Democracy, ONOP, governance

Democracies are withering everywhere and require constant reform. In India, one-nation-one-poll is a good idea, but it cannot work as a standalone reform

Democracies are struggling to stay democratic. This is the best one can say about the state of democracy in those parts of the world where politicians and public intellectuals still swear by it. Democracies can survive only if they are constantly in conversation with themselves on how best to reform and improve governance. Else they risk slow suicide. As John Adams, the second president of the US, once said, “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” This statement is as true today as it was two centuries ago when Adams made this gloomy observation.

There is no one reason why democracies fail. Each may fail in its own way. Even the strongest of institutions cannot prevent a democratic slide if the people decide that they want something else. Not for nothing did B R Ambedkar say that “if things go bad under the new Constitution, the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that man was vile.”

The argument cuts both ways, though. The fundamental waywardness of human behaviour should be taken as a given in all democracies, but that is why institutions — even constitutions — need constant monitoring and reform. Institutions and laws must change in order to compensate for human nature’s many frailties. Democracy is about regularly evaluating what works and what doesn’t, and this evaluation must be based on an understanding of not just observed human failures, but cultures too. Institutions and laws must be renegotiated and rejuvenated by asking ourselves, what will work better for us as a people? There is no one-size-fits-all solution for all democracies. Each democracy must decide which structure or set of laws works best for it. America may have a great Constitution that maximises freedoms, but a less democratic one (Singapore’s, for example) has consistently delivered better outcomes for its people. More so, when solutions to problems like climate change, growing inequality, demographic shifts, and unchecked immigration, to name just a few, are not possible within electoral timeframes.

This is where most Western rankings of democracies go wrong, for they assume that the same yardsticks must be used to judge monocultural states and hugely diverse ones, small, homogeneous nation-states and large civilisational ones.

If we accept these fundamental postulates, we can reach a few broad conclusions. One, every state must decide what kind of democracy it wants, and the pace at which it wants change. Two, every democracy has to evolve to suit its own culture, through trial and error. This means the quality of any democracy should be judged over a long period of time, and not annually. The measurement should involve the use of reasonably differentiated yardsticks for different democracies, and progress must be measured against each country’s own benchmarks. Three, human rights and ideology must not be weaponised by the powerful. This can only retard the pace of change in any democracy, for no one likes outside forces to be judging what is right for them. Four, all institutions should be regularly evaluated for improvement and reform. No law can be cast in stone. And five, implementing just one reform will not be enough. Improved governance needs many follow-up reforms to be effective.

This brings me to India, which is far from being a perfect democracy. While critics would like to believe this is solely the doing of the Narendra Modi government, signs of decay have been there for a long time, dating back to Indira Gandhi’s Emergency. As far as governance deficit is concerned, all three wings, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, have contributed to this state of affairs.

One way to improve democratic governance is one-nation-one-poll (ONOP), an idea that is currently being examined by a panel headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind. What is being suggested is the holding of simultaneous elections to all three tiers of government, allowing each tier five years to perform. A never ending annual election cycle is hugely negative for governance, as focus shifts to doing things to remain in power rather than doing the right things.

It is a good idea, in my view, and the Opposition would do well not to reject it merely because it was suggested by Mr Modi. You can be fully committed to removing him from power while also being willing to examine the idea for what it is worth. The government would be wise to reassure them that no law will be enacted without a consensus.

However, ONOP can only be one step in the march towards better governance and democracy. An example, using an earlier electoral reform, will illustrate this better.

Rajiv Gandhi enacted an anti-defection law in the 1980s in order to end party-hopping by legislators seeking a better deal for themselves. But, while this has ensured political stability, it has also made party bosses so powerful as to end democracy within parties. You now cannot dissent against your party line without facing expulsion or the loss of your seat. Of course, you can hijack fellow legislators and put them up in five-star hotels far away from your home state and get away with dissent. But this behaviour is hardly democratic.

Worse, legislative majorities can be won with as little as 30-35 per cent (or even less, as in UP in 2012) of the popular vote. This again can hardly be called representative democracy.

So, India does not just need ONOP, but other reforms, including possibly a shift to a presidential system, where a 50 per cent vote (possibly in two rounds of voting as in France) would be needed to get elected. Legislatures can then be created with a proportional representation system. Multi-party coalitions can make the law by consensus, and the President can ensure continuity in governance in most circumstances. A presidential system is particularly important to India because we need unifying figures, something that our first-past-the-post system is unable to create. For proof, look at our party structures. They are uniformly presidential in nature, with one family, or one tall figure, dominating them. India will take to a presidential system like a duck to water, for that is what we effectively crave in our fractious polity.

ONOP benefits can’t be optimised if all three tiers of government are not equally empowered. Currently, financial power is concentrated with the Centre, and political power is shared with states. Local bodies have practically no powers. ONOP would be pointless if governance at the local level, which is where citizens mostly interact with the government, lacks power. The Union, State, and Concurrent lists must largely be mutually exclusive, with minimal overlaps that create conflicts. We must create a local body's legislative list, while the Concurrent list must be whittled down to the bare minimum.

ONOP is the beginning of governance and electoral reform, not the end. The true spirit of democracy is consensus, not mere majorities.

 The writer is editorial director, Swarajya magazine