A handful of good ideas

The BJP’s prime ministerial candidate’s call for some urgent electoral reforms bang in the middle of the election campaign has made many eyebrows to go up. His critics in particular were wondering why LK Advani was bringing this up now.

Was it that he anticipated a hung parliament, leading to an unworkable coalition made to work for a while, as was the case with the Third Front last time, leading thereafter to a midterm poll? Whatever the motive, the next round of electoral reforms is certainly due.
Advani suggested three things: fixed five-year tenure for assemblies and the Lok Sabha to avoid midterm elections and ensure stability; compulsory voting, and elections in more salubrious climate rather than the one currently on in the middle of an excruciatingly hot summer.

All of them are actually pretty good ideas. The last one is a no-brainer. Elections in the summer are eminently avoidable. But why talk of a fixed tenure for the Lok Sabha when, in fact, the last two Lok Sabhas ran their full term with the NDA and the UPA heading the government.

Neither AB Vajpayee nor Manmohan Singh faced serious problems of destabilisation in their respective terms thanks largely to the anti-defection law that makes floor-crossing pretty hazardous.

Even then, there is some merit in a fixed tenure for the lower houses in states and in Parliament. It will at once remove uncertainties — certainly anxieties — at two levels. At one level, the government can continue its business even when majorities are created through alliances and not worry about offending any one partner on minor issues.

At another level, if there is no fear of loss of membership of the House, members of Parliament and assemblies may be a bit more concerned about issues other than self-preservation. One may argue that it would be otherwise because MPs and MLAs, assured of a full term, may be even less responsible towards their electorate than they are now. In that case could the voter have a right to recall?

Such a right would fit in well with the other fundamental change suggested — compulsory voting. Compulsory voting coupled with the right to recall would give the voters a sense of some minimal control over their representatives unlilke in the present scenario and restore in good measure the principle of checks and balances that is supposed to be the fulcrum of Indian democracy. How the right of recall should be exercised is a matter of detail.

Compulsory voting may probably bring about another highly desirable benefit — of neutralising in substantial measure caste politics. In an election in which near cent percent voting is guaranteed, parties and candidates will find it difficult to make completely sectarian appeals.

For Parliamentary democracy to work well and enthuse voters to take part in elections, there are some measures Advani and others can consider without waiting for electoral reforms at all.

First, get the Parliament to meet for more days than it currently does. Over the years, the number of days the two houses met has whittled down and just about meets the minimum Constitutional requirement that there will not be a gap of more than six months between two sessions.

Second, would all political parties in Parliament agree that if they have issues to ventilate and agitate about, they would do so without disrupting business? When they do disrupt proceedings, it is a double whammy for the voter.

Out of the tax-payer’s money you pay the MP salary and allowances and, in addition, incur a cost in lakhs of rupees daily for the meeting of the House even if no business is done. In the least, political parties interested in restoring the dignity of Parliament should agree on this. And by doing that they would restore a degree of confidence in the system and generate interest among voters.

Lastly, there are certain reforms Advani can unilaterally bring about in his party and force others to follow before asking for changes in the law to make ordinary voters accountable and not indifferent to the electoral process.

Would the BJP, for instance, decide here and now that it will not in future field politicians who are tainted or have criminal cases pending? Would it also voluntarily disclose the source of funding for the party during elections? This does not require consensus across the political spectrum. It is a moral position that major political parties like the BJP and the Congress can take and demonstrate that they yield to the principle of accountability as much as they expect ordinary citizens to.

That is easier said than done. Take the case of one of the most meaningful electoral reforms we have had — the anti-defection law. In order to secure a majority of its own in the Karnataka assembly, the BJP induced as many MLAs as it needed from the opposition to jump sides but made them resign and seek re-election.

This may have circumvented the anti-defection law but is still morally indefensible. Reforms, therefore, are meaningless unless one has the courage to stand by them, at all times.