India: A flawed democracy?

Mr Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State for External Affairs, has stated that Pakis
tan is in no danger of collapsing. We cannot say how important it is for Pakista
n to get such a certificate from a junior minister in India, but the minister wo
uld do well to enquire into India's stability.
BREAKAWAY TRENDS
In the recent past, we have seen Maharashtrian politicians disturbing selection
tests for the Indian Railways, because non-Maharashtrians were allowed to write
those tests. Some of them have gone to the extent of chastising a respected Indi
an cricketer for affirming that he is an Indian.
More recently, we had a ruckus over who should be the Chief Minister of Andhra P
radesh. Now, the state stands divided and the Centre has agreed to create Teleng
ana in a midnight coup. There are disturbances in West Bengal with the Oppositio
n Party in the state behaving without restraint. Culprits of the demolition of B
abri Masjid have not been found after 17 years.
The disturbances in Gujarat and the politics of Karnataka do not inspire confide
nce. We are beset with Naxal violence in large parts of the country. Looking at
all these uncured or incurable sores, we may wonder how far India is safe.
RE-LOOK AT CONSTITUTION
The National Election Watch releases the assets and the crimes against the names
of our candidates. However, our Constitution has been so interpreted that they
cannot be prevented from contesting. At the rate at which such candidates are in
creasing, most of our legislators will be those with dubious reputations.
Admittedly, such ills have beset many democratic countries in their formative ye
ars. They can prove a cancer which is deceptively painless in the beginning and
can become fatal if not attended to promptly. What are we doing about this?
It is accepted that corruption has expanded, particularly in the past few years.
Although many people swear by the holiness of the Indian Constitution, one wond
ers whether the problem actually begins from there. For a start, those who enter
Parliament (and the state legislators) command less than 20 per cent of the ele
ctorate and certainly less than half the votes cast in the elections. Hence, our
Constitution negates the wishes of more than half the votes cast, and possibly
disempowers a vast majority of the electorate.
Defenders of the Constitution will argue that the system offers stability and ha
s worked well in countries like the UK and the US. Regrettably, the parallel is
not exact. When a Governor dies in the US, neither the party nor the President h
as any say in who the successor will be. In contrast, almost without exception,
in India, all political parties are the private property of some family or the o
ther. It is the family that decides, directly or indirectly, what happens at eve
n the lowest rungs of the party. It is doubtful how long our parties will contin
ue to exist if members of the controlling family start quarrelling among themsel
ves. At the other extreme, we have nearly a thousand political parties in India.
I am told there is a business family in Delhi which has constituted itself into
a party and fields a candidate in every election. At the end, it submits an exp
enditure statement of nil â not having canvassed nor contested. Yet, it makes a de
cent profit from the amenities the Election Commission offers all candidates.
Can we then entrust the future of our country to a monarchical or commercial sys
tem of this nature? Should we not take a look at our Constitution or at least re
design our laws to make our politics more de facto democratic?
POLITICAL REFORMS
Suppose we were to change the law concerning the candidates who lose their depos
its. At present, these deposits are pitifully small; they encourage many people
to get some publicity by putting up their names. Should not the candidate who lo
ses his deposit be committed to repay in full the cost of the facilities the Ele
ction Commission offers them, plus a nominal service charge of, say 20 per cent?
Critics will argue that contesting elections is a fundamental right. On the oth
er hand, we have, currently, tens of useless and insincere candidates. They can
at least reject any help provided by the Election Commission and save themselves
the risk of repaying them.
Next, how about a law that insists that every political party must have an inter
nal democratic constitution? Here, the culprit was Gandhiji himself. Whenever th
e Congress Working Committee could not agree on a candidate, it would let Gandhi
ji decide; it never left to inner party democracy. I wonder how our parties will
look if they were constrained to practice the democracy which they so vehementl
y recommend for the country as a whole.
Corruption has proliferated because our police system deliberately undermines th
e prosecution of members of powerful families. Even at the time of writing this
article, there is the case of a Goan politician who is trying to escape prosecut
ion for such a heinous offence as rape.
Hence, I return to two suggestions I had made earlier. One, all legislators shou
ld be ex-officio public prosecutors and they will be free to utilise the funds t
hey get under the MPLADS scheme for that purpose. Two, the candidate who comes s
econd will also be a public prosecutor. (He should also get, say, half the funds
the winner gets for the purpose.) The ensuing competition between the winner an
d the second in the race should purify our politics to a great extent. These cha
nges, and the one concerning the penalty for forfeiting the deposit, can be made
without amending the Constitution.
The high cost of elections, and the miserably low limits that the law sets for r
unning for elections are major contributors to political corruption. In a meetin
g recently, a senior retired bureaucrat explained how when Assam was first divid
ed, tribal politicians were so honest that they would not ask even the smallest
favours. Now, the North-Eastern Region is next to none in corruption.
FUNDING ELECTIONS
The time has come for ordinary voters to pressurise politicians to accept public
funding of elections. The state can bear the full cost of canvassing in the cas
e of all serious candidates who are willing to return the cost of the facilities
given them in case they lose their deposits. Such candidates will be few, very
few; the state can meet all their legitimate needs. Critics will argue that stat
e funding will only increase the resources available to corrupt candidates. They
forget that, on the margin, the value of additional money decreases. In any cas
e, serious and sincere candidates will be freed from the dependence they now hav
e on unaccounted money.
The fact remains that eternal vigilance is the price we have to pay for liberty.
Are we paying enough?