Democracy : Of elected men and electorate mandate

Dr S Benjamin Nattar *

Polling for Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats in Manipur valley districts on January 11 2016 :: Pix - Shankar Khangembam

Democracy, the most cherished form of government in the modern times, had its beginning due to accidental reasons in the 17th century England. Democratic forms of government had existed even before, but the forms and contents varied. In ancient Greece, this form of government was detested most by famous thinkers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Modern democratic forms of government whether Parliamentary or Presidential, have come a long way since their introduction in England or United States of America.

Some states in the world have adopted a mixture of both forms and others replacing one with the other at regular intervals. Even the so called non-democratic governments wish to address their states as democratic or republic, e. g, China is named Peoples Republic of China (PRC), or the former Military government of Myanmar as ‘Socialist Democratic Republic of Myanmar’.

Parliamentary democracy or the Westminster model adopted in India was inspired by our former colonial master, Great Britain. In this form of government, the electorate choose a large number of representatives to legislative bodies and a Ministry is formed from among the members. A government in parliamentary democracy runs and survives to the extent of the confidence of the members of the legislative bodies. The main character of this system is the confidence of the members of popularly elected house, both at the Centre and in the States. The Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister at the Centre is collectively responsible to the popularly elected house (Lok Sabha).

In the states, the Chief Minister and his ministers are collectively responsible to the lower house (Legislative Assembly) of the states. The responsibility to the house means the government continually gets the support of the members of the legislature. This exercise is never a problem if the government of the day is formed by a political party or parties which have majority in the house. For example, the present government at the centre, led by Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has the backing of the majority members in the Lok Sabha. Similarly, Shri O Ibobi Singh led ministry has the support of majority members in the Manipur State Legislative Assembly.

Democratically elected governments that continually enjoy the support of the majority members of the legislature are stable and without any constraints carry out the task of governance. As long as the elected members are true to the mandate of the electorate, the governments face no serious threat. Unfortunately, in the Indian parliamentary history, there had been a series of breaches of trust of the elected representatives. Democracy can succeed only if there is no conflict between the elected men and the electorate mandate. It is the harmony between the elected representatives and the electorate mandate that ensures the success and progress of the government and in fact, the nation.

In the electoral battle, representatives of the people get elected after receiving the electorate mandate, which is accorded to them on the basis of a particular party, or an ideology or a manifesto or even a leader. Once elected, it is morally binding on them to be loyal to the trust given to them by the electorate mandate.

If they choose to change their party, or support to another party or ideology different from their original one, it is mandated that they resign from their original party and seek a fresh mandate from the electorate.

But the question arises, whether one should permanently choose to remain in the party in which he got elected. What happens if the party goes astray from the chosen ideology? If all the members of the party choose to change the ideology, a particular member who may not subscribe to such ideology, might give up his membership. But what happens to the mandate he received from the electorate? Have not politicians changed their party affiliations in the past?

There are hundreds of examples we have of renowned politicians changing their parties. The first and last Indian Governor General of India, Sri C. Rajagopalachari gave up his Indian National Congress membership, and established Swatantra Party. Former Chief Minister of the erstwhile Bombay state, Shri Morarji Desai left the Congress party and became one of the founding members of the Janata Party, and later became the first Prime Minister of a non-Congress government at the centre.

Shri V.P. Singh, another former Congress Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and later Union Minister in Rajiv Gandhi government, left the Congress and established Janata Dal, becoming Prime Minister of India. In Manipur too, the veteran Congress leader Shri Rishang Keishing was initially a member of Socialist Party of India. Most of the non-Congress politicians today had their beginning in the Congress party.

So, changing political parties is well within one’s democratic right. But when a member is elected on a particular party symbol, subscribing to a particular ideology, manifesto or a leader, he is bound to continue in that party till the term of the legislature. If he chooses to change his party, he should give up his membership and contest in the election seeking mandate of the people. In the past, there had been a number of cases of floor crossing, defecting from the parent party to another party for reasons ranging from personal to ideological.

