Sunday, October 27, 2024
Urgent Need- Transformation of India’s Democracy to
Proportional Representation
-Chandra Bhushan Choudhary
The core spirit and purpose of democracy are best realized
when the governing or legislative house is made up of people’s representatives
belonging to different parties or dispositions have been elected in the same
proportion as the number of citizens in the electorate are in that aspect.
In India the Lok Sabha (Lower House), the Legislative Assemblies
of the states, many local bodies and leadership councils of voluntary
organisations, all are formed through the same electoral system as in UK’s
Westminster. In English political parlance it is called “First Past The Post
(FPTP)” or “Winner Takes All” electoral system. It is an irony for Indian
political scientists and other intellectuals that even after 75 years of
democracy in the country, they have not coined any easy word or phrase for
these two English phrases in Hindi (to my knowledge in no other Indian language
as well). In my Hindi writeups I have used a phrase “अधिकतम मत का सर्वजय” for FPTP.
FPTP electoral
system gives to the candidate who gets
the highest number of votes in an electoral constituency (called districts in
many countries) the right to become the
representative of entire voters; even if he got forty, thirty, twenty or even
less percentage of votes.
In several FPTP type 5 yearly mayoral elections in city of Ranchi, India, every
time as many as 60 to 80 candidates
contested for the post of Deputy Mayor which is a seat accessible to members of
all ethnic communities & genders. Often the winner got 10 percent or less votes
but was made the senior most manager for all people of the city. Ninety percent
voters’ choices were dumped as trash.
In this article, we will discuss only one type of
democratic system of governance- “Parliamentary System”. We keep out of our
discussion systems like “President’s
rule”, “Monarchy” and “Dictatorship” which are currently in vogue in many
countries.
The modern parliamentary system of governance originated in
Great Britain in the year 1707. It is called Westminster Model. After that,
there have been improvements in this system to make it more democratic. In the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, most of the countries of Europe adopted
this system. During that time, most of the countries of Asia and Africa were
colonies; hence there was no democracy there.
Proportional Representation (PR)
refers to any type of electoral system under
which subgroups of an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected
body. The concept applies mainly to political divisions (political parties) among voters. The essence of such systems is
that almost all votes cast – contribute to the result and are effectively
used to help elect someone.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many political
thinkers, mathematicians, lawyers and activists of Europe and America proposed
several models and election processes of Proportional Representation (PR) to
correct the flaws of the Westminster system. The elections to the Parliament of
Denmark were conducted for the first time in 1855 through a proportional
election system based on the model of a mathematician Carl Andre. Between the
First and Second World War, some European countries changed their election
system to Proportional Representation (PR).
P R has been adopted in only a few such countries that have
English speaking intellectuals and those which gained independence from the
British rule. The federal and state parliaments of U S A are elected through
the FPTP system. In some of its city governments, elections for councils have always
been conducted through the proportional system. Two of the major cities among
these, Cambridge (Massachusetts) and Peora (Illinois), are university towns,
where highly educated citizens live!
So far, 95 (ninety five) countries have adopted the
electoral system of P R in the elections to their parliament (lower house).
These include 33 countries of Europe and 62 countries of Asia, Africa,
Australia and South America. Majority of them made this change in last 75
years.
The biggest flaw and injustice in the FPTP system is that
it creates a disproportion; beneficial to some and disadvantageous for other
parties in the number of votes received and the number of representatives
(seats) elected to the ruling house (Parliament, Legislative Assembly,
Municipal Council etc.). We will understand this disparity by looking at the
data of Table No. 1, 2 and 3 of the results of some previous general elections
of India.
