Let us think and Act with an open mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 4

SRB

Introduction: I have identified thirty obstacles which cause a distorted and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. Because very few people have time / inclination to read long articles, these are presented in separate brief articles for pointed attention and easier assimilation. I hope this will lead to spreading of awareness and facilitating point by point debate on each of these for saving our sinking democracy.

(Please keep these articles within easy reach for referring back till the series is completed.)

Election Commission: Under the Constitution, it is the duty of the Election Commission (EC) to carry out free and fair elections to pick up true representatives of the people as members of various legislative bodies in the country. Preceding Articles 1 to 3 has shown that the main aim of electing true representatives of the people has not been achieved because, on an average, the vast majority of the electorate (estimated as more than 65% in Article 2) did not support the elected persons resulting in low levels of representation. For example, 78% of MPs elected in 2009 had the approval of only less than half of the electorate (Times of India dated 23-03-14). In addition, even these low levels of representation were of dubious nature because many had blindly voted in droves due to caste or other considerations or sold their votes. (Refer to earlier articles for details and research findings.) Moreover, the candidates for election and the political parties who sponsored them were eager to spend enormous amounts on election (often even secretly exceeding the limits fixed by EC) mainly because of two reasons: (1) money is one of the “sure-fire qualifications to ensure a victory in the elections” (DNA dated 30-07-13 quoting study by Association of Democratic Rights – refer Article 2); “being treated to a party at a dhaba or getting Rs.200 or a Rs.500 note influences voting.” (The Hindu dated 18-03-14 quoting Anna Hazare – Article 1) and  (2) the system gives elected persons unfair opportunities to amass wealth. These reasons attracted criminal mafia also to get elected, or get their stooges elected, by using money power and / or intimidation. Thus, the election system not only failed to elect representatives having support of majority of people, despite wasting huge amounts of public money, but also is the root cause of unlimited corruption and control by mafia. Conducting election in two stages as suggested in Article 2 could have removed one of these anomalies by ensuring that the elected representatives had majority support.

Article 3 had also shown that election is a costly gamble using huge amounts of public money and emphasized the need to seriously think out of the box for a better method for giving voice to the people, not just once in five years as an ineffective ritual (as at present), but more frequently and effectively.  

Elections are to be conducted according to the constitutional provisions, supplemented by laws made by Parliament. Election laws are to be based on the basic values of constitutional democracy. In order to protect these values from legislative and executive influence, the Constitution had incorporated these values as constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court (SC) has held that where the enacted laws are silent or make insufficient provision to deal with a given situation in the conduct of elections, EC has the residuary powers under the Constitution to act in an appropriate manner. SC has further clarified that the jurisdiction of EC is wide enough to include all powers necessary for smooth conduct of elections.

According to the spirit of the Constitution, the sole purpose of election was to give voice to the people.  Sad to say, even when the election system repeatedly failed to give voice to majority of people, EC overlooked the fact that the present election system cannot achieve this purpose.  The main reason seems to be hesitation or omission on the part of EC to think out of the box  to exercise the powers vested on it by the Constitution to give voice to the people,  even though  EC had the residuary powers to act in an appropriate manner, which is insulated from political pressure and executive influence.

This failure to think out of the box is probably because EC became too complacent after receiving kudos for conducting the herculean task of organizing elections on a massive scale. It is also possible that the Election Commissioners felt a soft corner or obligation to the government for appointing them to this coveted post without undergoing a rigorous system of selection.

All these show that EC has not applied its mind to develop an apt system to ensure democracy by giving effective voice to majority of the people at minimum cost.

This is the fourth and very serious obstacle which resulted in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

The functions of EC also include looking after all the problems connected with elections besides conducting elections. This function has not been satisfactorily executed as shown by the following examples:

1. As pointed out earlier in this Article and in Articles 1 to 3 in more detail, the election system has failed miserably to elect true representatives of people with majority support. But EC continued to focus on this faulty system and did not apply its mind to develop a better method for giving voice to the people, in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution, that too not just once in five years as an ineffective ritual as at present, but more frequently and effectively. EC had also not applied its mind to the fact that it is empowered to adopt any better method which fully supports the spirit of the Constitution for giving voice to people, despite a SC judgment stating that where the enacted laws are silent or make insufficient provision to deal with a given situation, EC has the residuary powers under the Constitution to act in an appropriate manner.

2. When violations of the mode of conduct occurred, EC did not give any serious punishment to the violators and violations continued unabated because of this soft approach of barking but not biting.

3. Only after repeated criticism, EC expressed concern about criminalization of politics (in stead of acting to prevent it by using its constitutional powers). For example, as the statutory custodian of democracy (not for conducting elections alone), it could have forcefully demanded suitable amendments to the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. It is not clear what had prevented EC from being more assertive in taking suitable actions against criminalization of politics by exercising its wide powers in stead of expressing concern or making recommendations.

