Chapter 3 Election And Representation

Introduction

Just like sports require rules and an impartial umpire for fair play, elections in a democratic country need established rules and an unbiased authority to conduct them. The system of election chosen significantly impacts the outcome. Since decisions about the fundamental rules and the impartial body for elections must be made before electoral politics begins, they cannot be left to any ruling government.

Therefore, these crucial decisions about how elections are conducted are embedded in the constitution of a democratic nation.

This chapter will explore the constitutional provisions related to elections and representation in India, focusing on the specific election method adopted, its significance, the constitutional framework for ensuring free and fair elections, and ongoing debates about potential reforms.

Elections And Democracy

Elections are fundamental to the functioning of a democracy, particularly in large countries where direct participation by all citizens in day-to-day decision-making is impractical. In such indirect democracies, citizens elect representatives who govern on their behalf. This makes elections the most visible aspect of the democratic process today.

In a system where elected representatives make major decisions, the method used to elect these representatives becomes extremely important. While citizens are indirectly involved by choosing their representatives, their role in policy-making and administration is limited compared to a direct democracy (like ancient Greek city-states or perhaps local Gram Sabhas).

However, it's important to note that not all elections are democratic. Many non-democratic regimes conduct elections to appear legitimate, but they manipulate the process to ensure their continued rule. Distinguishing a democratic election from a non-democratic one depends on specific rules and safeguards. A democratic constitution lays down basic rules to ensure elections are free and fair, and that the electoral outcome reflects the will of the people.

Basic constitutional rules about elections typically cover:

• Eligibility to vote.
• Eligibility to contest elections.
• Who supervises the elections?
• How voters choose representatives.
• How votes are counted and representatives determined.

The Indian Constitution provides answers to all these questions, focusing on both ensuring free and fair elections and achieving fair representation.

Election System In India

Different countries employ various methods or systems of conducting elections. While the general idea is that people vote and their preference determines the winner, the specific rules for casting and counting votes can differ significantly and impact the results. Different systems can favour large parties, small parties, majorities, or protect minorities.

First Past The Post System

India follows a unique electoral method known as the First Past the Post (FPTP) system, also referred to as the Plurality System. Under this system:

• The country is divided into 543 geographical areas called constituencies (Lok Sabha).
• Each constituency elects only one representative.
• The candidate who secures the highest number of votes in a constituency is declared the winner, regardless of whether they achieve a majority (50%+1) of the total votes polled.

This means a winning candidate can secure significantly less than 50% of the votes if the remaining votes are split among multiple losing candidates. Votes cast for losing candidates do not contribute to any representation for those candidates or their parties, potentially going 'waste'.

An example is the 1984 Lok Sabha elections where the Congress party won an overwhelming 415 out of 543 seats (over 80%), despite receiving only 48% of the national vote share. This disparity occurs because the party won many constituencies by securing the highest number of votes, even if it was not an absolute majority in those specific areas.

Votes and seats won by some major parties in Lok Sabha Election of 1984

Proportional Representation

In contrast to FPTP, the Proportional Representation (PR) system allocates seats to parties in the legislature strictly in proportion to the percentage of votes they receive nationally or in multi-member constituencies.

There are variations of the PR system:

• The entire country can be treated as a single constituency, and parties receive seats based on their nationwide vote share (e.g., Israel, Netherlands).
• The country can be divided into several multi-member constituencies, with parties getting seats in each constituency based on their vote share there (e.g., Argentina, Portugal).

In most PR systems, voters vote for a party rather than a specific candidate. Parties typically provide a list of candidates, and candidates are selected from these lists based on the party's seat allocation.

India uses a complex variation of the PR system, known as the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, but only for indirect elections, such as those for the President, Vice President, and members of the Rajya Sabha and State Legislative Councils (Vidhan Parishads).

Proportional Representation in Israel (2015 Knesset Election Example)

(Note: In Israel, parties need a minimum percentage of votes to be eligible for seats.)

