is too conspicuous and,
indeed, its fall-out, high political temperature and threat to
stability, too frightening to be missed or ignored. The vote,
instead of taking off, has nose-dived.

Strangely, the vote, so far, has not been condemned for its
failure. It is exonerated and eulogized. A robust native wisdom
and maturity and an uncanny political perception are attributed
to it. According to fans -- barring extraordinary events such as
the Gandhi assassinations, when the vote was blinded, at other
times, to its credit, it went forth and annihilated parties that
had fallen in its esteem: the Congress party in 1977 and in 1996
and the regional parties like DMK in 1991 and ADMK in 1996 (The
ADMK a party in Tamil Nadu won 186 seats in 1991, but only four
in 1996). However, it has not built a New India.

The periodical slaughter has made the vote fearsome but not
constructive. The trounced candidates were usually not buried.
They came back, rested but unchastened and awaited their turn to
be trounced again. This syndrome has impeded the system. The DMK
party in Tamil Nadu won one seat in 1991. In 1996 it won 166
seats. Both these Tamil Nadu parties graphically illustrate how
successfully the vote was always duped.

From any reckoning there is no doubt, the vote has belied
expectations. It is yet to find its feet or already rendered
impotent. It needs help. Of late, this is recognized and some
remedial measures have been taken. Floor crossing, which sets
aside the mandate of the vote for material gains, became
epidemic. This brought forth a law that prevents floor-crossing.
It had restored stature to the vote.

The strict enforcement of The Peoples' Representation Act, has
compelled political parties to abide by certain norms and has
removed the advantage enjoyed by political parties with money
power. The election-air is cleaner and lighter and the vote is
now won in a fair manner.

Requiring political parties to keep proper accounts, obtaining
audit certificates from public accountants and making it
compulsory to disclose donations are under consideration. These
will give respectability to political parties, and prevent vote-
buying.

These are steps in the right direction and have earned much
approbations. But clearly they are insufficient. Further steps
are necessary to convert vote-value to vote-utility.

There is a clear need to limit the number of political
parties. India, by no stretch of the imagination, would need 155
political parties. Too many parties promote divisive politics and
magnify the fault-lines of the Indian society. It is not healthy
pluralism. Only the sense of national solidarity is destroyed and
growth of a community of interest is prevented. They confuse
choice and militate against a party system of politics, as
understood, and needs to be practiced. In 1951 there were hardly
four or five parties. Indonesia, a country territorially as
large, only with a lesser population, has only three parties.

An average of 28 candidates to a constituency prevents a
single party emerging with the required numbers to gain respect
and form the government. A limit on the number of political
parties would automatically limit the number of candidates in
each constituency. As a corollary, independent candidature must
be proscribed.

Those who are defeated in an election should be allowed to
contest only after a cooling period of five years. This would
greatly enhance respect for the vote; as it will make performance
a decisive criteria. Incidentally, the enforced sabbatical would
make politics a diligent profession.

Today the vote is deliberately and totally undermined by
irresponsible electioneering. What actually happens is: a
political party rides to power promising the moon, but once in
power, it doesn't even remember what it has promised and ditches
the vote in the pit with impunity.

The vote is angry; but what can it do? It has to wait for five
years to avenge the betrayal, as it had done repeatedly to no
avail. The vote, acting angrily had not engendered or promoted
political responsibility. Indeed, it has encouraged political
cynicism and adventurism. The Economist (April 27 - May 3) says
"Indian politicians need not be ashamed of their democracy, only
of themselves". This system fault must be corrected.

As per the theory of Social Contract, it is a covenant that
brings into existence the State (Government). Under a party
system of government, a victorious party, in effect, makes a new
covenant with the vote, and a contract materializes. This would
make it obligatory for the party to do what it promised it would
do. If not, the party must be liable for breach of trust and
terms of contract. As this is not happening today, a law to
secure this should be made. It will ensure that government is not
captured by puff and demagogy.

History has proved: No vote, no politics, only dull obedience.
So hope lies in vote and the freedom to exercise it, and the
choice it has. Choice makes parties crucial. A limit to the
number of parties at once enhances the utility of the vote. The
threat of a five-year sabbatical, for those who fail in an
election and making the parties image-sensitive by holding them
liable for breach of trust would bring in the missing rectitude
into the parties. The parties will find it necessary and
worthwhile to uphold value and compete fairly for the vote. In
short, parties would have a level playing-field and be seen as
clear alternatives, not excess baggage or untreatable effluent.

Under such a dispensation, not difficult to bring about,
politics will be honorable and the vote will not be seen as a
blood-thirsty sovereign, but as having vitality and utility.

Window: History has proved: No vote, no politics, only dull
obedience. So hope lies in vote and the freedom to exercise it,
and the choice it gives.