4. EC had recommended (not ordered using its powers) the inclusion of “none of the above” (NOTA) as an option for voters. SC has recently allowed NOTA but has not agreed to carry out fresh elections even if those using NOTA form the largest group. If the largest number of voters have rejected all candidates it is a clear indication that fresh election is the will of the people. EC has been silent about this and did not appeal against this anti-people decision by SC. EC has also not protested against SC interfering with its powers as the Statutory Authority for conducting elections.

5. EC had proposed to the government that its administration should be a “charge” on the Consolidated Fund of India like for other constitutional authorities. A bill for this purpose which was introduced in 1994 is still pending. EC did not forcefully demand restoration of this need as for other constitutional authorities (not as a special case) but only meekly reiterated this need from time to time, for the last 20 years!!

6. The government has been sitting for more than 9 years on poll reforms suggested by EC. There may also be more administrative and financial bottlenecks which EC had to face. This step motherly attitude of a democratic government towards EC, which is the statutory body set up to ensure democracy, is against the Constitution and deserves to be condemned outright. But EC is silent about these, in stead of  using its residuary powers under the constitution to act in an appropriate manner.

All these show that EC has been acting like a modest advisor to the government instead of a statutory authority with wide powers, despite the strong support from SC judgments!! Whereas SC (another statutory authority) has been passing strictures against government whenever called for, EC has closed its eyes when government put spokes in its functioning as a statutory body, which is essential for democracy,

These aspects depict the fifth and very serious obstacle which resulted in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

The manner of functioning of Parliament and Assemblies has clearly shown that the political party system may be more a hindrance than help to democracy. It is surprising that EC, the statutory custodian of democracy (not for conducting elections alone), had closed its eyes to the fact that the political parties had repeatedly stalled democratic functioning of governance or distorted it  to serve their interests. It has not cared to apply its mind to retrieve the situation e.g., by warning the political parties about disqualifying them for undemocratic and undisciplined behavior. Sad to say, it did not even react against such undemocratic and undisciplined acts by political parties. Neither has it insisted that political parties should have effective internal democracy which is essential for true democracy.

This is the sixth and very serious obstacle which resulted in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

To overcome all these serious drawbacks, it is essential to have an EC which thinks out of the box whenever necessary and constantly applies its mind and powers to ensure a truly vibrant democracy and passes necessary orders for the sustenance and growth of democracy, which are binding on the government and political parties, similar to orders passed by SC.

As pointed out earlier, EC has been acting like a modest advisor instead of a statutory authority with wide powers, despite the strong support from some SC judgments. To safeguard against its recurrence, suitable qualifications and experience (including demonstrated capacity for innovation and taking strong decisions when needed) should be prescribed for Election Commissioners, and the field should be thrown open and not effectively restricted to civil service officers alone. Appointments should be made directly by the President of India on the recommendation of a committee consisting of Lok Sabha Speaker, Minister of parliamentary affairs, Chief Justice of India, Chairpersons of Human Rights Commission and UPSC, two eminent social activists and representatives of two outstanding NGOs providing welfare services to the people.

An independent reviewing body has to be set up immediately to ascertain the reasons for EC not functioning as a constitutional authority but as a modest advisor (as at present) and to recommend directly to the President steps which are essential to ensure that EC exercises the powers vested on it by the Constitution.

Meanwhile, EC ought to do the following immediately, keeping in mind that (1) the functions of EC include looking after all the problems connected with elections besides conducting elections and (2) according to a SC judgment, where the enacted laws are silent or make insufficient provision to deal with a given situation, EC has the residuary powers under the Constitution to act in an appropriate manner.

1.  Instruct all political parties to carry out elections using secret ballot to restore internal democracy at various levels within a fixed period (may be about three months), failing which their registration should be cancelled.

2.  Develop a system for assessment of the functioning of MPs and MLAs and conduct such annual assessments, starting with immediate effect, followed by further actions as suggested in Article 3 to reduce frequency of elections.

3.  Prescribe qualifications and experience required for MPs and MLAs to be enforced after a prescribed gap for acquiring these.

Lastly, no amount of praise is adequate to acknowledge the tremendous efforts of EC in conducting such large scale elections without any serious anomalies. However, sad to say, because of the faulty system of election these laudable efforts could not produce the desired results. In the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, the party which won majority of seats did not have the support of the vast majority (69%) of the electorate and questions its representativeness. Moreover, among the elected MPs as many as 53 had criminal cases against them. This unhappy situation may be comparable to an active  shopping spree in which a clever and enthusiastic man  bought lot of things  at bargain prices but when he reached home he was told that these were not the items which were really needed and included many defective and unsuitable items.

Comments (especially those which point out errors or deficiencies, if any, in this article and thereby help to improve it) and other suggestions to overcome these very serious obstacles are welcome. Please send these to StartRemovingBlocks@gmail.com. I shall make use of all befitting suggestions to prepare the last two articles of this series – Articled 23 will spell out the basic principles which will guide formulation of the revised system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the revised system of democracy for public debate to arrive at a consensus.

