India is the largest and one of the most vibrant democracies
of the world. It is true that we have been able to run a democratic system for
more than 6 decades and we should be proud of it because very few developing
nations have actually been able to run a democratic system.
But in recent years unfortunately there has been a growing
feeling that the Indian Political System was not working very well. The entry
of criminal elements in politics, defections of legislators, communalisation of
politics, minuses of public office by persons in high positions and money power
in elections have made it clear that there are deep seated problems in many
sectors of Indian Parliamentary System. How and where did we fail? Does the
fault lie with the constitution itself or its implementation? A very suitable
answer is that it is mainly the political and electoral system, which has
completely derailed the social, economic and administrative fabric of the
country.
Now time has come to consider whether we were wrong in
adopting the present system of parliamentary democracy. Therefore, the only way
to remedy the present malady is to make the political system deliver the goods.
And it is not only the politicians who are to blame, but also we are all
responsible for the present state of affairs.
The prime need of the hour to bring holistic reforms in the
election process is to save the nation from the clutches of 3MPs i.e. money
power, muscle power and mafia power and 4cs i.e. communalism, casteism,
criminalization and corruption. However, to strike as the root of the problems
has been a vigorous debate on criminalization of politics and illegitimate use
of excessive and unaccounted money power in election. Several sensible and
practical suggestion have also been offered but all efforts at reform have been
stymied for want of parliamentary action as it is true that our political
parties and leaders, clamor for electoral reforms only just before the
elections, but as soon as they come to power they turn a deaf ear to them.
Even after 62 years of independence and 13 general election
to the Lok Sabha, we have not been able to make any meaningful reforms in our
electoral system. Are we really serious and honest about the free and fair
elections?
In recent times there have been many exercise aimed at
reforming the electoral system. In the last ten years, there have been several
exercise by the Government addressed to maintain the purity of elections and
particularly to bring about transparency in the process of election. The role
of Election Commission of India is praiseworthy and commendable in this
direction. The Election Commission over the years enhanced its credibility by
fair, fearless and impartial exercise of its constitutional authority in
cleansing the Indian electoral system.
In pursuance of the Supreme Court directions, the Election
Commission on 28 June 2002 in exercise of power of superintendence, direction
and control of elections of Parliament and State Legislatures, conferred on it
by Article 324 of the Constitution directed as follows:- (1) Every candidate at
the time of filling his nomination paper for any election to the council of
states, house of the people, Legislative Council of a State having such a
council shall furnish full and complete information regarding criminal record,
financial details and educational qualifications etc. as specified by the
Hon'ble court in an affidavit. (2) The said affidavit by each candidate shall
be duly sworn before a Magistrate of the First Class or a Notary Public or a
Commissioner of Oaths appointed by the High Court of the State Government (3)
Non-furnishing of the affidavit by any candidate shall be considered the
violation of the order of Supreme Court and the nomination shall be liable to
rejection by the returning officer at the time of scrutiny (4) Furnishing of
any wrong or incomplete information or suppression of any material information
by any candidate in or from the said affidavit may also result in the
rejection, apart from inviting penal consequences under the Indian Penal Code
of furnishing wrong information or suppression of material fact. (5) The
information so furnished by each candidate in the aforesaid affidavit shall be
disseminated by the respective returning officers by displaying a copy of of
the affidavit on the notice board of his office and also by making the copies
thereof available freely and liberally to all other candidates and the
representatives of the print and electronic media. (6) If any rival candidate
furnishes information to the contrary by mean of a duly sworn affidavit, then
such affidavit of the rival candidate shall also be disseminated along with the
affidavit of the candidate concerned.
To make the electoral process more fair, transparent Y
equitable and to reduce the distortions and evils that have crept into it, the
Supreme Court delivered the judgment of 13 March 2003 upholding Lok Satta's
contention that section 33B inserted in haste by an act of Parliament in the
representation of people Act 1951 violated the people's fundamental right to
know so that they can drive out criminals from the fray by using their right to
ballot. However, the key question is how long can we kept the criminals away
from the arena of elections? What steps should be taken to reduce the
criminals' entry into political parties? Nevertheless, the judgment has created
a ray of hope for better governance in India. Politicians should not resist the
voter's right to know but try and give it a meaning in a constructive way to
protect Parliamentary Democracy.
