The Illusion of Representation
In India, governments are often formed by parties and alliances against whom more than 50% of the populace have cast their votes. They do not have the support of the majority.
The table below depicts the percentage of votes Polled by the winning parties/alliances in general elections:
1952 INC(Congress) 45
1957 INC 47.8
1962 INC 44.7
1967 INC 40.8
1971 INC 43.7
1977 Janta Party 41.3
1980 INC 42.7
1984 INC 48.1
1989 National Front 23.8 BJP
1991 INC 36.4 AIADMK&others
1996 United Front 25.7 Congress
1998 NDA 39.6
1999 NDA 41.9
2004 UPA 36.8
2009 UPA 37.2
2014 NDA 38.5
2019 NDA 45
2024 NDA 43.6
(Figures have been obtained from various sources. There could be minor discrepancies)
"As can be inferred from the data, in all parliamentary elections till date more than 50% of the public voted against the party or alliance that formed the government. In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the NDA secured nearly 44 % of the contested votes, while the India block garnered 37.2%. So, the alliance that formed the government had more than 50% public voting against it. Furthermore, there have been instances in state assembly elections where a party securing a lesser percentage of votes went on to win more seats.
Number of times alliances and parties that formed governments had more people voting against them than for them. So, how could governments be truly democratic or representative?
Inherent Systemic deficit
This phenomenon is not unique to India. Many democratic governments around the world face similar challenges. The issue lies in the fact that our democratic system is based on a "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) system, where the candidate with the most votes wins the election, regardless of whether they have secured a majority of the votes or not. For instance, consider a scenario where four candidates contest an election, and the votes are split as follows:
- Candidate A: 31% of the votes
- Candidate B: 29% of the votes
- Candidate C: 23% of the votes
- Candidate D: 17% of the votes
In this scenario, Candidate A wins the election with just 31% of the votes, despite 69% of the voters having voted against them. This is a classic example of how the FPTP system can lead to a situation where the winner does not have the support of the majority of voters. "The FPTP system is flawed because it does not take into account the preferences of all voters. It's a system that prioritizes the winner over the wishes of the majority."
Delimitation Dilemma
The upcoming delimitation process, which involves redrawing the boundaries of parliamentary and assembly constituencies based on the latest census data, has sparked debates about the misrepresentation of states due to varying demographic growth. Ideally, as a Union of States, each state should have equal power.
However, in a democratic system, the majority by numbers holds power, and this is often determined by the number of representatives in parliament, even though the vote share of the winner is rarely in the majority in individual constituency. Thus, no system can be perfect; however, the endeavor should be to have the vast majority of populace represented.
Weighted Voting Power
A Possible Solution
One possible solution to this problem is to introduce a system of weighted voting power. Under this system, the voting power of MPs and MLAs would be determined by the percentage of votes they polled. For example, if an elected representative gets 33% of the valid votes, their weighted voting power would be 0.33. Similarly, if another representative gets 29% of the votes, their weighted voting power would be 0.29, and so on.
The first three or four candidates of every constituency should get to vote in parliament/assembly so that at least 70 to 80% of the population is represented. Weighted voting power is a more nuanced approach to democratic representation. It ensures that the voices of all citizens are represented, rather than just the 30% or so who voted for the declared winner.
Managing the Logistics
One of the major challenges of implementing the system of weighted voting power is managing the three or four-fold increase in the number of elected representatives. However, this challenge can be easily overcome with the help of technology. Voting by members can be online.
Secondly, the privileges and remuneration of members can either be limited to the 'first past the post' or can be proportionally divided. However, left to the venerable members, they would easily vote and pass a bill of equal or more privileges for all!
Equal Representation for States
Being a Union of States, this is another contentious issue that needs to be addressed. The unequal representation of states in parliament is a significant concern. Ideally, as a Union of States, each State should have equal power.
To address this issue, we may need to revisit the Upper house of Parliament. Can it be a house where all states have equal power, or would it give rise to more contentions? Can a third house be introduced for specific matters where all states will have equal power? At least, matter requires discussion in like with the spirit of constitution.
Ensuring Citizens' Voices are Heard
We need to ensure that the voices of all citizens are heard. Each parliament member should get a compulsory time slot, proportional to votes obtained, to bring forth issues of their people. Additionally, we could introduce a system of citizen-initiated legislation, where citizens can propose laws and have them debated in parliament.
Our democratic system needs an overhaul to ensure that adage of democracy definition holds true. We need to introduce a system of weighted voting power. Delimitation should be to ensure equal representation of maximum people not to gain undue advantage. At least, a debate needs to be initiated.
The political scientists need to come up with ideas. The masters of our destiny, our rulers, should not only devise strategies and schemes to capture power, but they should also think of uplifting and bringing some sort of moral semblance to society.
Making optimum use of taxpayers' money for the general good of society is a sacred responsibility. Only then can we truly say that our democracy is "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Have you liked the news article?