You can help to save democracy by making as many people as possible aware of these obstacles and possible solutions, through e-mail and social media like face book and twitter so that we can have healthy debates and arrive at some innovative ideas to save our sinking democracy.

 Let us think and Act with an open mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 3

SRB

Introduction: I have identified thirty obstacles which cause a distorted and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. Because very few people have time / inclination to read long articles, these are presented in separate brief articles for pointed attention and easier assimilation. I hope this will lead to spreading of awareness and facilitating point by point debate on each of these for saving our sinking democracy.

(Please keep these articles within easy reach for referring back till the series is completed.)

Frequency of elections: The aim of elections is to have a Parliament, and state assemblies which can represent the people truly and effectively and help to manage governance with efficiency and accountability. With regard to the first aim of selecting true representatives of people the election system has failed miserably as clearly pointed out in Article 2. With regard to the second aim of an efficient system of governance also this system has failed because the mode and frequency of elections unnecessarily obstructs continuity of good governance as explained below.

When elections are carried out once in five years (or sometimes even earlier), number of efficient representatives who are fulfilling the above aims admirably are unnecessarily weeded out along with the inefficient and the tainted ones, unlike the management machinery which has continuity because it is not broken up completely and reassembled. This lack of continuity in top levels of governance leads to avoidable distortions and distractions in functioning of democratic and other institutions. On the other hand, if these are functioning efficiently, why should we not continue these beyond five years and save huge amounts of tax payers’ money spent on present system of elections? There is no guarantee that the new set of representatives will be better. They can even be worse as has happened quite often in the past, even making it difficult to form a cohesive government.

Obviously, election is a costly gamble using huge amounts of public money. Why should we not seriously think of a better method for giving voice to the people, not just once in five years as an ineffective ritual as at present, but more frequently and effectively?  

The present system of elections also diverts attention of government from govrernance to re-election and results in lack of efficiency and sincerity in governance, particularly  during pre-election periods. Further, the need for large amounts of money for participating in election leads to undesirable and illegal activities and generation of black money. All these harm the economy, besides distorting governance to satisfy fund providers. If elections are held after longer intervals, these two dismal situations can be mitigated, besides saving enormous public funds.

A fixed five year period may allow inefficiency and lack of transparency to continue for five years. When this is happening only, we should replace the undesirable democratic institutions which have been incurring expenditure on a set of representatives who have not justified the faith placed on them by people. Unfortunately, the possibility of the new set of representatives being equally bad or even worse cannot be ruled out. This will sound the death knell of democracy unless innovative corrective measures are taken immediately instead of waiting for five years and then again failing to get more cohesive and efficient institutions as shown by the history of elections.

To avoid distortions and distractions in functioning of Parliament, Assemblies and machinery of governance, it is better to have a flexible election system guided solely by the need for improvement in governance. This will reduce the enormous amounts spent on elections, part of which can be used for the two stage voting suggested in Article 2, to avoid grossly inadequate and perverted representation of people.

Another definite advantage of the flexible system of elections is that the machinery of governance, which has adjusted to a political power system, will not have to waste time and energy to readjust to another political power system once in five years or even less.

Neglecting these aspects is the third obstacle which results in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

These problems can be solved by having flexible durations for democratic institutions and leaders based on an efficiency driven approach for making desirable changes.  The present governing system has efficiency assessments for all officials of the management machinery except legislators who occupy the most crucial positions.  To remove this serious anomaly, at the end of each year, efficiency of all elected representatives in democratic institutions should be objectively ascertained and those not performing efficiently should be given a warning to improve. Those who do not show improvement after one year should be disqualified and their seats filled up by new election. Others should be allowed to continue till they happen to become inefficient in later yearly evaluations or cross a prefixed age limit or voluntarily retire. This will ensure continuity of governance and inject a sense of responsibility and accountability among the representatives which, sad to say, is not being ascertained now because there is no system of evaluation for this most important wing of governance!! An appropriate election system should avoid discarding efficient representatives along with inefficient and tainted ones, particularly because the former are rarer to find.

This new system of flexible elections based on yearly assessment will, besides ensuring continuity of all efficient democratic institutions, reduce expenditure on elections to a much smaller number of seats every year.  A small part of the enormous amount thus saved can be used to have two stage elections (refer Article 2) to ensure that the fewer persons elected as per the new system of elections represent majority of people.

Comments (especially those which point out errors or deficiencies, if any, in this article and thereby help to improve it) and other suggestions to overcome this obstacle are welcome. Please send these to StartRemovingBlocks@gmail.com. I shall make use of all befitting suggestions to prepare the last two articles of this series – Articled 23 will spell out the basic principles which will guide formulation of the revised system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the revised system of democracy, for public debate to arrive at a consensus.

You can help to save democracy by making as many people as possible aware of these obstacles and possible solutions, through e-mail and social media like face book and twitter so that we can have healthy debates and arrive at some innovative ideas to save our sinking democracy.

