Policy Document
2012
Prepared and published by:
The Campaign for Electoral Reforms in India (CERI)
REDS Road
Shanthinagar
Tumkur 572102
Karnataka
Email: ceri.reds@gmail.com
Website: www.ceri.in
(0)9845144893
February 2012INTRODUCTION
Electoral Reforms in India has come to be equated with tinkering
with the existing First Past the Post system (FPTP). Quite good
efforts are being made to prune the existing systems of all unwanted
growth and make it more presentable and acceptable by the general
citizens of India. While such endeavours are greatly laudable it is
necessary to realize that they fall short of reaching the goals of
democratic governance in a country like India. It is common
knowledge that India as a country is a complex reality. It is
recognized that there are legitimate strains of governing India in
the most acceptable way with all the societal foundations of caste,
religion, languages and cultures. Simultaneously it must be also
recognized that much of the present constraints of governance can
be overcome if appropriate systems and structures are put in place
at the right time. For example, India arrived at an era of coalition
politics long ago and yet we are sticking on to the FPTP system
despite sporadic suggestions for ushering in proportional
representation system.
In the global scenario, countries that have arrived at coalition politics
and that are more concerned about inclusive representation of their
citizens in mechanisms of governance have already shifted to
proportional representation system. It is significant to note that
multicultural societies, irrespective of being in Europe, Africa and
Latin America have been spearheading the change to PR system.
This is done precisely because such countries have an avowed
purpose of ushering in inclusion of indigenous communities,
minorities of all kinds, immigrants and women in their representative
governance. It is common knowledge that Proportional
Representation system enhancing participatory and inclusive
democracy also reduces instability, corruption, violence and fascism.
It goes without saying that for a country like India, with all sorts of
fundamentalism, casteism, communalism, corruption, violence etc.
PR system will be the most appropriate electoral system.
Simultaneously we must add a caution that an electoral system is
not a panacea for all the problems that country faces. It is only one
but one of the most significant instruments in representative
democratic governance.
The Campaign for Electoral Reforms in India (CERI) is convinced
that it is high time to have proportional representation system as an
electoral system in India. Such a conviction has come about not by
any fancied wish but as a consequence of serious researches on
the electoral systems of countries that have recognized strengths
of inclusive representation and governance. CERI has gathered
cross-current thinking and opinions from the India academia,
intelligentsia, civil and political leadership and citizens in order to
arrive at this conviction. Having been convinced of the deep longing
within India for substantive changes in the Indian representation
system, CERI decided to bring together as many experts on electoral
systems as possible. Top-level experts from different countries put
their heads together intensively for three days going often into night
discussions and have come out with what is now known as 'Berlin
Statement'.
It is time that the issue of representation is taken up in the Parliament
of India for serious deliberations. It is heartening to note that the
Parliament is already informed by some members of the immediate
need to shift to proportional representation system. CERI believes
that it is ultimately either the Parliament or the Election Commission
of India that will have to take the final call on this very important
issue of proportional representation in India. In order to facilitate
further deliberations within and outside of the Parliament CERI
decided to transform the Berlin Statement into a policy document
so that it can lay the foundations for substantive discussions at all
levels in India. In the event of the Parliament of India setting up a
parliamentary committee to further work on this issue or delegating
the responsibility to the Election Commission of India, we are sure
this policy document will be an easy tool in their hands.
It is also imperative that the Indian public and political leadership
becomes aware of the intricate dimensions of proportional
representation so that a mature awareness is arrived at in the course
of reforms that the governments may bring about in due course of
3 45 6
time. An informed public is a great asset to any democracy. We
wish more and more people begin to discuss the issue threadbare
without fear and take up the question of proportional representation
in India at all levels.
CERI is highly grateful to all those who have evinced great interest
in this cause of democratization of India and in bringing about an
inclusive governance in the country. CERI thanks all her state
coordinators who have worked assiduously on a voluntary basis
despite their other engagements with energy consuming issues.
CERI likes to thank in a special way all the experts of electoral
systems who gathered in Berlin in order to arrive at objective
positions on the most suitable form of proportional representation
for India. CERI also thanks all her national and international
supporters in carrying this great cause of democracy forward.
