India celebrates its 60th Republic day today. This day also, in my opinion, puts to rest the doomsday prophecies of certain world leaders and writers like Winston Churchill and Rudyard Kipling that saw balkanization of India soon after its independence. Situated amidst countries in South Asia that are ruled by monarchies, dictators, army rulers or a weak parliament, India has indeed emerged as an unexpected beacon of democracy for the region.
On the other hand, there are multiple reasons that call for an introspection as well. Has democracy really worked in India? I agree with Ramchandra Guha when he answers this as - yes, but 50-50. I was watching a panel discussion on CNN-IBN network [video link] today. The network also conducted a poll on various questions related to efficacy of politicians, government bodies and the overall results of democracy. The findings, as expected, were dismal with majority having lost their faith in the integrity of politicians and governmental bodies. I am sure the sample set for these polls would have been just as much a biased selection as the audience was in this show. But I agree that it is overall representative of the general mood of the public in India. So what is lacking in the "system" or the polity of India that most of us are losing faith in this?
Among a lot of gibberish that was said on the show, some of the comments stayed with me. One of them was by Salman Khurshid. He says that he finds it hard to win an election if he only does the right thing. He needs support from people who also force him to help them do illegitimate activites. Having seen elections and the political process from close quarters myself, I know how true Mr. Khurshid is when he makes that point. To elaborate, a candidate needs support from a lot of "workers" that usually belong to the candidate's party or are personally associated with him. These workers campaign for the candidate to the constituents, create a sellable image of his to the electorate and uses their relations and connections to improve a candidate's prospects. In the words of a two-time assembly elections contestant, it is the worker who actually fights the election. Indeed it seems so, as the most important duty of worker comes during the election day. He sits in the election booth as an agent of the candidate and overlooks the voting to make sure it is going on fairly or in the favor of his candidate. The real difference that he makes is in the votes from the electorates who skip the voting i.e. do not come to vote on the election day. An overzealous worker will liason with the polling officer a day before and get some of the unpolled votes poll for his candidate. He would also get some people to make sure that the unenthusiastic voters are encouraged and helped to come to the polling booth to cast their vote. So, a smart or a strong, in the literal sense, worker helps to improve the chance of a candidate significantly if not drastically on the election day.
This does not augur well for a democracy as it creates multiple problems. One of them is that it makes even more difficult for a newcomer without any workers to win election. The other is what Salman Khursid said - it forces the elected representative to be more representative of his workers than the electorate, thereby making a mockery of democratic principles. How can this be resolved?
I have known this factor for a while and thought over it a few times. Election commission of India has done a splendid job by releasing the affidavits of the election candidates on its website [link] since the last few elections. The affidavit contains the complete assets declaration and ongoing police cases, if any, of the candidate. This brings a greater transparency to the electorate and its easy access gives it a wider reach. ECI also releases further data like the number of votes polled at each booth, candidate-wise percentage etc. I would like to suggest to ECI, through this post, to also release the list of voters who voted on the election day. The voters are required to sign in the polling booth before casting their vote so the data is already being maintained by the commission for all the elections. As we have a closed ballot system in India, ECI does not keep a record of who voted for whom and this should continue to stay like that. Releasing this list of voters who polled does not compromise any of our democratic principles as far as I can see. I would also imagine that since election is a public exercise and a cornerstone of Indian democracy, the electorate would welcome such a move instead of raising privacy concerns. This list could potentially raise a hell storm when the voters will see that their votes were cast even though they did not visit the polling booth! A series of litigation might well follow and bring the ECI under a higher pressure to minimize such anomalies. This, in turn, will reduce the impact that the worker has on the election day thereby limiting the dependence of a candidate on the worker. The effects of this data could be similar, if not greater, to the effects of the Right to Information Act.
I might be naive in my thinking or projection here. I might even be totally misplaced on the legalities behind such a move. And thus, I wouldn't mind other's opinion!
