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.