M C Raj
Founder - CERI
Message from Dr. Arend Lijphart
To
Workshop of Electoral Systems Experts,
Berlin,17-19 October 2011
"The basic argument is that India is a plural (deeply divided) society and that, like all such societies, it needs elections that have
proportional outcomes. Such results can be obtained without PR;
in fact, during the time of Congress hegemony, there was a large
degree of proportionality because of the inclusiveness of the Congress party. Reserved seats also help. But "proportionality without
PR" tends to be imperfect and has lots of other disadvantages (as
I state on pp. 39-40 of my 2007chapter). My advice is that, if you
want proportionality in election outcomes, then use PR. I would
give this advice to India and all other plural societies. The only further advice I would give, because there are so many forms of PR,
choose a PR system that is simple and straightforward. Don't be
too much of a PR "perfectionist"! - Arend
Research Professor Emeritus of Political Science
Department of Political Science, 0521
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0521, USAProportional Electoral System
for India
A Policy Document
1. Preamble
India is recognized as one of the largest democracies in the world.
From the time of enlightenment democracy has gone through a
metamorphosis. One of the latest that is in circulation is about
Consociational democracy. Simultaneously different other versions
of democracy such as deliberative democracy, dialectic democracy,
colonial democracy etc. have been floated in the recent past. India
has derived its democracy from the representative model. More and
more countries have taken up the task of making their democracies
more meaningful to and inclusive of their citizens. One also witnesses
concomitantly strenuous efforts by dominant forces to twist
democratic institutions to suit their agenda, either hidden or explicit.
One of the essential institutions of representative democracy is
electoral system. Nation States, as they have emerged over a period
of many centuries can only afford to be governed through a
representative system. Different countries of the world have adapted
different types of electoral systems to address the representative
character of their democracies. It is also recognized by scholars
that an electoral system is the democratic institution that may more
or less easily be manipulated, dependent on the system chosen. In
the postmodern period one witnesses both the efforts being taken at
different levels. One set of countries constantly keeps revisiting their
electoral system to usher in more inclusive, stable and efficient
governance to their citizens. Another set of countries either maintains
their electoral system untouched or change it in such a way that it
will serve their dominant designs of governance.
India's electoral system has remained largely untouched in the more
than 65 years of her post British democratic governance. However,
it must be recognized that different voices have been sounded every
now and then towards changing the electoral system of India to
make it more inclusive and relevant to the changing needs of time,
starting from the very formation of India's constitution. There were
prolonged arguments in the Constituent Assembly for and against a
proportional electoral system as against the British form of the First
Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system. Finally FPTP was adopted
in preference to a system of proportional representation (PR) mainly
because of the low level of literacy in India. It was assumed that
FPTP was comparatively simpler to understand and more pragmatic
in a country that had only 15% of literacy at the time of writing the
Constitution. At present the rate of literacy in India is estimated to
be more than 65%. Subsequently the Indian National Law
Commission has made a clear recommendation of the German
model of proportional representation electoral system for India in its
1999 report. Every now and then different members of the Parliament
of India have been raising the issue of proportional representation as
a possible way forward for governance in India without the present
levels of corruption, violence, communalism and casteism. The
Campaign for Electoral Reforms in India (CERI) has been vigorously
spearheading the recent efforts to bring about proportionate electoral
system in India in the place of the present FPTP system.
2. The Rationale of the Campaign
Nation Building was and has still been one of the predominant
concerns of subsequent governments and civil society actors in
the post-British India. In all nation building endeavour two significant
dimensions have been stressed. One is external to the nation and is
anticipated from beyond the geographical boundaries. The other is
internal to the nation. In as much as a nation is internally strong it
can also face external threats effectively. Stable governments are
necessary prerequisites to meet both these dimensions efficiently.
Systems and structures, Instruments and mechanisms of governance
are inalienable ingredients in internally building up a nation. The
electoral system plays a crucial role in providing stable governments
in modern and postmodern nation states. On one hand a plurality
based system, which gives the biggest party over-representation
7 8and therefore a 'ruling bonus' may be said to be of support of stable
governments. However, in India with the strong role of regional parties
this effect is much smaller than in countries like the UK. More
important is that a nation state with India's complexity in the
composition of its peoples that fails to establish an inclusive
democratic governance and a congruent electoral system is bound
to be weakened internally and this in turn will inevitably result in
governments taking recourse to strong-arm tactics for containing
intermittent citizen unrest and protests. Hence the dire need to make
sure that inclusive electoral system and subsequently inclusive
governance are set up in building up a strong nation. It is such a
nation that is internally strong that will be able to face external threats
in whatever forms they arrive.
