In recently declared assembly election results of Uttar Pradesh, asymmetry between voting percentage and number of seats won has once again demonstrated short- falls of first past the post system, and generated a debate among section of intellectuals on switching to system of proportional representation. The stark contrast between vote percentage and seats garnered is a common phenomenon in post-independent India and people have always accepted results based on this system. At least, any grievances towards this system has not been manifested anywhere through people’s/organization’s actions. In this context, it is worth asking, how desirable it is to indulge in this debate when there is no such demand from people or section of people. Proportional representation, in Indian context, could prove to be more disastrous than the first past the post system for various reasons.
First, it could be a recipe for permanent political instability as no party would get majority on its own, for sure. But, isn’t it already the case at the Centre since 1989? Then, in the proportional representation, system could be designed in such a way that top two parties in each state would be benefitted with majority of the seats, while parties with little percentage of votes would not earn anything. Unless a party wins more than 6 or 8 percentage of votes in a state, it won’t be awarded with a seat. Such system does exist in many countries that have opted for proportional representation. However, isn’t it against the very principle of fair representation to all for which the said switchover is being advocated?
Second, the proportional representation system, in a country like India, may further divide the society on caste and communal lines with party formations and organizations taking place entirely on caste and communal orders. It is true that existing system has failed to adequately represent people from across the communities for fairly long time. But, the trends in last 20 years indicate that, even without reservations, numerically vast but socially marginalized communities like the OBCs, have substantially increased their representation at state and national level. In Uttar Pradesh, Muslim representation is also on the rise in the state assembly. So, what is the need for switchover? On the contrary, presently the mainstream political parties, Congress, BJP and the Left, is constantly under pressure to provide fair representation in their party organizations and seat distribution to socially marginalized sections. This pressure might be diluted once party list-based representation comes into play.
Third, and in continuation of the earlier point, all the major parties are poised between people gaining position due to their closeness to their respective high-commands and people have mass support in their constituencies. The proportional representation will shift this balance entirely against the latter. This implies to all political formations ranging from the Left to BSP to Congress to BJP. How desirous this would be?
Fourth, if switchover is in discussion, feasibility of adopting any of the other electoral systems would rightly come into discussion. For example, the preferential voting system. It would be an elite perception to think that ordinary, and illiterate, people won’t understand the preferential voting system. So, any arguments against, and for, preferential voting system should go beyond this point.
First, it could be a recipe for permanent political instability as no party would get majority on its own, for sure. But, isn’t it already the case at the Centre since 1989? Then, in the proportional representation, system could be designed in such a way that top two parties in each state would be benefitted with majority of the seats, while parties with little percentage of votes would not earn anything. Unless a party wins more than 6 or 8 percentage of votes in a state, it won’t be awarded with a seat. Such system does exist in many countries that have opted for proportional representation. However, isn’t it against the very principle of fair representation to all for which the said switchover is being advocated?
Second, the proportional representation system, in a country like India, may further divide the society on caste and communal lines with party formations and organizations taking place entirely on caste and communal orders. It is true that existing system has failed to adequately represent people from across the communities for fairly long time. But, the trends in last 20 years indicate that, even without reservations, numerically vast but socially marginalized communities like the OBCs, have substantially increased their representation at state and national level. In Uttar Pradesh, Muslim representation is also on the rise in the state assembly. So, what is the need for switchover? On the contrary, presently the mainstream political parties, Congress, BJP and the Left, is constantly under pressure to provide fair representation in their party organizations and seat distribution to socially marginalized sections. This pressure might be diluted once party list-based representation comes into play.
Third, and in continuation of the earlier point, all the major parties are poised between people gaining position due to their closeness to their respective high-commands and people have mass support in their constituencies. The proportional representation will shift this balance entirely against the latter. This implies to all political formations ranging from the Left to BSP to Congress to BJP. How desirous this would be?
Fourth, if switchover is in discussion, feasibility of adopting any of the other electoral systems would rightly come into discussion. For example, the preferential voting system. It would be an elite perception to think that ordinary, and illiterate, people won’t understand the preferential voting system. So, any arguments against, and for, preferential voting system should go beyond this point.
No comments:
Post a Comment