Need to rethink and act urgently on fuel prices SRB Prices of petrol and diesel were increased number of times within a year, that too often steeply. LPG prices were also increased though less often. According to newspaper reports, the central and some state governments claim that they have no role in the price hikes. This is one of the blatant examples of deceiving people. In fact, Governments are heartlessly earning more and more revenue by taxation at the expense of aam admi. From the price of each litre sold, a shameless exorbitant profit (about 50% in some states) is made. Since these hikes in taxation form a percentage of the price, the profit increases each time fuel prices are hiked. Thus, governments have not only a role in increasing prices but could have developed a vested interest in increasing fuel prices. Another basic defect of these taxes is that they burden both rich and poor alike, both directly and indirectly by the spiraling cost of everything including essential things needed by the poor. Lack of an ethics of care for aam admi is crystal clear on the part of governments which go on merrily making profits from sale of fuels while aam admi, have been forced repeatedly to increasingly struggle against inflation and badly hurting food inflation, that too continuously for a long time. There are millions of intelligent people in India. Yet this has been going on unquestioned for many years. Central and state governments are conveniently closing their eyes to the fact that such taxes are increasingly burdening lower and middle class two wheeler users (whose number is about five times higher than four wheeler users) and large number of users of three wheelers (the vehicle for poor and middle class). On the other hand, rich car owners, corporate bodies and government departments are not seriously bothered and continue to waste and misuse petrol and diesel despite high prices. Sad to say, an attitude of hardened apathy continues to prevail while hypocritically giving lip sympathy to aam admi and bluffing that governments have no role in fuel price hike, while making profits at their expense. They forget that they are servants of the people and continue to dictate like masters after creating conditions which make most people spinelss. In an article in Deccan Chronicle, Bangalore (30-06-11), Prasenjit Bose has given detailed calculations of earnings of central and state governments from taxing fuels and concluded that earnings from petroleum sector is Rs.80,000 crores for central government and Rs.70,000 crores for state governments, which add up to Rs.1,50,000 crores. These huge amounts are extorted mostly from unwilling but helpless aam admi. According to an article in DNA, Bangalore (25-06-11), the Central government has eliminated 5% customs duty on import of crude oil. Government feels that it is being magnanimous. But this reduction of 5% of their profit is mockingly miserly and callously forgoes a chance to help aam admi suffering from general and food inflation, after the strain of inequitable development. On the other hand, governments could have some justification if these huge funds were utilized wisely with a long term vision to speedily and adequately develop alternate energies such as solar and wind power as well as alternate biological fuels on a large scale on a war footing, instead of nibbling at these without any surge in emergency. The reasons given for this heartless taxation are the need to control budget deficit and increase in international price of crude oil. The burden of subsidy is another justification. With regard to controlling budget deficit, there are better and more human ways of reducing deficit which have not received proper attention. Reducing enormous misuse and wastage of funds which occur in most departments has not received adequate attention. For example, it is well recognised that only about 15% of huge funds for projects meant to help rural people reached intended beneficiaries, year after year. Yet nothing is done to stop the 85% drain in public money. This is an example of many such landmarks for inefficiency, grave irregularities and corruption. Another important need is to postpone projects of low priority to better times. For example, sending Indians to the moon at the cost of increasing sufferings of aam admi ought to get low priority till the situation improves. Emoluments of elected representatives have been increased substantially even though an objective analysis would have shown their lack of attention to properly carrying out their legislative functions (often because of sacrificing national interests to party interests).While aam admi are made to suffer by drastically increasing fuel prices, budget for the often misused MP Local Area Development Scheme has been steeply increased from 2 crores to 5 crores for each MP. Many more examples of misuse, wastage and distorted priority can be found if only governments care to look for these to reduce budget deficit, with a sense of urgency for helping suffering people. Lack of ethics for care of aam admi and innovative thinking and action are all conspicuous by their absence. Sad to say, lack of political and administrative will to give time and attention to such desirable people-friendly actions is evident and regrettable. Callousness has manifested itself even in allocation of work and monitoring. The more efficient political leaders and bureaucrats are entrusted only with “gainful” departments dealing with economic matters or power over people, for obvious reasons. Even worse, while these efficient persons eagerly apply their mind to multiply collection of funds, they hardly pay any attention to prevention of misuse and wastage of public money. They merrily continue to do so. Surprisingly, even the Public Accounts Commirttee of Parliament has not adequately questioned this serious inactivity leading to huge losses in public money continuing for many years.. On the other hand, the least efficient and unwilling are tagged on to tackle social welfare sectors. Even worse, they are often more interested in manipulating for a change to “gainful” departments. With regard to increase in international price of crude oil, there are unanswered questions. An editorial in Deccan Chronicle, Bangalore (26-06-11) points out that we buy petrol at Rs.70 per litre as against approximately Rs.45 per litre by people in USA and asks whether we are paying more for crude oil even though we are closer to Saudi Arabia. It also asks whether there is a standard cost for conversion of crude into petroleum products. A white paper covering all aspects of buying petroleum products and fixing fuel prices is badly needed to clear all issues. The article by Prasenjit Bose also supports this urgent need for a white paper, while stating that even at the prevailing international price of crude oil, “the domestic price of oil would be less than Rs.30 per litre”. Hence, putting the blame on international price of oil is diversionary and not justified. With regard to subsidy, Prasenjit Bose states as follows while comparing with Rs.1,50,000 crores revenue from fuel tax: “In contrast, total petroleum subsidy in 2010-11 was around Rs.38,000 crores (as per the Union Budget). This is to further come down to around Rs.23,000 crores this year. Clearly, the government is earning much more in taxes than spending on subsidies in this sector.” In all fairness, government should not tax to earn a profit at the expense of fuel users but restrict the tax to cover subsidy only. Or, allow oil companies to fix fuel price to include the subsidy. Either way, fuel prices will come down drastically and help the suffering people. Apart from sheer callousness for the plight of aam admi, another possible reason may be that government probably feels that increase in price of petrol and diesel will check increase in their consumption. But this has not happened. The fact is that these fuels are a necessity for development and reasonably good quality of life. Neither are these luxury items for the bulk of people and those engaged in industry, transport, agriculture, health care, education and other development activities. Wastage and misuse are mostly confined to vehicles used by officials of government and corporate bodies and rich people who want to show off their wealth. Increases in prices have not been deterrents for such people. The Deccan Chronicle editorial (26-06-11) states “despite the government raising fuel prices there are no signs of a fall in offtake from the fuel pumps, which shows that there is enough money with certain class to ignore any hike.” It is possible that the latest increase was timed to weaken the demands for a strong Lokpal bill. Besides serving as a distraction, organizing protests will become more costly and reduce the number of aam admi who can afford to protest. If so, such cunning should be defeated by recognizing that the two are connected. Increase in cost of living results in higher bribes also. Reluctance to introduce a strong Lokpal bill and reduce fuel prices are both instances of taking people for a ride for years together and should be fought together with renewed vigour. DNA SUNDAY, Bangalore (26-06-11) stated that on front page: “This steep hike will pinch household budgets already pummelled by soaring prices of food items and essentials.” In addition, increase in prices also result in reduced accessibility to health care and education. Though governments must be aware of these, they have been ignoring these because of lack an ethics of care for the people. In 2005, Standing Committee on Energy of Parliament had urged government to reduce its reliance on petro-taxes. Ignoring this, revenue from petro-taxes were increased, showing scant respect for Parliament which is repeatedly stated as supreme (whenever it suits!). Collection of taxes on fuels should be stopped immediately to drastically reduce fuel prices to control both general and food inflation and thereby relieve burden on aam admi. This will enable them to eat well, maintain good health, educate their children better and use transports necessary for their daily use, besides achieving speedier development of the country. Let us develop an ethics of care for the suffering millions and rethink and act with a sense of urgency to help them

