Chapter 3 Election And Representation

Like in any game, elections need rules and an impartial authority to ensure fair play and that the outcome is accepted by all participants. The method of conducting elections and the rules adopted significantly influence the results. In a democratic country, fundamental decisions about the election system and the impartial machinery to conduct elections are typically laid down in the constitution, as they are too important to be left to any particular government or party. This chapter explores the constitutional provisions in India regarding elections and representation.

It will examine different methods of election, the specific system adopted in India, the importance of provisions for free and fair elections, and ongoing debates about electoral reforms. After reading this chapter, you will understand different election methods (like FPTP and PR), the characteristics of India's system, the need for free and fair elections, and the discussion on electoral reforms.

Elections And Democracy

Two fundamental questions link elections and democracy:

1. Can we have democracy without holding elections?
2. Can we hold elections without having democracy?

The first question highlights the necessity of representation in large democracies. Direct participation by all citizens in every decision is impractical for millions of people. Therefore, representatives are elected by the people to make decisions and govern. Elections are the primary method for choosing these representatives, making them a highly visible symbol of democracy. In representative democracies like India, citizens have an indirect role in governance through their elected representatives. The process of electing these representatives is thus crucial.

The second question reminds us that not all elections are necessarily democratic. Non-democratic regimes may hold elections to project a democratic image, but these elections are often manipulated to ensure the ruling power is not threatened. The key distinction lies in whether elections are genuinely free and fair and allow voters to choose their representatives and influence government, or if they are merely staged to legitimize existing power.

To ensure democratic elections, a country's constitution usually lays down basic rules about who is eligible to vote, who can contest elections, who supervises elections, how voters choose representatives, and how votes are counted and representatives elected. These constitutional rules are fundamental and typically cannot be easily changed, unlike ordinary laws.

The Indian Constitution addresses these questions, outlining the basic framework for elections to ensure they are free and fair and provide for fair representation. The first three questions concern ensuring democratic elections, while the last two concern ensuring fair representation.

R.K. Laxman's cartoon depicts a chaotic election scene, prompting reflection on whether this is always true of elections and if it is beneficial for democracy. While campaigns can be lively, democratic elections aim for an orderly process reflecting the voters' will.

---

Election System In India

India, like other democracies, has specific methods and systems for conducting elections. The system involves rules, procedures, and authorities to ensure elections are orderly and legitimate. While it might seem obvious that the candidate with the most votes wins, there are different ways votes can be counted and preferences expressed, and these rules can significantly impact who gets elected and which parties gain power. Different systems can favor larger parties, smaller parties, or particular communities.

First Past The Post System

India follows a system called First Past the Post (FPTP), also known as the Plurality System. Under this system, the country is divided into 543 geographical areas called constituencies. Each constituency elects only one representative.

The core rule of FPTP is that the candidate who secures the highest number of votes in a particular constituency is declared elected. It is important to note that the winning candidate does not need to secure a majority of the total votes polled (more than 50%). They simply need more votes than any other single candidate in that constituency.

This system can lead to situations where a party wins a much larger share of seats than its share of the popular vote across the country. The example of the 1984 Lok Sabha elections shows the Congress party winning over 80% of seats with only 48% of the votes, while other parties with significant vote shares got very few seats. This happens because in many constituencies, candidates win with less than 50% of votes, and votes cast for losing candidates essentially do not contribute to a party's seat tally.

Newspaper clipping reporting on the results of the 1984 Lok Sabha elections, highlighting the significant seat victory of the Congress party.

Table illustrating votes and seats in 1984 Lok Sabha Election:

This outcome, where a party can get a large majority of seats with less than half the votes, might seem unfair, but it is a direct consequence of the FPTP system's rules.

Proportional Representation

In contrast to FPTP, the Proportional Representation (PR) system aims to allocate seats in the legislature to parties in proportion to their share of the total votes polled. This system ensures that a party's representation in parliament closely reflects its overall support among the electorate.

There are variations of the PR system:

• In some countries (e.g., Israel, Netherlands), the entire country is treated as a single constituency. Voters vote for parties, and seats in the national parliament are allocated to each party based on its percentage of the total national vote. Parties fill their allocated seats from a list of candidates they declared before the election. This system allows even smaller parties with modest support to gain representation.
• In other PR systems (e.g., Argentina, Portugal), the country is divided into several multi-member constituencies. Each constituency elects more than one representative. Parties prepare lists of candidates for each constituency, and seats are allocated based on the votes polled by each party within that constituency. Voters typically vote for a party list rather than individual candidates. Consequently, representatives from a single constituency may belong to different parties.