How STV works in Rajya Sabha elections:

Members of the Rajya Sabha from each state are elected by the Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) of that state. Each state has a fixed quota of seats. The STV system is used:

• Voters (MLAs) rank candidates in order of preference (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.).
• A candidate needs a specific minimum quota of votes to be declared elected. The quota is calculated using the formula:

$ \text{Quota} = \left( \frac{\text{Total votes polled}}{\text{Total number of candidates to be elected} + 1} \right) + 1 $

• Votes are initially counted based on first preferences.
• If enough candidates meet the quota, they are elected.
• If not, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated, and their votes are transferred to the next preferred candidate marked on those ballots. This process continues until the required number of candidates achieve the quota.

Why Did India Adopt The Fptp System?

Given the complexity of the PR system, particularly STV, the framers of the Indian Constitution chose the FPTP system for direct elections (like Lok Sabha and State Assemblies) primarily due to its simplicity. It is easy for the vast majority of voters, even those without extensive political knowledge, to understand: the candidate with the most votes in their area wins.

Other reasons for favouring FPTP:

• Clear Choice and Accountability: FPTP allows voters to choose between specific candidates in their locality, not just parties. This makes the representative directly accountable to the voters of a particular constituency. In PR systems based on party lists, the link between a representative and a specific locality is often weaker.
• Stability of Government: In a parliamentary system, the executive needs majority support in the legislature to function effectively. The FPTP system tends to give the leading party or coalition a 'bonus' of seats beyond their vote share, making it easier to form a stable government, unlike PR systems which might lead to frequent coalitions due to fragmented representation based strictly on vote percentage.
• Suitability for Diversity: The framers believed that in a diverse country like India, the FPTP system would encourage candidates and parties to seek support across different social groups within a constituency to win. They feared that a PR system might encourage communities to form narrow, nation-wide parties based solely on caste or religion, potentially increasing social divisions.

India's experience with FPTP has largely validated the framers' expectations. It has proven simple for voters, helped larger parties gain clear majorities (though this has shifted to coalition dominance since 1989), and has generally discouraged parties based narrowly on single castes or communities from winning seats solely on that basis across multiple constituencies.

(This cartoon likely illustrates how the FPTP system can lead to a small representation for opposition parties, even if they receive a significant share of votes nationally, potentially making it difficult for them to challenge the ruling party effectively in the legislature.)

Comparison of FPTP and PR system of election

Reservation Of Constituencies

While the FPTP system has advantages, it can disadvantage smaller social groups, especially in a society with historical caste-based discrimination. Dominant groups could potentially win most seats, leaving oppressed groups underrepresented. The Constitution makers recognised this and sought a way to ensure fair representation for disadvantaged social groups.

Debates before independence included the idea of 'separate electorates', where only voters from a specific community would elect their representatives. This system was rejected by the Constituent Assembly due to fears it would deepen divisions. Instead, the system of Reserved Constituencies was adopted.

In a reserved constituency:

• All eligible voters residing in that constituency can cast their vote.
• However, only candidates belonging to the specific community or social section for which the seat is reserved are allowed to contest the election from that constituency.

This system ensures representation for groups that might be spread across the country and lack sufficient numbers in any single constituency to ensure a win under FPTP, but are a significant group nationally.

The Constitution provides for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. The number of reserved seats is proportionate to the population share of SCs and STs in India and within each state. Initially for 10 years, this provision has been extended through amendments and is currently in effect until 2030, subject to further extension by Parliament.

As of January 26, 2019, 84 out of 543 Lok Sabha seats were reserved for SCs, and 47 for STs.

The task of deciding which specific constituencies are to be reserved is carried out by an independent body called the Delimitation Commission. Appointed by the President of India, the Commission works with the Election Commission. Its role is to draw the boundaries of constituencies and, based on population data, fix the number of reserved seats in each state proportionate to the state's SC/ST population.