In order to put an end to this practice, 52nd Amendment Act 1985, was enacted to prevent defection. This act prevented defection of an individual but permitted split in the party caused by one-third members. As this act had been used and misused by many state legislatures, another amendment, 91st Amendment Act 2003, was passed to prevent this split. This Act forbids even split of the Legislature party. If at all a division is caused, it should happen at the headquarters level and not at the local level. One-third of the members could cause a split, but that too only at the headquarters level and not at the local level.

For example, a split of one third or more of the ruling Congress party in a Congress-ruled state could happen only if it takes place at the national level and not the state level. So, even more than one-third members could not cause a split. They could be allowed to function as a separate entity provided the Speaker permits it, but his action too, is subject to judicial review.

If not, the members could attract disqualification under the provisions of Anti-defection act. If this interpretation is applied, the events that took place in Arunachal Pradesh and now in Uttrakhand are clear violations of Anti-defection act. The only way possible to preserve the sacred mandate of the electorate is to apply the Anti-defection law both in letter and spirit. The Governors of the states also must ensure that the strength of a ministry is proved on the floor of the House, as mandated by the Supreme Court verdict in the S.R. Bommai case.

At the same time, there are critics who question the very concept of ‘electorate mandate’ itself. The system of election adopted in India does not provide a clear ‘electorate mandate’ deserving to be regarded as holy. In Presidential democracy, the electorate repose their trust on one individual. In the US, in election to the office of the President, the elected electors cast their votes on the basis of their parties. And in a state which gives a majority of votes to a particular party candidate carries away all the electoral seats. They call it ‘the winner takes all’.

The mandate becomes clear. In contrast, in the Indian Lok Sabha election as well as election to the State legislative assembly, we follow what is known as ‘the-First-Past-The-Post’(FPTP) system. Here, from a single territorial constituency one member is elected from among any number of candidates who contest the election. A candidate who secures just one vote more than the one who comes next to him, is declared elected. The elected representative, in many cases, might get mandate of a minority electorate only.

For example, in ‘X’ constituency of 1,00,000 voters, a total of 10 candidates, A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J contesting the election, if candidate ‘A’ secures 20001 votes, and ‘B’ gets 20000 votes, C,D, etc get 10000 and below etc, the candidate ‘A’ is declared elected as he secured 1 vote more than ‘B’, who has set the winning post. In this example, how could one affirm that elected representative ‘A’ is backed by the mandate of the entire ‘X’ constituency?

So, what is the problem if he chooses to change his party affiliation after the election? Since the election system itself contains certain drawbacks how could we accord sanctity to such mandate? In the example given above, if the voters of the constituency had desired parties other than the one won by ‘A’, and later ‘A’ chooses to join another party, he might betray the trust of the 20001 voters but who knows he might fulfil the mandate of the other, may be 50000 voters.

How could we say it is betrayal of the electorate? Moreover, the electorate of a constituency might desire their elected representative to be a part of the ruling party and even a minister. And therefore it may not sound all wrong, but even very much in line with the development of the constituency. If a member of a ruling party defects to another party, for failing to become a minister, and becomes a cause to topple the existing government, can it be called betrayal of the mandate? Both the arguments may have their merits and demerits, but certainly they are breaches of electoral mandate.

What could be the solution? Well, there is no ready-made solution to this problem. A comprehensive electoral reform is to be initiated. In the first place, the system of election should be changed. The FPTP system may be easier to operate, but it is definitely not reflective of the majority mandate. The system should be replaced with ‘Proportional Representation’ as followed for Rajya Sabha election.

For this, single member-constituencies should be replaced with multi-member constituencies with at least three members from each constituency. Another proposal, which may sound a bit odd for India, is to allow only two parties to function, as they have in US or in UK. Every system may have its advantages and disadvantages, idealistic values or pragmatic problems. What is needed is a high sense of political and constitutional morality both among the elected men and the electorate, which as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution, had remarked, is much lacking among the Indians.