In PR systems, the winning candidates are those who receive a majority of votes (within their party's list or the party's overall share), whereas in FPTP, a candidate can win with just a plurality (more votes than others, but less than 50%). India uses a limited form of PR for indirect elections (President, Vice President, Rajya Sabha, Vidhan Parishads), not for direct elections to the Lok Sabha or State Assemblies.

Comparison of FPTP and PR systems:

How Does Pr Work In Rajya Sabha Elections

India uses a third and complex variant of PR, the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, for electing members to the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and State Legislative Councils. Each State has a fixed quota of Rajya Sabha seats. The electors for these seats are the Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) of that State. Voting is indirect.

In the STV system, voters (MLAs) rank candidates according to their preference (1st choice, 2nd choice, etc.). To win, a candidate needs to secure a minimum quota of votes. This quota is calculated using a formula that considers the total votes polled and the number of candidates to be elected from that constituency (State).

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

Example: If 4 Rajya Sabha members are to be elected by 200 MLAs in Rajasthan, the quota is $(\frac{200}{4+1}) + 1 = (\frac{200}{5}) + 1 = 40 + 1 = 41$ votes.

Vote counting involves first tallying the first preference votes for each candidate. If enough candidates reach the quota based on first preferences, they are declared elected. If not, the candidate with the fewest first preference votes is eliminated, and their votes are transferred to the candidates marked as second preference on those ballots. This process of elimination and vote transfer continues until the required number of candidates secure the quota and are declared elected. This complex system is used for elections where a high degree of proportionality is desired, but it is less suitable for large-scale direct elections involving millions of voters.

Why Did India Adopt The Fptp System?

India's decision to adopt the FPTP system for direct elections (Lok Sabha, State Assemblies), despite its potential for disproportionate representation, was based on several considerations:

• Simplicity: The FPTP system is extremely simple for ordinary voters to understand. Voters mark their preference for a candidate, and the one with the most votes wins in that constituency. This ease of understanding was crucial in a vast country with low literacy rates at the time of independence.
• Clear Choice: FPTP offers voters a clear choice between specific candidates representing their locality, not just party lists. Voters know who their representative is and can hold them accountable for local issues.
• Stable Government: The makers of the Constitution believed that the FPTP system was more likely to produce a clear majority for the largest party or coalition, which is essential for providing stable parliamentary government. PR systems, by allocating seats strictly proportionally, often lead to coalition governments, which can sometimes be less stable, especially in multi-party systems. FPTP tends to give the leading party a 'bonus' of seats beyond its vote share, facilitating stable governments.
• Promoting Integration: In a diverse country like India, the FPTP system encourages candidates and parties to seek support from different social groups in a locality to win elections. This promotes voters from diverse backgrounds to come together, fostering integration. PR, with its focus on party vote share, might encourage parties to primarily appeal to specific social groups or communities to secure their proportional representation, potentially reinforcing social divisions. The Constitution makers might have favored FPTP as a way to counter the potential for fragmentation along social lines.

The experience of FPTP in India has largely validated some of these expectations. It has been simple for voters and has often produced clear majorities for parties at both central and state levels, contributing to governmental stability. It has also discouraged parties based solely on one caste or community. However, unlike the typical two-party outcome of FPTP systems in some countries, India initially saw a period of one-party dominance (Congress) followed by the rise of multi-party coalitions after 1989. The coalition era has shown that new and smaller parties can gain influence despite the FPTP system. The increasing role of the Election Commission in ensuring free and fair elections has also been crucial in the success of the system.

A political cartoon by Shankar, illustrating ruling party members leaning over to listen to a small, distant opposition, suggesting the effect of an electoral system where the winning party has a disproportionately large majority.

This cartoon reflects the outcome where the largest party gets significantly more seats than others, characteristic of the FPTP system, making the opposition appear numerically small.

Table showing results of Tamil Nadu Assembly Election 2016 is provided for an activity to compare FPTP outcome with hypothetical PR outcome.

*Hypothetical PR seats are approximate based on vote percentage * 234 total seats.

Reservation Of Constituencies

The FPTP system can disadvantage smaller social groups because a scattered population may not be able to elect a candidate in any single constituency. In the Indian context, with a history of caste-based discrimination, the FPTP system could allow dominant groups to consistently win, leaving oppressed groups unrepresented. Recognizing this, the Constitution makers included provisions for reserved constituencies to ensure fair representation for oppressed social groups.

Historically, the British had introduced 'separate electorates', where only voters from a particular community could vote for a representative from that community. This system was rejected by the Constituent Assembly as it could reinforce community divisions. Instead, the system of reserved constituencies was adopted. In this system, all eligible voters in a constituency vote, but only a candidate belonging to a specific community or social section (for which the seat is reserved) can contest the election from that constituency.

