Part III of Article on Gppd Governance -Merinews
M C Raj
The efforts to tinker with the FPTP system to the already changed political scenario in India is much more complicated and problematic than developing an understanding of the PR system among voters. Some dominant caste groups have developed the argument that PR system is complicated. It must be known well that though PR system requires greater understanding among voters; it is not complicated if an India-specific PR system is adopted. Since PR system translates all votes into seats it has the best possibility of providing representation to all voters in the first place and also to all minority groups in India.
PR system creates a win-win situation for all parties, as there is a possibility of more than one member representing a constituency through the List PR. This will drastically reduce the play of money and muscle power, corruption, violence, communalism and casteism. As long as the FPTP system is in practice all the efforts to reduce corruption in elections are bound to be only a half way journey to a majority of voters, as the system itself promotes cut-throat competition.
Since voters are bound to vote for parties and their ideologies through the List PR, the convergence of voters on ideology based parties will be enhanced much better and correspondingly it will reduce foul play at the time of elections. Many keep on lamenting on the absence of ideology in Indian politics. Needless to say that an ideology based governance is destined to create a strong nation. An ideology bereft of electoral game is the natural consequence of FPTP in a multi-party democracy.
There is also a misunderstanding about PR system, promoted assiduously by vested interests that the direct contact between the candidate and the voters will be missing in List PR system. This is a gross misunderstanding. A Mixed Member Proportional system, as it is recommended for India as well as a full List PR system identifies candidates with constituencies and ensures direct relationship between candidates and voters before and after elections.
Countries with PR system have already proved to provide more stable and more inclusive governments. The anomaly of parties with less percentage of vote share forming governments is simply not possible in the PR system. This explains the reluctance of some political parties to usher in PR system in India.
Ultimately it is the Parliament of India that has to take the final call on this type of electoral reform in India. There is no need of a constitutional amendment. It will be adequate to bring about necessary amendments in the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, of course with Parliament’s approval. Experts of electoral systems from all over the world gathered in October 2011 for three days to deliberate and have worked on an India specific PR system. This will considerably reduce the work of any Parliamentary Committee that may be set up in due course of time for this purpose.
Nepal, our neighbour has done away with monarchy and has ushered in a semi-PR system in their nascent democracy. Though the Nepal Congress opposed the introduction of PR system it was the major beneficiary of this system when election results were declared. Let us hope that political parties in India will become a bit saner and opt for an electoral system that will make democracy and governance in India more inclusive, meaningful and efficient.
Shanthinagar
Tumkur 572102
Karnataka, India
Phone: ++91-816-2277026
Fax: ++91-816-2272515
Mobile: ++9845144893