Table-1
Results
of India’s Lok Sabha Elections 2019
----------------------------------------
|
Sl. No. |
Party |
Votes Received |
Seats Won & % |
|
1 |
BJP |
37.36% |
303 (55.8%) |
|
2 |
Congress |
19.66% |
52 (9.6%) |
|
3 |
Trinmool Congress |
4.1% |
22 (4%) |
|
4 |
BSP |
3.63% |
10 (1.85%) |
|
5 |
CPI (M) |
1.7% |
3 (0.55%) |
|
6 |
JD(U) |
1.46% |
11 (1.9%) |
|
7 |
SP |
2.55% |
5 (0.92%) |
|
8 |
RJD |
1.08% |
0 (0%) |
|
9 |
Small Parties |
22.22% |
56 (10.15%) |
In this election, BJP should
have got only 207 seats as per the proportion of votes it received. But it got
96 seats more without earning them. Due to this, BJP, instead of being in the
minority in the House, got the right to rule by becoming the party with
majority. At the same time, due to the imperfect FPTP system, the largest
opposition party Congress got only 52 seats instead of its proportional right
of 109 seats. It suffered an unjust loss of 57 seats. The table shows that all
other opposition parties also suffered more or less the same loss. But BJP's
ally JDU got more seats than the vote ratio like BJP due to being in a
coalition with BJP.
Table-
2
Delhi Legislative Assembly Elections 2020
-------------------
|
Sl
No |
Party |
Votes
Received |
Seats Won & % |
|
1 |
Aam Adami Party |
53.57% |
62 (88.57%) |
|
2 |
BJP |
38.51% |
8 (11.43%) |
|
3 |
INC (Congress) |
4.26% |
0 (Zero) |
This table
shows the frightening undemocratic effects of the unfair FPTP system. 27% of
BJP votes and 4% of Congress votes were trashed. Aam Aadmi Party got an extra
24 seats for no reason. The electoral system secretly transferred the support
of 31% of voters to the party they opposed.
Table-3
Lok
Sabha Elections 1984
----------------------------
|
Sl
No |
Party |
Votes
Received |
Seats Won & % |
|
1 |
INC (Congress) |
49.1% |
404 (78%) |
|
2 |
BJP |
7.7% |
2 (0.4%) |
|
3 |
Janata Party |
6.89% |
10 (2%) |
Throughout
the 1950s, 60s and 70s, Congress party continuously got majority in Lok Sabha
and most States’ Vidhan Sabhas and remained in power due to the FPTP electoral
system. In the 1984 elections Congress, despite getting only 49.1% votes and
being ineligible for a clear majority, got the benefit of additional 201 seats
and sent two-thirds of the members in Lok Sabha. Due to this, Rajiv Gandhi's then
government made several amendments to constitution. From this incident, we can
understand that the continuation of the FPTP system is a threat even to integrity
of the constitution.
The FPTP electoral system deprives a large number of voters
of their right to choose their representatives by robbing them of their votes; it
forcibly puts their consent in the account of a disliked candidate or trashes it. This is a criminal act of taking
away the fundamental democratic right of the voter to choose her
representative.
In the FPTP method, regional parties formed in different
states of the country who promise to fulfil regional aspirations, are more
likely to win in their regions and the parties with broader country-wide
ideologies are more likely to lose there due to their votes being scattered all
over the country or a large part of it. This can be understood by looking at
the results of CPI(M), BSP and Congress in Table-1. By promoting regional
ideologies, this method promotes many centrifugal forces and weakens national
unity.
The FPTP
system impairs the efforts of groups with less interest or tradition and less
capability of participation in governance such as poor, women, dalits, farmers,
labourers, educationally weak, minorities etc. to reach the legislature house
through elections. They have to cross a hill-like height before getting
participation. The numbers of women MPs were only 78 (15%) in the 17th Lok
Sabha and 24 (13%) in current Rajya Sabha of the Indian Parliament. There are
only 27 (5%) Muslim MPs in Lok Sabha whereas their population in the country is
15%.
In the FPTP system, parties with fewer seats in house have
to earn more votes to win each seat than the parties with more seats. Look at
the data of Jharkhand in the 2019 Lok Sabha election. In that election BJP got
11 seats with 7 lakh votes for each seat won. On the other hand, Congress and
Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, which were in minority, got only one seat each for 23
lakh and 17 lakh votes respectively for each seat won. The results of every
FPTP election show similar unfair handicaps for small parties.