The Constitution provides for the reservation of seats in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). Initially for 10 years, this provision has been extended through amendments. The number of reserved seats is proportional to the population share of SCs and STs in India. As of January 2019, 84 seats in the Lok Sabha were reserved for SCs and 47 for STs (out of 543 elected seats).

The decision on which constituencies are reserved is made by an independent body called the Delimitation Commission, appointed by the President in collaboration with the Election Commission. The Commission fixes the quota of reserved constituencies in each state based on the SC/ST population proportion. Constituencies with the highest proportion of ST population are reserved for STs. For SCs, constituencies with a high proportion of SC population are selected, and these are spread across different regions of the state. Reserved constituencies can be rotated in subsequent delimitation exercises.

The Constitution does not mandate reservation for other disadvantaged groups, although there has been a strong demand for reserving one-third of seats in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies for women. While reservation for women exists in rural and urban local bodies, a similar provision for higher legislative bodies would require a constitutional amendment, which has been proposed but not yet passed.

Jaipal Singh's quote from the Constituent Assembly debates highlights the historical underrepresentation of Adivasis (tribal people) and their support for reserved seats (not separate electorates) as a means to ensure their voice in legislatures.

Tajamul Husain's quote strongly condemns separate electorates as harmful and divisive, advocating for the merging of communities into the nation, opposing reservations for Muslims.

Free And Fair Elections

The effectiveness of any election system lies in its ability to ensure a free and fair process that reflects the voters' aspirations and translates democratic principles into reality. Ensuring impartiality and transparency is crucial.

Universal Franchise And Right To Contest

Democratic elections require that all adult citizens are eligible to vote. India adopted universal adult franchise, granting the right to vote to every adult citizen irrespective of religion, caste, education, gender, or income. Initially, the age was 21, later reduced to 18 in 1989. This ensures broad participation and aligns with the principle of equality. While some doubted the wisdom of universal suffrage without educational qualifications, the Constitution makers trusted the ability and worth of all adult citizens. Similarly, all citizens have the right to contest elections and become representatives, with only minimum age requirements (25 for Lok Sabha/Assembly) and certain disqualifications (e.g., imprisonment for 2+ years), ensuring broad openness to citizens regardless of income, education, class, or gender.

The cartoon of the elephant labeled "Universal adult suffrage" suggests the magnitude and potential unmanageability of including all adults as voters, but also perhaps the idea that this vast electorate is the essential body of Indian democracy, understood in different ways by different people.

A political cartoon by Shankar, depicting an elephant labeled 'Universal adult suffrage', symbolizing the vast size and significance of the electorate in India's democracy.

The question "Am I or am I not an adult?" reflects the feeling of being denied voting rights based on age (e.g., being old enough for driving but not voting), raising issues of consistent criteria for adult status and participation in law-making.

Independent Election Commission

A key measure to ensure free and fair elections in India is the establishment of an independent Election Commission (EC). Article 324 of the Constitution vests the EC with the power of 'superintendence, direction and control of the electoral roll and the conduct of elections' for Parliament, State Legislatures, President, and Vice-President. This gives the EC a decisive role in virtually all election-related matters.

The EC works with Chief Electoral Officers in each state but is independent of the State Election Commissioners responsible for local body elections. The EC can be a single or multi-member body. It was single-member until 1989, became multi-member just before the 1989 elections, reverted briefly to single, and has been multi-member since 1993. A multi-member Commission is generally preferred for shared power and accountability. The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (currently two) have equal decision-making powers.

They are appointed by the President on the Council of Ministers' advice. Concerns about potential partisan appointments have led to suggestions for including the Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice of India in the appointment process for the CEC and Election Commissioners. The Constitution ensures their security of tenure (6 years or up to 65 years). The CEC can only be removed by the President based on a recommendation from Parliament passed with a special majority, preventing removal by a ruling party seeking favor. Election Commissioners can be removed by the President.

The EC performs a wide range of functions:

• Supervising preparation and updating of voter lists (electoral rolls).
• Determining election schedules and timing.
• Ensuring free and fair polls, with power to postpone/cancel elections if the atmosphere is vitiated.
• Implementing a model code of conduct for parties and candidates.
• Ordering re-polls or recounts if necessary.
• Granting recognition to political parties and allotting symbols.

The EC relies on administrative machinery for conducting elections but gains full control over officials assigned to election duties during the election period, including power to transfer officers or take action against non-partisan conduct. Over the years, the EC has become more independent and assertive, effectively using its constitutional powers to ensure fairness, earning respect within and outside India. This assertiveness stems from utilizing existing powers, not increased constitutional protection, demonstrating institutional effectiveness.