For STs, constituencies with the highest proportion of tribal population are reserved. For SCs, the Commission reserves constituencies with high SC population but also aims to spread these reserved constituencies across different regions of the state, as SC population is generally distributed more evenly.

These reserved constituencies can be rotated in subsequent delimitation exercises.

Currently, there is no constitutional provision for similar reservations for other disadvantaged groups. A strong demand exists for reserving one-third of seats in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies for women, given their low representation. While reservation for women has been implemented in rural and urban local bodies, extending it to Parliament and State Assemblies would require a constitutional amendment. Bills proposing this have been introduced but not yet passed.

Free And Fair Elections

The effectiveness of any election system hinges on its ability to guarantee a free and fair process, ensuring that voter aspirations are accurately reflected in the results. Apart from the election method, the Constitution addresses who can participate and who conducts the elections.

Universal Franchise And Right To Contest

Democratic elections are based on the principle of universal adult franchise, meaning all adult citizens have the right to vote. India's Constitution guarantees this right to every adult citizen. Initially, the adult age was 21, but a constitutional amendment in 1989 lowered it to 18.

Granting voting rights to all adults, irrespective of education, wealth, or social background, was a significant democratic step rooted in the framers' belief in the equal worth and capability of all citizens to make political choices. This aligns with the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Similarly, the Constitution grants all citizens the right to contest elections and become representatives. While there are minimum age requirements (e.g., 25 for Lok Sabha/Assembly) and some legal disqualifications (e.g., imprisonment for two or more years), there are no restrictions based on income, education, social class, or gender, making the system broadly accessible.

(This cartoon likely uses the image of an elephant to represent universal adult franchise – perhaps suggesting its immense size, power, or even complexity from different perspectives. It could imply the scale and potential impact of granting voting rights to the vast adult population.)

Independent Election Commission

A cornerstone of free and fair elections in India is the establishment of an independent Election Commission (EC). Many countries lack such a neutral body.

Article 324 of the Constitution vests the power of "superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral roll and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and State Legislatures and to the offices of President and Vice-President" in the Election Commission. This grants the EC significant authority over the entire electoral process.

The Election Commission of India is supported by Chief Electoral Officers in each state. It is important to note that the EC is not responsible for local body elections; State Election Commissioners handle these independently.

The ECI can be a single or multi-member body. It functioned as a single-member body until 1989, became multi-member briefly, reverted, and has been multi-member (with a Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners) since 1993. Initially, there were disagreements about the powers within the multi-member body, settled by the Supreme Court. Now, a multi-member structure is generally preferred for shared power and accountability.

The CEC and other Election Commissioners have equal powers in decision-making and act as a collective body. They are appointed by the President on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Concerns about potential partisan appointments have led to suggestions for including the Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice of India in the appointment process.

The Constitution ensures the security of tenure for the CEC and Election Commissioners. They serve for six years or until age 65, whichever is earlier. The CEC can only be removed by the President based on a recommendation passed by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament, a safeguard against removal by a ruling party seeking favour.

The wide range of functions of the Election Commission include:

• Updating and maintaining accurate voters' lists.
• Determining election dates and preparing the detailed election schedule (notification, nominations, scrutiny, withdrawal, polling, counting).
• Ensuring a free and fair poll by taking necessary decisions, including postponing or cancelling elections in case of a vitiated atmosphere.
• Implementing a model code of conduct for parties and candidates.
• Ordering re-polls in specific areas or recounts of votes if fairness is in doubt.
• Granting recognition to political parties and allocating them symbols.

While the EC has limited permanent staff, it uses the government's administrative machinery for election work. During the election period, the EC has full control over administrative officers assigned to election duty, with powers to transfer them or take action for non-partisan conduct.

Over the decades, the Election Commission of India has grown in independence and assertiveness, effectively using its constitutional powers to ensure fairness and protect the integrity of the electoral process. This evolution demonstrates that institutional effectiveness can improve even without formal changes to powers or constitutional protection, simply by assertively utilising existing authority.