Let us think and Act with an Open Mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 2

A revised version using results of 2014 elections

SRB

Introduction: I have identified thirty obstacles which cause a distorted and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. Because very few people have time / inclination to read long articles, these are presented in separate brief articles for pointed attention and easier assimilation. I hope this will lead to spreading of awareness and facilitating point by point debate on each of these for saving our sinking democracy.

(Please keep these articles within easy reach for referring back till the series is completed.)

Representation of people: Let us assume that, at best, an average of about 70 % of eligible adults vote during elections to Parliament and Assemblies. Most elected persons receive much less than 50% of the total votes cast. Therefore, at best, most elected persons represent less than 35% of adult population, often much less. This proportion will be lower than 35% if we exclude votes of those who do not really contribute to a proper choice of representatives because of their interest in selling their votes or voting in droves! (Refer Article 1). It is a matter of serious concern that out of 543 MPs elected in 2009, the vast majority of 78% had the approval of only less than half of the electorate (Times of India dated 23-03-14). All these clearly show that the claim of the MPs and MLAs that they are representatives of people is hollow.

[Note: Since information about elections to the three tiers of Pamchayat Raj institutions is not well publicized, the above remarks about proportion voting may not be fully relevant for these.]

Even after the spectacular success in 2014 elections, the BJP has the support of only 31% of the electorate!! (Times of India dated 17-05-14, page 1) In other words, it does not have the support of 69% of the electorate, besides all the millions of people below the age of 18, who include modern day teens capable of balanced thinking and energetic action to safeguard democracy (refer Article 1). This proves beyond any doubt the utter inefficiency of the election system!!

