Author: Swapan Dasgupta
Publication: The Free Press Journal
Date: March 25, 2004
There are some political issues
that belong to an earlier generation. My experience of interacting with
the political class suggests that issues concerning either the Constitution
or electoral reforms preoccupy the minds of those who cut their teeth in
the bad old days of Indira Gandhi. Those who came into the political limelight
after 1984 have other priorities. This is surprising because many of them
served their apprenticeship in the JP movement when the slogan of Total
Revolution was recurrent.
Last week, in the course of his
Yatra, Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani once again raised the issue of
simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies. His reasons
were simple and refreshingly honest. The election season, he seemed to
suggest, puts enormous pressure on politicians to compromise good governance
for short-term populism. If this happens once every five years, the system
can bear the burden. But, if there is some major State Assembly election
every year, as has become the norm, serious distortions take place. And
the cumulative effects of these distortions are felt during the general
election.
It is tempting to contest Advani's
suggestion on the ground of practicality. While simultaneous elections
are a good idea from the cost point of view, both for the state exchequer
and the political parties, there are legitimate worries over its implementation.
Since different Assemblies have different dates when their term expires,
some state governments must be given extended terms while others must have
their life truncated.
Second, simultaneous state and national
polls imply that legislatures must have a fixed tenure. Again, this is
a good idea in theory. But what if the electoral outcome results in a horribly
hung legislature where no coalition is workable? Is the state or the nation
to persist with endemic instability for a full five years? What will be
the effect of this on good governance?
Past experience suggests that, barring
Uttar Pradesh where society is horribly fractured, the collapse of a hung
legislature results in a decisive mandate the next time. It would be wrong
to deny the Indian voter the chance to say sorry periodically. In a society
where indulgences are frowned upon, elections have become an affordable
luxury. They take a toll on good governance but they also enhance the accountability
of politicians. Perhaps our growth rate will be higher if democracy was
less messy but in the search for discipline we will be extinguishing a
spark that makes India a great place.
Actually, the problem with electoral
reforms is that they focus on the big idea. Perhaps it was sheer familiarity
and a British inheritance that made our founding fathers choose the Westminster
model over the presidential system and infuriatingly complex French system.
But we have grown familiar with its workings and changing it would be too
cumbersome.
As for proportional representation,
an idea that often finds favour with smaller parties, it is a recipe for
fragmentation, instability and political blackmail. It will encourage the
process of disintegration and promote the growth of narrow, single-caste
parties. Proportional representation is something that sane people should
oppose unreservedly.
The focus, it seems to me, should
be on little things. The most important task in a democracy is to ensure
that there is a high turnout. That is the only way to ensure the verdict
is credible and the government is truly representative.
This is where the Election Commission
has a role. The EC was granted autonomy to ensure the purity of the democratic
process. By and large it has done its job. I think the days of rigged elections,
as was witnessed in West Bengal in 1972 or Jammu and Kashmir in 1987, are
a thing of the past.
Today, there will be a huge outcry
if something similar happens. The EC certainly will not countenance it.
However, while ensuring the sanctity of the process the EC has been less
mindful of ensuring maximum participation. Indeed, many of its moves suggest
a conscious bid to minimise involvement and participation. Why else would
the EC choose the height of summer as polling days? Why else would it impose
a 10 pm curfew for summer polls when electioneering is virtually in the
afternoons?
In any case, the EC seems reasonably
powerless to deal with violations of the curfew. Advani, during his Yatra,
is insistent that the EC guidelines be followed in both letter and spirit.
Consequently, unless the local organisers have a written permission to
extend meetings by an hour, the 10 pm curfew is observed both in letter
and spirit. Yet, I met a former BJP minister in Maharashtra who says he
routinely violates the guidelines and holds meetings till midnight. No
one, he boasted proudly, has ever taken action against him. The EC, to
cite another example, has banned political advertising on TV. But one party
has circumvented this through surrogate advertising. The law, in this case,
has turned out to be an ass.
The EC's emphasis seems to be on
tokenism. Proceeding on the assumption that the political class is inherently
deviant, it focuses on precisely those features that give bureaucrats a
brief chance to get their own back on their political masters. Take the
mandatory filing of personal and financial details of all candidates. It
was projected as a revolutionary step.
Certainly, I know politicians who
are offended at the prospect of disclosing details of their personal assets.
But that is because they happen to be those who entered politics after
a successful career elsewhere. Those politicians who are known for their
lack of financial integrity are not bothered. Their ill-gotten wealth is
invariably parked with anonymous men who don't contest polls.
Nor is this the only piece of tokenism.
The EC has expended a huge amount of energy in preventing the misuse of
official machinery by the ruling party. This is a noble endeavour. But
in actual terms this means policing trivial matters like denying politicians
the right to use circuit houses for political meetings and covering the
hoardings of the Golden Quadrilateral because the Prime Minister's photograph
could influence the mind of the voter. Maharashtra BJP president Gopinath
Munde recounted the tale of a 100 year-old foundation in Nandurbar that
has been covered by the EC because it is shaped like a lotus-the party's
symbol!
Going by this logic I recommend
that statues and busts of national leaders be also covered during elections.
Aren't Mahatma Gandhi, Shivaji, Ambedkar, Annadurai, Indira Gandhi and
Subhas Chandra Bose repeatedly invoked by the parties?
Voters have to be motivated into
taking sides. That motivation calls for mobilisation, and mobilising millions
of people necessarily involves noise and some chaos. Despite the best intentions
of idealists, democracy will always be messy. It is that mess that makes
India shine. The EC is turning out to be the biggest hurdle in the popularisation
of democracy.
Last week, it banned Narendra Modi
from taking out a yatra on the Narmada issue. Will it now ban Medha Patkar
from conducting her anti-Narmada campaign? Does the EC believe that elections
should be delinked from politics? It is about time some questions are posed
to the superannuated luminaries in Nirvachan Sadan.
