Making a good system better, electorally
Last week, the Rajya Sabha had a discussion on electoral reforms. This in itself was welcome. Less appetising, however, was what many of the MPs, particularly from the Opposition benches had to say.
In normal circumstances, unusual—sometimes verging on the whacko—interventions should be politely heard and equally politely disregarded. However, when bad ideas start gaining currency, it may be time to sit up, take note and try and set the record straight.
The most dangerous idea that was raised vociferously by the BSP, severely shaken after its loss of face in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election, was that the Electronic Voting Machines are easily manipulated and lead to the complete subversion of the will of the people. Mayawati believes that this is what happened in UP. The Congress does not believe this was the case since it benefited from the verdict as recorded in EVMs in Punjab. However, this did not stop Congress MPs from cheering on the BSP and other MPs who supported a demand for scrapping EVMs and reverting to paper ballots.
I don’t think the assault on EVMs is yet widespread. However, if losers in elections start blaming the machines for election defeats, the legitimacy of our democracy will be affected and, in time, could lead to a larger crisis of confidence. Some of us may be familiar with the “invisible ink”, allegedly made in the Soviet Union, that some Jana Sangh stalwarts, notably Balraj Madhok, believed was responsible for Indira Gandhi’s resounding win in 1971. The intriguing suggestion had few takers then—although there were more legitimate fears expressed in 1971 and later that there were widespread irregularities in the counting of ballot papers.
The introduction of the EVMs was widely welcomed as a reasonably foolproof way of recording voting preference and tabulating the results quickly and accurately. However, after the 2009 general election, a section of the BJP proffered a colourful conspiracy theory that argued that the EVMs were selectively tampered with to give the Congress a huge advantage. The argument was that the machines had been doctored at the manufacturing stage to ensure that votes were automatically recorded in favour of UPA candidates regardless of which candidate the voter had chosen. It is unfortunate that this silly conspiracy theory secured the blessing of L.K. Advani and a section of the RSS.
In principle (and I wrote about it at the time) it is possible to tamper with the circuitry of the EVMs at the manufacturing stage. However, since no political party has a fixed position in the sequence of the candidates—this is determined in the alphabetical order of candidates—it would necessitate superhuman organisation to have EVMs tailor made for constituencies.
Nor is the fear of internet hacking relevant. What makes the EVMs robust, practical and safe for India is their technological simplicity. Since the EVMs are not wifi-enabled or even internet compatible, it is not possible for any outside agency to enter the machines from somewhere and replace existing data with doctored data. The only way the results can be distorted is to change the circuit boards. In a country where nothing really is secret, this would necessitate a very un-Indian conspiracy involving the participation of many tens of thousands of tight-lipped individuals. In India this is an impossibility.
The second bad idea to emerge from the Rajya Sabha debate was a sectional endorsement of the idea of Proportional Representation (PR). The Communists argued for it most strongly, as did the BSP. In time, as its electoral graph moves southwards, I am sure the Congress will endorse it too.
The prevailing first-past-the-post system exaggerates majorities. In UP, for example, the BJP alliance secured some 42 per cent of the votes and more than 75 per cent of the seats. This is undoubtedly a flaw but this is a system that contributes to stable majorities through single-party or pre-poll coalitions.
There are two problems with PR. First, the system is geared towards producing fractured verdicts. Rarely, if ever, does the system of PR lead to the clear majority for any one party or even a coalition. The examples of Israel, Holland and even Germany are before us. The results are invariably followed by elaborate post-poll deals which can sometimes be honourable but often lead to sordid compromises. We can well imagine what the outcome will be in India.
Secondly, the PR system will inevitably lead to a proliferation of caste-based and single-issue parties who will enter the game with the sole objective of extracting their pound of flesh. The present system facilitates aggregation and leads to cross-caste and cross-class alliances at the constituency level. PR will encourage community-based parties to emerge and flex their muscles. The caste agitations that are today extra-parliamentary will, under PR, become a problem to be faced inside governments. The damage this will do to social cohesion and the idea of national and regional togetherness is incalculable.
Our Indian system is not perfect. But despite its shortcomings there has been an attempt to make a good system better. The new laws on political funding in this year’s Finance Act are part of this endeavour and are centred on the recognition of realities. The ideas that emerged from the parliamentary debate are in many cases regressive. They stem from specific problems suffered by some political parties. These problems should not lead to universal solutions that may end up eroding the foundations of Indian democracy.
THE only way the results can be distorted is to change the circuit boards. In a country where nothing really is secret, this would necessitate a very un-Indian conspiracy involving the participation of many tens of thousands of tight-lipped individuals. In India this is an impossibility.
The author is a senior journalist and Member of Parliament, being a Presidential Nominee to the Rajya Sabha