A representative of people has to perform important functions of governance. It is naive to expect that all voters have the capacity to recognize and elect persons who can perform these functions efficiently. This expectation is a grave fundamental lapse of the election system. To overcome this to some extent, it is essential that people should be asked to select only from a list of candidates who have the requisite qualifications and experience. Though essential for good governance, the Constitution could not lay down requisite qualifications because of shortage of such candidates more than 65 years back. But the fact is that voters have still not been provided an opportunity to elect suitable representatives by taking steps to remove this shortage of candidates with the requisite qualifications and experience. Sad to say, such steps have not even been thought of during a long period of more than 65 years because of a hardened laissez faire attitude. As a result, people are often electing not only persons without adequate qualifications and experience required for good governance but also anti-social persons. As many as 30 MPs elected in 2009 and 127 MLAs have themselves declared in their affidavits to the Election Commission that they have been involved in electoral malpractices. These include corrupt ways to win votes, threatening voters, tampering of electronic voting machines and preventing voters from exercising their franchise (DNA dated 22-1-13, page 9). The Association for Democratic Reforms, which examined the sworn affidavits of a total of 4,827 MPs elected in 2009 and MLAs, found that “14 per cent had declared serious criminal charges against themselves” (The Hindu dated 26-09-13). A study by Association of Democratic Rights has shown that “money, muscle and criminal background are sure-fire qualifications to ensure a victory in the elections” (DNA dated 30-07-13). All these confirm a dismal picture of the election system.

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court (SC) in 2005 stating that Sections 8, 9 and 11A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (RPA) allows convicts to be legislators even though these violate Articles 84, 173 and 326 of the Constitution which had expressly put a bar on criminals getting registered as voters or becoming MPs / MLAs.  SC had then issued a notice to the Attorney General on the petition. After a long lapse of seven years (i.e., in 2012) SC woke up and agreed to examine this important petition and in July 2013 (a year later) it struck down article 8(4) which had protected elected representatives with criminal background from disqualification, despite conviction, if they filed an appeal within three months. This order had only prospective effect. Thus, SC has allowed convicted legislators to continue till a High Court takes a decision about their disqualification, which may take years. The High Court decision can even be distorted because witnesses may be afraid to depose freely against such powerful persons with criminal background.  What is most damaging is that as many as 162 Lok Sabha members and 1,268 MLAs who have declared criminal records can continue to function (DNA dated 12-07-13). According to newspaper reports, SC has not bothered to order quick disposal of their cases. Neither has it allowed disqualification when the High court takes a prima facie decision that the charges are sustainable, in view of long delays in final disposal. Moreover, the judgment seems to be silent about (a) preventing criminals from registering as voters, as required under the Constitution and (b) other subsections of Section 8 and Sections 9 and 11A mentioned in the original petition. It is not clear whether these provide loopholes which can be exploited for non-application of the new section 8(4). All these clearly show that (1) representatives with criminal records are continuing and (2) neither SC nor Government is sincere about quickly removing such perverted representation of people even though it is forbidden by the Constitution.

All these prove the utter inefficiency of the election system. Should we continue to be hoodwinked by this system and hide it under the carpet or should we seriously consider an alternative system for having true representatives of the people? This aspect will be further explored in later articles.

Such grossly inadequate and perverted representation of people is the second obstacle which results in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

If the changes in the system suggested in Article 1 are implemented, those who are not interested in voting do not need a representative and will be excluded from the denominator for calculating representativeness. Because voting will be considered as a responsibility of the remaining confirmed eligibles and those not voting repeatedly will lose their eligibility, only very few among them will not vote. Those who mock at democracy repeatedly by selling their votes also will lose their eligibility and, therefore, will not pervert the election. These three situations will result in the elected person representing a very large proportion of those who are interested in having a representative.

One reason for the low proportion of votes for the winning candidate is that there is no limit to the number of persons who can compete in elections for any constituency. To ensure that the elected representative has majority votes conduct election in two stages. The two candidates who secure first and second positions in number of votes at the first stage only will become eligible for the second stage of voting. Winner of second stage will then have majority support. Though this two stage voting will increase the burden for conducting elections it will satisfy an important requirement of  a democracy. Further, one way to reduce this burden is suggested in a later Article.

To ensure that voters are asked to select only from a list of qualified persons, aspiring candidates should qualify themselves as graduates or post graduates in political science or social welfare, with a managerial component for which recognized colleges should start suitable courses. A reasonable time frame has to be given for acquiring these qualifications by sufficient number of persons. RPA has to be amended to ensure that, after a fixed date, only persons who have the requisite qualifications and experience will be eligible to become  peoples’ representatives because the important functions of enactment of laws and governance should not be left to  persons who do not have the required qualifications and experience.

NOTA should be considered as a clear expression of peoples’ rejection of all candidates when none are suitable. Fresh election, in which the rejected candidates cannot take part, should be held if NOTA option is used by large number of voters. This assurance will lead to elimination or at least reduction of the number of criminals and unqualified persons getting elected as representatives.