“Proportional Representation- PR” eliminates these
inconsistencies and initial hurdles like crossing a hill and gambling of the
current FPTP elections. It gives every party/ organized class a number of seats
in the House in proportion to votes it earned; Houses of government- Lok Sabha,
State Legislative Assemblies and post decentralization- District Council,
Municipal Corporation, other Municipal Bodies, Block Committee and Gram
Panchayat. It is more democratic and just
to elect the Legislative House/ Council through the PR electoral system at
every level.
The purpose of Proportional Representation (PR) is to give
the opportunity and right to membership in the legislatures and ruling houses
to every class, ideology, caste, race, gender of the people in proportion to
their total population. PR enable such classes, which due to historical reasons
have less interest in governance, less capability, economic poverty, lack of
education such as women, Dalits, tribals, minorities etc. to reach and actively
participate in the Parliament, Legislative Assemblies and other legislative/ ruling
houses.
In 1950 the number of women
MPs in Swedish parliament was negligible. Due to continuity of PR system, 45%
of the MPs in Sweden's Parliament now are women without any reservations for
them. Similar growth in the number of women MPs has also happened in other
countries of Europe, where the PR election system has been in place for five to
seven decades. In 1999, only 9% women were members of parliament in Indonesia,
a muslim majority country in Asia. It increased to 21% in 2019 after 20 years
of PR system being in force. Of course a law has also been recently made there compelling
every party to give 30% tickets to women. In the parliament of Turkey a muslim majority
country, due to elections through PR,
the number of women MPs increased from only 4.4% in 2002 to 20% in 2023 after 6
elections without any reservation for them. Analysis of the PR system in force
in ninety five countries shows that due to it, the number of deprived classes,
castes, tribes etc. in the Parliament / legislatures tends to gradually
increase to their proportion in population.
The parliaments of four
neighbouring countries of India are now elected through PR system. These are
Sri Lanka, Nepal, Thailand and Indonesia. It is a matter of great surprise and
regret that Indian politicians, constitution experts, academics, columnists,
so-called think tanks and election analysts did not analyse the democratic
revolutions happening so close to us and suggest a model for India.
The constituent assembly of Nepal was making a new
constitution in the last decade. After the adoption of PR by it, the elections
of the last two parliaments have been conducted using this system. Nepal, which
was earlier plagued by instability, the parliament there has become stable after
the implementation of this new system. Democracy has taken roots there. But
there is no discussion about it in India.
Justice Tarkunde committee formed on the initiative of JP
in 1975, chief election commissioner Shakdhar in 1977 and Law Commission in
1999 did give their reports to the government of India recommending PR. But the
successive governments, parliament and most of the political parties did not
pay attention to these recommendations. The country's media also did not engage
in the subject of PR despite running analysis for several days in every
election. Four parties - CPI(M), DMK, CPI and Samajwadi Jan Parishad (SJP) have
passed resolutions in the last 2 decades in favour of PR. But none of these
parties has published literature, neither did public awareness nor started any
movement. At the state level, none of the two ruling parties, DMK and CPI(M)
have introduced PR system in the
district, town, village panchayat or any other body under their jurisdiction
during their rule.
Soon after India’s independence in 1947, during the making
of constitution, a proposal to adopt proportional representation in India was
presented in the constituent assembly. There was a long debate on it. Two
decades before that, the demand for separate electorates for muslim and dalit
citizens was also raised loudly, which had been dropped after an agreement. Proportional
representation indirectly gives rights like in separate electorates to some
extent. Probably due to the tragic partition of the country at that time, most
of the constitution makers including Dr. Ambedkar got scared and rejected PR in
favour of an FPTP system.
The objective of
including provisions for reservation in the political constituencies adopted in
the Constitution of India was also the empowerment of marginalized groups. (In
this article, we are not discussing the topic of "reservation in jobs.")
The experience of the last seventy years indicates that this reservation system
has been unable to empower marginalized groups to the desired extent.
Furthermore, this reservation system is only minimally helpful for the two
selected ethnic groups—Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It only manages
to empower a few individuals from these communities who contest in elections
within the allocated constituencies. To SC and ST citizens living in other
constituencies across the country, this reservation system does not provide opportunities
of direct intervention.