(This cartoon likely shows a politician looking scared or apprehensive of the Election Commission, symbolising the EC's growing authority and power to enforce rules impartially, which might be unwelcome to political actors seeking to manipulate the process. This suggests the EC's independence is seen as a positive force for democracy.)

Special majority

A special majority is a voting requirement that is stricter than a simple majority. It typically involves two conditions:

1. A majority of the total membership of the House (i.e., more than 50% of the total strength).
2. A majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.

For example, if a class has 57 students total, and 51 are present for a vote with 50 voting, a simple majority would be 26 (more than half of 50). However, a special majority would require:

• More than half of the total strength: $> 57/2 = 28.5 \implies 29$ votes.
• Two-thirds of those present and voting: $> (2/3) \times 50 = 33.33 \implies 34$ votes.

To pass the resolution with a special majority, the number of votes in favour must satisfy *both* conditions. In this specific scenario, 34 votes would be required.

Electoral Reforms

No election system is flawless, and every democratic society must continuously seek ways to improve its electoral process to ensure maximum freedom and fairness. While India has implemented key measures like universal adult suffrage, the right to contest, and an independent EC, the practical experience has led to numerous suggestions for electoral reforms.

Proposals for reform have come from the Election Commission, political parties, NGOs, and scholars. Some suggestions involve amending the constitutional provisions:

• Considering a shift from the FPTP system to a variant of the PR system to ensure a more proportionate allocation of seats based on vote share.
• Introducing a specific provision to reserve at least one-third of seats in Parliament and State Assemblies for women.
• Implementing stricter rules to control the influence of money in elections, potentially through state funding of election expenses.
• Disqualifying candidates with serious criminal cases from contesting, even if their appeals are pending.
• Enforcing a complete ban on appeals to caste or religion during election campaigns.
• Enacting laws to regulate the internal functioning of political parties to ensure transparency and democracy within them.

These are just some proposed reforms, and there is often no universal agreement on them. Furthermore, legal and formal changes alone have limitations. For elections to be truly free and fair, candidates, parties, and all involved must adhere to the principles of democratic competition in spirit.

Beyond legal measures, ensuring fair elections requires active participation from citizens and the development of political institutions and voluntary organisations that can serve as watchdogs monitoring the election process.

(This cartoon likely highlights the ethical dilemma and public concern surrounding individuals accused or convicted of serious crimes participating in elections, prompting questions about integrity in politics and the need for electoral reforms.)

Conclusion

For representative democracies, the nature of elections and the representativeness of elected bodies are critical for making democracy effective and trustworthy. India's election system has achieved considerable success, evident from several factors:

• It has enabled voters to freely choose and peacefully change governments at both state and national levels.
• Voters show consistent and growing interest and participation in the electoral process, with an increasing number of candidates and parties contesting.
• The system has proven relatively accommodative and inclusive, gradually leading to a more diverse social representation in legislatures, although women's representation still needs improvement.
• Election outcomes are generally accepted as legitimate, with instances of malpractices or rigging rarely impacting the final result significantly, despite reported attempts.
• Most importantly, elections are deeply integrated into India's democratic life. It is inconceivable for a government to disregard an election verdict or form without holding elections. The regular and periodic nature of elections is a hallmark of India's democratic experiment.

These factors have earned India's election system respect domestically and internationally. Voters have gained confidence in the process, and the legitimacy of the Election Commission has increased in the public eye, validating the foundational decisions made by the Constitution framers. Continuous efforts to improve the process further will empower voters and enhance the meaning of this democratic exercise.

National Voters’ Day (NVD) Pledge

A pledge taken by Indian citizens on National Voters' Day (January 25th) affirming faith in democracy and committing to uphold free, fair, and peaceful elections by voting fearlessly, uninfluenced by factors like religion, race, caste, community, language, or inducements.

Exercises

As per instructions, the content of the exercises is not included, only the section heading structure is provided.