The first-past-the-post system that prevails under the Indian Constitution has been criticised for long, but we are into a new season of debate on it after the constitution of the 16th Lok Sabha (2014). The Left parties, a key victim of the current system, are the first to raise afresh the demand for a shift to proportional representation; other voices are likely to join them. Conversely, those that have most recently and historically benefited from the established order will resist any change. Even if a constitutional change is unlikely, it is healthy - in fact, essential - for fundamental issues to be constantly re-examined in informed public debate in a democracy.
Here are the latest aberrations. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) secured 3.2 per cent of the vote and won nine seats. On the other hand, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam had virtually the same vote share, 3.3 per cent, but won 37 seats - a multiple of four! The worst victim is the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP); it secured 4.1 per cent of the vote but failed to win a single seat. However, in the past, the BSP has been a beneficiary of the present system; in 2009 it won 21 seats with just 50 per cent higher share of popular votes than in 2014.
Under the present system, one tends to equate the number of seats won with the degree of the party's popularity. Immediately after the results were out, commentators on television and in daily newspapers rushed to conclude that large numbers of Dalits had voted for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Uttar Pradesh, or else how did the party notch up a phenomenal 71 seats out of 80? Actually, the BSP in Uttar Pradesh secured 19.6 per cent of the votes polled when Scheduled Castes account for 20.5 per cent of the state's population (2011 census). So Dalits have largely stood by Mayawati.
Now see the contrast in performance between the BJP and the Congress. The BJP won over six times (640 per cent) the number of seats bagged by the Congress with only 60 per cent more votes. The boot was on the other foot in 2009; the Congress had benefited then, winning 77 per cent more seats with 52 per cent more votes. Historically, the Congress, being the leading party, has benefited more from the existing system, though this time the BJP has won an absolute majority with the lowest share of the popular vote (31 per cent) ever. Conversely, no party ever gained absolute majority by polling over 50 per cent of the vote. Of the seven previous absolute majorities won, the Congress cornered six. The BJP is only the second non-Congress party, after the Janata Party in 1977, to win an absolute majority.
The case for proportional representation is that this system works against the continued dominance of established parties, thereby allowing smaller and newer voices to be heard more easily. Also, its introduction will end the strategy of large parties concentrating only on swing seats or states (as in the United States), neglecting the safe ones. For example, a safe state for the Democrats will see very little of the party's presidential campaign, although even the Democratic majority there can have many things to say and want to be heard.
Proportional representation is likely to result in a higher turnout because every voter knows that her vote counts in the aggregate, even though the preferred candidate can have no chance of winning. So she knows that going out to vote is not all that futile. The system also results in a degree of permanence in coalition rule, which makes for centrist policies developed through compromise and consensus. Conversely, dramatic change for the better is seldom brought about by consensus. Those with a vision dare the rest to follow them.
The case against proportional representation is that it can give a forum and legitimacy to fringe parties whose policies can be abhorring to most. If the Bajrang Dal decides to become a political party, it will certainly end up with a presence in Parliament. Similarly, if a fundamentalist Muslim party were to enter the fray, it would also certainly be trooping down Sansad Marg. Most Indians will like neither.
Most countries today have opted for proportional representation with the exception of old and large democracies such as the UK, the US, India and France. Germany and a host of European countries rule through proportional representation. A big argument against this system is that governments under it, being creatures of compromise, are often weak - for instance, Italy. For India, which prides itself on its diversity, proportional representation makes sense. But India also needs a big push to break the stranglehold of vested interests. You need an Indira Gandhi and a Narendra Modi occasionally. Or maybe you need a slogger like Arvind Kejriwal to sweep in a naya zamana.
subirkroy@gmail.com
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