Amendment of the Constitution will be necessary to introduce these changes in the system

Comments (especially those which point out errors or deficiencies, if any, in this article and thereby help to improve it) and other suggestions to overcome this obstacle are welcome. Please send these to StartRemovingBlocks@gmail.com. I shall make use of all befitting suggestions to prepare the last two articles of this series – Articled 23 will spell out the basic principles which will guide formulation of the reformed system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the reformed system of democracy for public debate to arrive at a consensus.

You can help to save our sinking democracy by making as many people as possible aware of these obstacles and possible solutions, through e-mail and social media like face book and twitter so that we can have healthy debates and arrive at some innovative solutions to save our sinking democracy.

Dear fellow citizens,

Our democracy has become an object of ridicule. Only if we become active and put our heads and shoulders together we can save our democracy.

YES.  WE CAN.   If we believe in this and act with conviction.

In doing so with conviction, let us be guided by the following thoughts also:

1. Have vision: A blind person asked Swami Vivekananda: Can there be anything worse than losing eye sight?"   He replied: "Yes, losing your vision!"

2. Be bold: “Boldness has genius, power and magic in it” - Goethe

3. Learn from history: “Never forget that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it is the only way that ever does.”  -  Margaret Mead

4. Make efforts: “There can be efforts that fail but there should not be a failure of efforts”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Anonymous

5. Have an ethics of care: “Developing an ethics of care for the suffering millions will not clash                with your legitimate self interests and will make you happy.” -  Anonymous

I am reproducing below the first article in a series of 22 articles entitled “Let us think and Act with an open mind to Develop a Vibrant Democracy” which draw attention to 30 obstacles which cause a distorted and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. You can help to save democracy by making as many people as possible aware of these obstacles and possible solutions, through e-mail and social media like face book and twitter so that we can have healthy debates and arrive at some innovative ideas to save our democracy.

Making use of some of these innovative ideas, I intend to finish this series with two more articles - Articled 23 will spell out the basic principles which will guide formulation of the reformed system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the reformed system of democracy for public debate to arrive at a consensus.

A citizen who cares

Note: Evolving ideas to save democracy after debates on these 22 articles will take some months. To immediately save democracy to some extent, I hope you will actively support the two suggestions given at the end of Article 1 for voting during 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

Let us think and Act with an open mind to

Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 1

SRB

Introduction: I have identified thirty obstacles which cause a distorted and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. Because very few people have time / inclination to read long articles, these are presented in separate brief articles for pointed attention and easier assimilation. I hope this will lead to spreading of awareness and facilitating point by point debate on each of these for saving our democracy.

(Please keep these articles within easy reach for referring back till the series is completed.)

Eligible voters: For good reasons, only adults are allowed to vote in elections to Parliament, Assemblies, Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samithi, Zilla Parishad and Municipalities / Corporations (the pillars of our democracy). But this leaves out a large percentage of our population which unfortunately includes many teenagers who are (unlike in the past) more capable of balanced thinking and energetic action to safeguard democracy than a much larger number of adults, particularly among lakhs of illiterates. Lack of balanced thinking among most eligible voters is forcefully brought out by the Press Council of India Chairperson Justice Markandey Katju’s statements: “Ninety percent Indians vote in droves like sheep and cattle”,…many are ”voting along caste and religious lines.”….many say “I won’t vote because my vote is meaningless.” (Deccan Chronicle dated 31-03-13, page 6). What is worse, many voters are only interested in selling their votes and making a mockery of democracy. This has been emphasized by the anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare: “It often happens that after facing injustice, people decide to teach [parties] a lesson in the elections. However, they forget to do so after being treated to a party at a dhaba or after getting Rs.200 or a Rs .500 note.” (The Hindu dated 18-03-14)

A large proportion of educated adults do not vote probably because their votes are meaningless in the context of the overwhelming 90 % who vote in droves or sell their votes without any intention of safeguarding  democracy.  Callousness or laziness may also play a part. Further, there are errors in voters’ lists (both human and manipulated) which distort elections. Sad to say, effective attempts have not been made to overcome this dismal state of voting, even after about 65 years.

Absence of the truly democratic and sensible right to reject all candidates when none are suitable had swelled the group of uninterested voters.  The NOTA option recently allowed by the Supreme Court (SC) order may not change the situation. Those who do not vote because they feel their vote is meaningless (because of the reasons explained above) or out of callousness or laziness may not come forward to exercise the NOTA option. They cannot be blamed because the SC order does not lead to rejection of the election even when NOTA voters form the majority!! In other words NOTA option, which should have been respected as peoples’ voice, has become meaningless. Only a guarantee from the Election Commission that such a clear expression of peoples’ rejection of all unsuitable candidates  by  majority of voters will lead to fresh election in which the rejected candidates cannot take part will help to get over the feeling of meaninglessness of NOTA. 

It is pertinent that while the non-voting group may or may not exercise NOTA option, those who vote in droves or sell their votes will not exercise the NOTA option because they are influenced by other factors and are not at all bothered about safeguarding democracy. The fact is that both these voting groups together form a large proportion of actual voters and will vitiate the aim of elections even with NOTA provision.