**********************************************************************************************
The scandals
and controversies that marked the 14th Lok Sabha and the recent events after
the general elections in India were announced, where smaller and regional
parties have held bigger parties to ransom over various issues like that of
seat-sharing, have once again highlighted the urgent need of electoral reforms
in India. Some of the recommendations given below have been widely discussed in
various forums and have found acceptability among various policy-making
organisations including the Election Commission of India. It is high time that they are implemented in the
earnest.
Abolish the first-past-the-post system: This has been amongst the most widely discussed electoral reforms in India. Multi-cornered contests have become a norm in India rather than an exception due to the increase in the number of smaller and regional parties. There have been cases in the state assembly elections where a candidate has been declared winner with the victory margin of less than 100 votes. Apart from this anomaly, in most cases, a candidate wins the election by securing just 30-35 per cent of the total number of votes polled. Hence he or she cannot be deemed to be a choice of majority of the electorate. To overcome this limitation, the first-past-the-post system should be replaced with a two-stage electoral process. In this, a second round of election will be held if none of the candidates in the fray is able to get 50 per cent of the total number of votes polled in the first round. The two candidates who have obtained the maximum number of votes in the first round will fight in the second round. Whoever between the two gets more than 51 per cent of the total votes polled in the second round is declared the winner.
Simultaneous elections for Union and state legislatures: Currently 3-4 states in India go for elections every year. This undermines the working of the union government as the regime in power cannot take tough decisions due to the fear of a backlash in the next round of assembly election. Hence simultaneous elections will not only ensure that governments at the centre and the states carry out their responsibilities in a smooth manner but also curtail unnecessary election expenditure. The arrangement of simultaneous elections can be extended to the elections for the municipal corporations and other Panchayati Raj institutions.
Fixed tenure of elected legislative bodies with no-confidence motion followed by a confidence motion: This is another move that will curtail the unnecessary election expenditure and at the same time ensure stable governments at the centre and in the states. In case none of the parties or coalition is able to form a government on its own, the members of the house should together elect an executive head among themselves and form a cabinet that has representation from members of all political parties on the basis of the number of seats they have secured in the elections.
Decrease number of registered parties: This move is necessary because the smaller parties are far more vulnerable to “ideological shifts” and in this era of fractured mandates, hold the bigger parties to ransom for their narrow political gains. The election commission should be given powers to de-recognise smaller political parties on the basis of their performance. Another move to achieve this goal would be to increase the minimum number of primary members that are needed to form a political party.
Increase the amount of security deposit: This move is necessary to put a check on the number of non-serious candidates contesting union and state assembly elections. Such a move has been taken in the past and has shown desired results. However in recent times, the number of candidates fighting elections has shown an increasing trend and hence there is a need to review the amount of security deposit.
Not allowing candidates to contest from more than one constituency in an election: This is necessary to curtail the unnecessary expenditure that election commission has to make when a candidate contests election from more than one constituency and wins from all the constituencies he has contested from. The bye-election that is necessitated by the candidate choosing one seat and vacating others seats he has contested from will no longer be needed.
Use of common electoral rolls in the union and state elections: This move will put a check on the cases of people finding their names missing in the electoral rolls. This happens because different lists are prepared by the Election Commission of India for general elections and the state election commissions for the elections of the state assemblies and local bodies. The effort and expenditure that is involved in making two lists for similar purpose will be greatly reduced.
Making false declarations in election affidavits an offence: This is necessary to ensure transparency about the profile of candidates contesting elections, many of whom have criminal cases going on against them on charges of heinous offence like kidnapping and murder. Anyone giving false information in the affidavits should be debarred from contesting elections for a minimum duration of five years.
Allowing negative/neutral voting: This will allow a voter to express his dissent by rejecting all the candidates contesting in his constituency if he finds none or them suitable to be elected. Currently a large number of people do not go to the polling booth because of their disenchantment with the candidates put up by the political parties. This is reflected in the falling poll percentages. Democracy in India will be strengthened if people participate in large numbers in the electoral process and have a choice to reject all the candidates instead of being forced to select one who they think is less bad than the others in the fray.
Ban on publication of exit/opinion polls results till voting is over for all phases: To ensure free and fair elections in India, the election commission holds them in different phases so that the available security staff is effectively deployed. Publishing the result of opinion poll on the earlier phases will have an impact on the voting pattern in the subsequent phases. Similarly, the opinion polls that are conducted before the election also influences the voting pattern. Hence there is a need to put a ban on the publication of the results of the exit/opinion polls conducted by various media agencies till all the phases of elections are over.