Seventy years of
experience shows that, besides ethnic groups, there are other types of
marginalized groups in society, such as farmers, the extremely poor, labourers,
women of all castes and religions, linguistic minorities, rural residents, and
religious minorities, among others. These marginalized groups are also
scattered across various constituencies all over the country. Due to this
fragmentation, even if they organize, they cannot reach parliament,
legislatures, or other houses thriugh the FPTP system. However, when
proportional representation (PR) is implemented, organized groups wishing to
participate as a party can reach those houses and consistently raise their
voices and aspirations to the government or opposition in all five years.
Within a party, they can also gain their share of participation in the houses
and government acting as a pressure group.
Elections of other voluntary, professional (farmers,
labourers, lawyers, doctors, students, cooperatives, traders etc) associations
and internal elections of political parties are also conducted through the PR
system used in the governance of those bodies. That democratizes political
parties and all other organizations.
Several
methods have been devised to implement PR i.e. election of members of the House
in proportion to the choice of voters. Size of population, level of education, training
of voters, demographic differences in areas, spread of political parties in
states, provisions of reservation; for all these situations, methods for Proportional
Representation (PR) have been devised by political scientists, experts of
constitutions, mathematicians and other academics. Different electoral methods
are being practiced in the 95 countries that have adopted PR. An appropriate
electoral process of PR can be chosen to suit the various situations mentioned
here.
As and when India decides to adopt PR, an authorized
committee and the Parliament-Government will choose the appropriate method of
election to bring Proportional Representation (PR) for the Lok Sabha of India
and the Legislative Assemblies of the states. But before that happens, several
proposals would have been put forth by civil society, political parties,
academic people and government’s own specialist wings like Law Commission etc.
This article is one such attempt.
In the present devolution of powers, State governments and
legislative assemblies will choose the most suitable method for local bodies. Voluntary
organizations will select for themselves. It is possible to keep reservations
for Scheduled Castes and Tribes in Proportional Representation also. In the
simplest way, this can be done by reserving constituencies in the present form
and using the reservation roster system in the party list.
There are four main methods for implementing proportional representation in
elections, although some other methods have also been suggested and applied. In
PR system, each party contests elections independently; coalitions of parties
does not happen before elections. In
this article, we will only examine these four methods in detail. They are:
1. Party List System
This method considers the entire area—be it
a country, state, or district—as a single electoral constituency. There are no
candidates contesting from smaller, localized areas. Before the elections, each
party submits a list of proposed candidates to the Election Commission, ranked
by preference for being elected. The elected seats in the legislative house are
allocated to each party based on the proportion of votes they receive across
the entire area. For practical reasons of limiting the number of parties; those
parties that receive very few votes (below the cut-off level) do not get any elected
seats. The cut-off level can range from 1% for large populations like India to as high as 5% in countries and provinces with smaller
populations. The rationale for setting such cut-offs is to ensure that a large
number of voters are not disenfranchised. Also it is impossible to divide a
single seat, and the number of seats in the house is limited.
Some countries that have implemented
this method include Austria, the Netherlands, Turkey (all in Europe); Sri Lanka
and Indonesia (in Asia); Argentina (in South America); and South Africa (in
Africa).
2. Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)
This system is
considered more practical for countries or regions with relatively large
populations and holds constituency representatives accountable to their
constituents. The country or region is divided into electoral constituencies
using the FPTP method. In addition to these constituencies, there are extra
seats kept centrally to be allocated after the elections based on the
proportion of votes received by each party. Voters receive two ballot papers;
one for a candidate in their local area and the other for a political party
contesting in the larger area (the entire country or a significant portion of
it). The candidate with the most votes in the local election is declared the
winner thru FPTP. The votes for each party across the larger area are
aggregated, and the seats allocated in that area are proportionally distributed
to each party based on its earned votes. Germany's national parliament
(Bundestag) has been using this system for the past seven decades, and it has
also been adopted by New Zealand, Thailand, Nepal, Bolivia, and Lesotho.
3. Single Transferable Vote (STV)
Although suggested
since over a century, this method has only been adopted at the national level
by two small countries: Ireland and Malta. It can be used in both party-based
and non-partisan elections. It is suitable for smaller populations of highly
educated or trained voters, professional organizations, and upper houses of
parliament (like the Rajya Sabha, Legislative Councils, and some countries'
Senates). We won't go into detail about its process here.