To sustain a vibrant democracy, quality of voters is much more important than extent of coverage of multiform adult population.

Inability to confine voting to only voters who are interested in safeguarding democracy and to make them vote is the first obstacle which has resulted in a distorted and ineffective democracy.

[Note: Since information about elections to the three tiers of Pamchayat Raj institutions is not well publicized, the above remarks about proportions may not be fully relevant for these.]

The main reason for including uninterested and unsuitable voters is blind enforcement of the adult franchise requirement, even when all adults are not interested in voting or are not capable of making proper independent choice. To overcome this, while preparing voters’ lists, it should be ascertained from each adult whether he / she wants to exercise his / her night to vote or not, after the responsibility of a voter is explained to him / her. Those who do not want to vote should be considered ineligible for voting by their own choice and asked to sign an affidavit in a prescribed form as a record of their voluntary rejection of their right to vote. A copy of the affidavit should be given to such persons to avoid doctoring of the list. However, chance should be given to withdraw this affidavit during any subsequent revision of voters’ lists.

The remaining interested voters with confirmed eligibility should be told that voting is not only their right but also their responsibility to elect suitable representatives and that if they do not perform their responsibility without valid reasons their right will be withdrawn. Similarly, if there is sufficient reason to believe that a voter has “sold” the vote or has voted in droves, he / she should be educated about the harmful effect of this wrong action and warned not to repeat it.  In both cases, the relevant fact should be entered in the list and his / her signature obtained. In case they repeat either of these twice (i.e., the third time), their names should be deleted when revising the voters’ lists. However, they should be given a right to appeal to safeguard against misuse or genuine mistakes.

The above modifications are based on two principles: (1) no right can be thrust upon an uninterested person and then blame him if he does not exercise it and (2) no right is absolute and can be withdrawn if the responsibility arising from this right is not fulfilled or the manner of exercising the right invalidates the reason for giving this right. However, any voter should have the truly democratic and sensible right to really reject all candidates when none are suitable (not notionally as per Supreme Court judgment). Till then non-voter’s name should not be deleted.

As stated earlier, confining eligibility to adults only will exclude a large number of younger persons who are capable of balanced thinking and energetic action to safeguard democracy because of modern (technological) advances in education and knowledge environment. To reduce such illogical exclusions, eligibility should be extended to all those who have completed 15 years of age (United Nations, World Health Organization, China and Australia have fixed the lower limit of age for youth as 15 years.) A better alternative is a lower limit of 14 years because a child is defined as below 14 years for child labour. Among the so defined age group (15+ or 14+), eligibility should be confirmed only for those who have expressed their interest in voting, after the responsibility of a voter is explained to them.

It is a pity that even after more than 65 years, most voters do not have the bend of mind and capacity to use their franchise independently and effectively  to develop a sound democracy (resulting in 90% voting in droves or large numbers selling votes – see paragraph 1 of this Article). Most likely, they will not be able to develop these capacities for many more years, in the absence of any mission to rectify matters. Therefore, should we not seriously think with an open mind about other options for exercising peoples’ voice effectively? This aspect will be further explored in later articles.

Amendment of the Constitution will be necessary to introduce these changes in the system. Meanwhile, we can save democracy to some extent if voters apply their mind to the following aspects before casting their vote during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections:

Expertise required to win an election is different from that needed for good governance. Moreover, while the former needs capacity only for one hectic effort, the latter needs capacity for sustained efforts for many years. Another aspect is that politicians who help to win elections by mesmerizing voters by their oratory and false promises are unlikely to be effective in governance. The above lacunae explain why experts in winning elections have often failed even to make good use of a reasonably good administration system to provide good governance. An efficient voter has to watch out to prevent being duped by experts in winning elections. They should demand for facts about their capacity for good governance and merely blaming others and hate speeches should be considered as disqualifications.

All voters interested in saving democracy should use the NOTA option during the coming Lok Sabha elections as told by the anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare “if they did not find a right candidate with character and clean image”(The Hindu dated 18-03-14). They should insist on fresh elections after excluding all present candidates who have been rejected by majority of voters by NOTA option. Those who want to save democracy should not only consciously use NOTA option in the coming Lok Sabha elections but also educate and motivate others to do so. During the coming election, a responsible voter should reject even right candidates if they belong to a political party which is observed to  be giving money incentives or has sponsored candidates with criminal background elsewhere. This is very important because, after election, even these “right persons” will be forced to support party interests at the cost of peoples’ interests, for example give support to the party in not punishing those who are corrupt or have misused their power to help vested interests.

Comments (especially those which point out errors or deficiencies, if any, in this article and thereby help to improve it) and other suggestions to overcome this obstacle are welcome. Please send these to StartRemovingBlocks@gmail.com. I shall make use of all befitting suggestions to prepare the last two articles of this series – Articled 23 will spell out the basic principles which will guide formulation of the reformed system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the reformed system of democracy for public debate to arrive at a consensus.