Abolish the first-past-the-post system: This has been amongst the most widely discussed electoral reforms in India. Multi-cornered contests have become a norm in India rather than an exception due to the increase in the number of smaller and regional parties. There have been cases in the state assembly elections where a candidate has been declared winner with the victory margin of less than 100 votes. Apart from this anomaly, in most cases, a candidate wins the election by securing just 30-35 per cent of the total number of votes polled. Hence he or she cannot be deemed to be a choice of majority of the electorate. To overcome this limitation, the first-past-the-post system should be replaced with a two-stage electoral process. In this, a second round of election will be held if none of the candidates in the fray is able to get 50 per cent of the total number of votes polled in the first round. The two candidates who have obtained the maximum number of votes in the first round will fight in the second round. Whoever between the two gets more than 51 per cent of the total votes polled in the second round is declared the winner.
Simultaneous elections for Union and state legislatures: Currently 3-4 states in India go for elections every year. This undermines the working of the union government as the regime in power cannot take tough decisions due to the fear of a backlash in the next round of assembly election. Hence simultaneous elections will not only ensure that governments at the centre and the states carry out their responsibilities in a smooth manner but also curtail unnecessary election expenditure. The arrangement of simultaneous elections can be extended to the elections for the municipal corporations and other Panchayati Raj institutions.
Fixed tenure of elected legislative bodies with no-confidence motion followed by a confidence motion: This is another move that will curtail the unnecessary election expenditure and at the same time ensure stable governments at the centre and in the states. In case none of the parties or coalition is able to form a government on its own, the members of the house should together elect an executive head among themselves and form a cabinet that has representation from members of all political parties on the basis of the number of seats they have secured in the elections.
Decrease number of registered parties: This move is necessary because the smaller parties are far more vulnerable to “ideological shifts” and in this era of fractured mandates, hold the bigger parties to ransom for their narrow political gains. The election commission should be given powers to de-recognise smaller political parties on the basis of their performance. Another move to achieve this goal would be to increase the minimum number of primary members that are needed to form a political party.
Increase the amount of security deposit: This move is necessary to put a check on the number of non-serious candidates contesting union and state assembly elections. Such a move has been taken in the past and has shown desired results. However in recent times, the number of candidates fighting elections has shown an increasing trend and hence there is a need to review the amount of security deposit.
Not allowing candidates to contest from more than one constituency in an election: This is necessary to curtail the unnecessary expenditure that election commission has to make when a candidate contests election from more than one constituency and wins from all the constituencies he has contested from. The bye-election that is necessitated by the candidate choosing one seat and vacating others seats he has contested from will no longer be needed.
Use of common electoral rolls in the union and state elections: This move will put a check on the cases of people finding their names missing in the electoral rolls. This happens because different lists are prepared by the Election Commission of India for general elections and the state election commissions for the elections of the state assemblies and local bodies. The effort and expenditure that is involved in making two lists for similar purpose will be greatly reduced.
Making false declarations in election affidavits an offence: This is necessary to ensure transparency about the profile of candidates contesting elections, many of whom have criminal cases going on against them on charges of heinous offence like kidnapping and murder. Anyone giving false information in the affidavits should be debarred from contesting elections for a minimum duration of five years.
Allowing negative/neutral voting: This will allow a voter to express his dissent by rejecting all the candidates contesting in his constituency if he finds none or them suitable to be elected. Currently a large number of people do not go to the polling booth because of their disenchantment with the candidates put up by the political parties. This is reflected in the falling poll percentages. Democracy in India will be strengthened if people participate in large numbers in the electoral process and have a choice to reject all the candidates instead of being forced to select one who they think is less bad than the others in the fray.
Ban on publication of exit/opinion polls results till voting is over for all phases: To ensure free and fair elections in India, the election commission holds them in different phases so that the available security staff is effectively deployed. Publishing the result of opinion poll on the earlier phases will have an impact on the voting pattern in the subsequent phases. Similarly, the opinion polls that are conducted before the election also influences the voting pattern. Hence there is a need to put a ban on the publication of the results of the exit/opinion polls conducted by various media agencies till all the phases of elections are over.
No comments:
Post a Comment