4. Multi-Member Constituencies in Non-Partisan Elections
Municipal
corporations, other local bodies, large rural bodies (like block committees and
district councils), large cooperative societies, trade and student unions often
seek to keep members away from political party identities. They adopt this
method. For a predetermined number of representatives (usually between five and
ten), relatively large electoral constituencies (districts) are created. Each
voter casts a single vote for one candidate. The candidates with the highest
votes are declared elected up to the predetermined number. This allows
individuals from various groups, genders and ideologies in society (including
minorities) to become representatives, while also preventing the trashing of
votes that occurs in systems like FPTP.
My firm and well thought conclusion is
that for a country like India, with its vast poorly educated population and
regional diversity, a "Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)" system is the
most suitable for the Lok Sabha and state legislatures. During elections, the
country should be divided into five contiguous regions of similar populations
based on geographical and demographic diversities. In each region, parties
should be allocated proportionate seats out of that region’s central PR pool based
on the proportion of votes they receive in that region. Additionally, each
party should also have seats won through the FPTP system. Members elected
through both methods would be equally accountable and responsible to the
public.
In many
countries, to achieve complete proportionality of votes received by parties at
the national level, seats in the house are even increased after the vote count.
Under the FPTP system multiple parties often form alliances to contest
elections, which may dissolve or change after the elections when forming a
government. In contrast, under the PR system, after the elections several
parties may come together to form a government. While the Parliament remains
stable throughout its term, the combination of parties forming the government
can change.
Due to their
ignorance opponents of this system propagate a misconception, that the PR
system creates instability in governance. Historical facts spanning 80 years do
not support this allegation.
In India, there are several major obstacles in the way of changing the FPTP
system to bring about elections of Lok Sabha and state legislatures through PR.
Some are mentioned below.
1.
Only members of the
ruling party and government in the current parliament can initiate proposals
for successful legislative changes. For constitution amendments, the support of
some opposition members is often essential. However, all these MPs and state legislators
are currently elected through the FPTP system, and they have mastery over
the use and intricacies of that system. With the arrival of the new system, it
will become impossible or very difficult for many of them to reach the
parliament or legislatures. Even though it is known that proportional
representation is more beneficial for the country and the entire population,
the old leadership and all its supporters will oppose this change.
2.
The
general public is not even aware of various democratic systems. Our school and
university curricula do not include any material on them. Printed and visual
media often focus more on immediate political games and upheavals or cater to
the power establishment. There is also a lack of interest and understanding
regarding structural changes among the country's intellectuals, professors, journalists,
NGOs, and so-called think tanks. Additionally, the elite class of the country
fears the empowerment of the general public. Therefore, there is little hope
for any initiative from these groups to implement a proportional representation
system.
3.
Currently,
due to the provision in the constitution for reservation of electoral
constituencies for SC and ST; misleading confusion will be spread by these
groups’ elite beneficiaries about the proposal to bring
in a PR system, claiming that it threatens the security of those groups.
Since
many countries have undergone and are now bringing changes in their electoral
systems, it is hoped that India will also do such changes in the interest of
the nation. I request each reader of this article to engage in extensive
discussions on this topic within their groups and to make this democratic
revolution successful soon.
I urge readers to
definitely read the following two references for some preliminary information
on this subject:
1.
Proportional Representation -
Wikipedia
2.
आनुपातिक प्रतिनिधान - हिंदी विकिपीडिया
Interested readers can
connect with the following two social media IDs to support this topic and
campaign:
1.
On Facebook: भारत में आनुपातिक प्रतिनिधित्व की मुहिम (Proportional
Representation)
2.
On Twitter (X):
@PRforIndiaNow
3.
Some WhatsApp groups have
been made for discussions and action on PR.
- Chandra
Bhushan Choudhary
Ranchi, India, October 27 ‘2024
Ph- +91-94311-05585
Twitter (X)- @cbchoudhary_dr & @PRforIndiaNow
