PolitiClone: Skewed democracy

Skewed democracy

By Bharat Jhunjhunwala
If the poverty is removed, the voters will not clamour for reliefs and the MPs’ ability to get votes by giving out small reliefs will be impaired.

India is today self-sufficient in food and emerging as a global economic and military power. But the people are restive. The constitutional arrangements are not meeting people’s expectations. People’s representatives routinely support anti-people economic policies. Farmers are committing suicides because prices of agricultural produce are kept low. The government encourages imports when the domestic prices are high and deprives the farmers of these profits. On the other hand, exports are prohibited when international prices are high to maintain low domestic prices. The farmer is made to lose both ways. Poor educated youth are jobless. Economic policies encourage use of more capital and less labour. Tax exemptions are based on the amount of capital invested, not on the number of jobs created. Unemployed youth join the Naxalite groups or come under influence of religious fundamentalists in desperation. People of Nandigram resisted the creation of an industrial hub because few jobs would have been created while they stood to lose their land. Policemen who suppress the people’s anger were rewarded with a huge raise in salaries under the Sixth Pay Commission. Question before us is this: Why do the people’s representatives elected by the people follow anti-people policies and how do they yet manage to get re-elected again and again? One reason for this sad situation is the nature of the electoral constituencies established by the Constitution. All voters in a geographical area are put together in a constituency. The conflicts within a constituency are glossed over. Landlords and agricultural labourers; businessmen and workers; and shopkeepers and consumers together elect one person as their representative. The elected MP and MLA are representatives both of the businessmen and the farmers. The MP is therefore, free to make policies in favour of the businessman or the farmer. Theoretically the MP should make policies that secure the welfare of the largest numbers. But like the voters, the MP is also interested in securing his livelihood. His livelihood is best secured by making policies that beget him more cuts and commissions but also enable him to get re-elected. The MPs, therefore, make policies that keep the voters poor and impoverished and provide benefits to the businesses. They make policies that ensure that people remain poor and keep clamouring for small reliefs. They do not want to remove the poverty because then the voters will not clamour for reliefs and the ability of the MPs to get their votes by giving out small reliefs will be impaired. Exploitation The government, for example, first allows big businesses to exploit the groundwater. The farmers’ tube wells go dry. Then the MPs and MLAs intervene to have some water released in the canal or to have drinking water supplied through tankers. They get cuts both in allowing big companies to exploit groundwater and in supply of drinking water by tankers. Or they make laws that do not provide quick justice. This problem lay at the root of differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar. Dr Ambedkar wanted separate electorates for the Dalits. Gandhiji said that it would be unwise to do it because a Dalit would then remain Dalit in perpetuity. He will have no escape from his Dalithood. On the other hand, Ambedkar held that only such individuals will be elected from reserved constituencies who towed the line of the upper castes. Both arguments appear to be valid. Gandhiji’s fear has turned a reality. Every caste is today trying to have itself declared as SC or OBC. Everyone wants to encash his birth instead of building on his deeds. On the other hand, the 180 MPs elected from among the SCs are ineffective in securing the welfare of the poor because their own incomes are secured by toeing the line of the upper castes — exactly as Ambedkar had feared. One possible solution is to make occupational constituencies. Let all farmers, agricultural labourers, industrial workers, businessmen and government servants cast their votes in separate constituencies. Similarly the agricultural labourers, artisans, businessmen and government employees can be placed in separate constituencies. The MPs elected in this way will be directly answerable to their voters earning a particular livelihood. The MP elected from a farmers’ constituency will not be able to give a false explanation that ground water should be given to the businesses. Real debate on use of groundwater will then take place in parliament between the farmer-MP and the businessman-MP. The main point is that the connection between the voter and the representative will be made through a clearly defined livelihood. The millions of poor farmers, agricultural labourers and unorganised urban workers will be able to demand policies that are beneficial for them and not be taken for a ride. Such an arrangement should be acceptable both to Gandhi and Ambedkar. No stamp of Dalithood will be put on one who is born Dalit as Gandhi wanted. At the same time, many constituencies will spontaneously become ‘Reserved’. Almost 90 per cent of the agricultural labourers and artisans are Dalits. These occupational constituencies will double up as Dalit constituencies. We must revisit the Constitution and make a structure that makes elected representatives truly answerable to the people.