Amendment to Democratic Process

The term ‘democracy’ is derived from the Greek word (dēmokratía) which means “power to the people”. The word was coined around 500 BC when there were popular uprisings in Greek cities demanding freedom, equality and equal access to power. Thus democracy puts power in the hands of the people which they exercise to elect representatives to govern them. The elected representatives in turn are supposed to carry out the ‘will’ of the people and fulfill their demands and aspirations. This correlation to people in governance (unlike other political systems) has led to its wide appeal and acceptance world over. In India democracy is vibrant and firmly entrenched in its socio-political system, with people electing governments at regular intervals. However, this system of representation and election is extremely susceptible to corruption and can soon result into oligarchy if proper tabs are not placed on it and people do not actively monitor it. Unfortunately, democracy has not evolved to be self-correcting and free from corruption. Today, the election which is the core democratic process has largely failed to provide governments that honestly address the basic needs and aspirations of the people. The corruption by money and muscle power in the election process has more often than not relegated people to choosing from candidates who can hardly qualify as representatives of the people. Such candidates who are basically self-serving rarely have any interest in addressing the needs of the people and see the office as a money-minting place. Barring a few exceptions, the Indian polity has largely produced representatives/leaders of this genre. It is not hard to see then why the ground realities for a majority of the people haven’t changed much since independence.

The development has been compartmentalized and concentrated mainly in urban India which proves to be good money-making center for corporate houses and politicians. Despite over 60 years of independence and being the largest democracy in the world, India still reels under terrible corruption, social and economic inequalities, increasing gap between rich and poor and a lack of most basic necessities like healthcare, basic amenities, education etc. for most people. This is rampant in rural India where two-thirds of the population resides. Over the years, the elected representatives of democratic India have made only miniscule efforts to correct these problems. The media which was supposed to keep tabs on the functioning of democracy and inform people about it has degenerated from its role of the fourth state and a pillar of democracy to a mere entertainer and a panderer to sensation. Today mainstream media can be characterized as regressive, corporatized and pliant to government dictates. When ironically ‘revolution’ is not in the offing and left forces and movement seem in shambles what choices do we have? Can we strive for a true democracy free of money and corruption?

In the very least, the government can be pressurized to make the democratic process more representative of the people (what it has ceased to be) and insulate it from the effects of money and social ladder. The process should be made available to people who are genuinely interested in the common welfare irrespective of their economic or social status. Democracy is exercised by the people by casting votes and electing representatives in their constituencies. The process of collecting votes, counting them and declaring a candidate elected is conducted by a body of the administrative machinery, the Election Commission. In India the independence of the Election Commission is crucial for democracy to function and its constitution was a big step forward in fair democratic process. However its role is limited to conducting elections freely and fairly. It is beyond its powers to control the choices, the prejudices and the biases that enter into the process much before the actual casting of votes. The candidates/parties with more money-power usually do aggressive campaigning and sweep the voters with their own agenda. The voters in general are hardly ever able to hear alternate voices or choices they might have. More often than not the parties with money generate their funds through illegal and coercive means. That money is then mostly spent by parties in campaigning for elections and propping their candidates. Quite often business houses contribute to party funds in expectation of a favor when the party or their candidate comes to power. This initiates a cycle of corruption where the elected representative now tries to recover the money through local administration by pressurizing it, and also contributes to passing of laws favorable to businesses. In this entire cycle, people are invisible, absent and nowhere in priority. Their status is reduced to a mere tool that is exploited by the candidates/parties to get to power. It is no surprise that ultimately people bear the brunt of this corruption in the democratic process; as the local administration in turn takes money from the people in form of bribes and through other illegal means to satiate their political masters. This chain and access of money has made political aspirants (and also government bureaucracy) to see politics as a career instead as a service to people.

This vicious cycle of money is seen as an investment by a majority of political candidates and parties. This cycle needs to be disrupted. Party funds should strictly be generated through donations of people supporting the party and its cause, and should be restricted to only maintaining the day to day affairs of the party. The money spent by parties on elections and campaigning distorts the democratic process. To make the process fairer, money needs to be taken out of the equation. For that the role of the Election Commission or an equivalent body needs to be expanded to conducting canvassing for elections in addition to conducting the actual elections. This implies making campaigning through party or personal funds effectively illegal. Instead of taking the whole constituency as hostage during the elections, canvassing should be restricted in venue and time decided by the Election Commission. The time frame for canvassing should be fixed and the place for canvassing should be any pre-designated place in the constituency as decided by the Election Commission. A pre-designated place can be any open place, a play ground, campus ground, parks or other open space in the constituency selected by the Election Commission for canvassing. All canvassing by candidates should be done at this pre-designated place under the purview of the Election Commission which will make all infrastructure arrangements at this venue. Making this structural change, effects of money in the election process can be neutralized and will make candidates, parties on par in real terms.

The fallout of this can be numerous candidates coming out for contesting elections. If at all this happens, where the number of candidates becomes unwieldy (the possibility of having hundreds of candidates is quite unlikely), then too, the Election Commission can step in to screen the candidates by conducting a primary election. The Election Commission can ask for a one page manifesto from candidates, publish it and distribute it among the electorate. The manifestos of candidates/parties can be distributed through local newspaper distribution channels or can be made available at public places, schools, common grounds etc. The voters can then choose top few candidates in the primaries based on the manifesto and agenda of each candidate. Literacy can become an issue in several parts of the country and in such places representative of local administration can read the manifestos to voters at the pre-designated place. Once the final number of candidates is decided after the primaries, the pre-designated places in the constituencies can be used for organizing addresses of candidates to the people. The Election Commission should ensure that each candidate gets equal number of time slots to address the voters. On similar lines, television channels (government or private, national or local) and radio stations should be asked to allot a certain fixed time free of charge for candidates for canvassing. It should be made mandatory for the media to participate constructively this way in the election process.

Preserving democracy is not only the onus of the government but is also the duty of the people to preserve it by actively participating in it. Having primaries will not only give candidates a level playing field but will also allow greater participation of people in the democratic process thereby giving them a greater control over the election process and who they elect. Candidates incarcerated on criminal charges should be barred from elections until they finish their prison terms. The manifesto and primaries should however be able to eliminate such candidates automatically. The relative anonymity in the process of primaries should also prevent election violence and killings of rival candidates. Still, election violence is an extremely critical issue that should be dealt separately, still under the purview of the Election Commission. The final candidates after the primaries should be given adequate police protection until the final elections to prevent them from violence from other parties/candidates. In remote places, where booth capturing is rampant and there is not adequate police force to prevent it, reinforcement should be done from other constituencies or else local people should be empowered and armed by local administration to prevent such incidents from happening.

This amendment can be a step forward to eliminate the flaws in the existing democratic process. The democratic process needs to be reformed in a way such that only most selfless people, committed to common welfare are attracted to politics and work for the betterment of one and all. There is a long way to go but history has taught us that civil and just societies are formed only after continued struggles and rights are obtained slowly and in parts. The crucial thing is to continue working towards the humane and just world and not give up in the face of tremendous hurdles posed by capitalist and bourgeois ruling class.