The EC has successfully conducted numerous Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections, even in difficult situations (militancy-affected areas, assassinations, delays due to violence). Its decisions, like postponing elections in Gujarat in 2002 due to violence, have been upheld by the Supreme Court, validating its authority and commitment to free and fair elections.

The cartoon of Netaji being afraid of the EC suggests that political leaders, even powerful ones, now respect or fear the authority and impartiality of the Election Commission. This indicates that the EC has successfully established its credibility and power to enforce rules, which is considered good for strengthening democracy by ensuring fair competition.

A political cartoon by R.K. Laxman, showing a political leader (Netaji) expressing fear or apprehension towards the Election Commission, suggesting the EC's increased authority and impact on political actors.

Special Majority

A special majority in the Indian Parliament is required for certain important decisions, such as amending the Constitution or removing the Chief Election Commissioner. It means a majority greater than a simple majority. Specifically, it requires:

• Approval by two-thirds majority of the members present and voting in each House of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha).
• This two-thirds majority must also constitute a simple majority (more than 50%) of the total membership of that House.

Example: In a class of 57 students, if 51 are present and 50 vote, a simple majority is 26. But for a special majority, the resolution needs $\frac{2}{3}$ of those present and voting (which is $\frac{2}{3}$ of 50 $\approx 33.33$, so 34 votes), and this number (34) must also be more than half of the total class strength (57/2 = 28.5, so 29). Thus, 34 votes would constitute a special majority in this scenario.

The special majority requirement is designed to ensure that major constitutional provisions or the removal of key independent officials require broad consensus and support, not just a simple majority of those voting at a particular time.

Electoral Reforms

No election system is perfect, and the actual process often has flaws. Continuous efforts are needed to make elections as free and fair as possible. India has taken steps towards this through universal adult suffrage, the right to contest elections, and the independent EC. However, based on decades of experience, many suggestions for electoral reform have been proposed by the EC, parties, groups, and scholars to address existing limitations.

Some key suggestions for reforming India's election system:

• Changing from the FPTP system to a variant of the PR system to ensure better proportionality between votes and seats for parties.
• Implementing special provisions for reserving at least one-third of seats for women in Parliament and State Assemblies (a proposal already made but not yet passed).
• Introducing stricter regulations to control the influence of money in electoral politics, possibly through state funding of election expenses for candidates/parties.
• Barring candidates with criminal cases from contesting elections, even if their appeal is pending.
• Imposing a complete ban on appeals based on caste or religion during campaigning.
• Enacting laws to regulate the functioning of political parties, ensuring transparency and democratic internal processes.

These are just a few examples. There is no universal consensus on all suggested reforms. Furthermore, the effectiveness of legal and formal changes is limited; free and fair elections ultimately depend on the willingness of candidates, parties, and participants to adhere to the spirit of democratic competition and abide by the rules. Beyond legal reforms, active vigilance and participation by citizens, political institutions, and voluntary organizations are essential for ensuring free and fair elections, acting as watchdogs over the process.

The cartoon raises the question of whether changing laws can effectively reduce the influence of money and muscle power in politics. It implies skepticism, suggesting that changes in reality might be harder to achieve than changes on paper.

A political cartoon by R.K. Laxman, suggesting that changing laws might not be sufficient to eliminate deep-seated problems like the influence of money and muscle power in politics, implying that real change requires more than just legal reform.

The cartoon questioning whether a person accused of a serious crime should be barred from contesting elections highlights the debate between individual rights (right to contest) and the need to maintain the integrity of the democratic process and prevent criminalization of politics.

A political cartoon by R.K. Laxman, asking if individuals accused of serious crimes should be prevented from contesting elections, raising questions about the integrity of the electoral process and the right to contest.

Conclusion

India's election system, while not perfect, has proven largely successful in making democracy effective and trustworthy. Its success is evident in several factors:

• It has enabled voters to freely choose and change governments peacefully at state and national levels.
• Voters consistently show keen interest and high participation in the election process.
• The system has been accommodative and inclusive, leading to a gradual diversification of representatives' social composition, although women's representation still lags.
• Election outcomes in most areas are generally free from widespread malpractice and rigging, despite attempts.
• Elections have become an integral and respected part of India's democratic life; formation of governments without elections is unimaginable, and election verdicts are respected.

The regularity and periodicity of elections have solidified India's reputation as a successful democratic experiment. The system has earned respect both domestically and internationally, increasing voter confidence and the legitimacy of the Election Commission. This success validates the basic decisions made by the Constitution makers regarding the election system. As the election process continues to improve, voter and citizen participation in this 'carnival of democracy' becomes more meaningful.

Exercises

Content for Exercises is excluded as per your instructions.