It is recognized that FPTP will make countries develop into a two
party democracy since smaller parties will have big problems in
winning seats. Some parties with strong local support will, however,
be able to take the role of a big party locally and when adding up
there may, as the case is in India, be a large variety of parties in
parliament. Even in such countries which have a two party system
efforts are often being made to usher in proportional representation
in order to ensure representation of multiple interest groups. One
recognizes that it is a multicultural society, which is in need of very
special measures for democratic governance. The complex reality
of Indian State makes it difficult even for experts to develop a clear
understanding of the undercurrents that guide its destiny. The praxis
of the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system in India has
further accentuated the intricacies of its governance. The international
workshop of electoral systems experts, held in Berlin between 17
and 19 of October 2011 recognizes that the FPTP electoral system,
vogue in India, is a legacy borrowed from the British. India has come
a long way in its political life from the time it got independence from
the British. It is now emerging as a major player in the global
economic scenario. However, the representative character of its
democratic governance leaves much to be desired in terms of the
results it produces for more than a billion of its people.
3. Mixed Member Proportional System (MMP)
Politically speaking India has arrived at an era of coalition politics.
Being a multicultural society it is only natural that it arrived at an era
of coalition politics. One may not see a reversal of this coalition
politics in the near future. In this changed scenario India's present
electoral system has rendered itself irrelevant. Most of the ills that
are consequent to an effort to fit an irrelevant electoral system to a
fast changing society are being witnessed in Indian society as well
as in Indian mechanisms of governance. India, with its multi-party
system and coalition politics is in dire need of changing its electoral
system to a more relevant and inclusive representative system that
also addresses the needs of coalition politics in a multicultural
society.
This workshop of electoral systems experts, after due diligence on
complex realities of Indian democratic governance has come to
the conclusion that the Mixed Member Proportional Representation
System with two votes per voter will address better the changing
needs of Indian democracy. It must be recognized that most inclusive
democracies in the world have already shifted their electoral system
to one or other form of proportionate electoral system. In order to
make democracy in such a huge multicultural society as inclusive
as possible it is also recommended that India adapted MMP with a
ratio of 30% FPTP seats elected from single-member constituencies
and 70% party list seats (list PR). The Constitution of India has
recommended direct elections to the parliament. It must be noted
that list proportional representation system is direct elections with a
high degree of accountability if it is implemented according to the
spirit and letter of the constitution. Bringing in MMP will not be a
total departure from the past electoral praxis in India while at the
same time it will integrate to a large extent proportionality in
representation. Any democratic transition has to be wrought with
extreme caution without completely breaking the past practices.
This will continue till the citizens of India are in a position to choose
a full PR system.
Mixed Member Proportional Systems are proportional systems
9 10because here all votes in all constituencies are summed up on a
higher, usually national, level and then are transformed into
parliamentary seats. The List PR vote decides the political
composition of all seats in parliament to be in proportion to the
votes, not only the 70% of the seats elected under the List PR
system. The 70 % of the seats are used as compensatory seats in
such a way that a party which is underrepresented in the FPTP part
of the election is compensated in the List PR part and the result is
fully proportional in the end.
The other feature is that with the List PR component of the election
it is much easier to make the parliament truly inclusive with genuine
representation of all groups of the society, both without and with
particular rules for reservation of seats.
4. Party List System
Reflecting on the most appropriate vote system, which is a significant
dimension of any electoral system this workshop of electoral
systems experts has arrived at a consensus taking into consideration
the predominant view of Indian delegates present that it will be good
for India to adopt the two vote system with closed party list as against
open party list system. There is an introduction of three significant
new dimensions in the electoral system of India.
Party List system. This will mean that 70% of the parliamentary
seats in India will be elected by the voters casting their votes
to a political party of their choice and for a particular candidate.
Each political party will prepare a list of its possible candidates
as to enter into the parliament in an order of priority. This list
will be submitted to the Election Commission of India before
every election and will be made known to voters. It will be
possible for voters to identify which candidate possibly
represents which constituency. Depending on the percentage
of votes that a party gains in a given election it will be able to
send that many and only that many candidates from its list
into the Parliament. Let us assume that there are 1000
members in the Parliament of India. Party A gains 45% of
votes, party B gains 30% of votes. Party C gains 15% of votes
and Party D gains 10% of votes. This will give only 450 members
in the Parliament to Party A, 300 members to party B, 150
members to party C and 100 members to party D. There will
be no bye-election in this system as the next candidate in the
party list will go automatically to the Parliament if either a
candidate dies or resigns or is expelled from the party.
Each voter will have to cast two votes in this MMP system.
30% members to the parliament will be elected through FPTP
exactly as it is practiced in India at present. The Election
Commission of India will identify such constituencies taking
into account all dimensions that determine electoral districts
normally in India. All voters can cast their votes to any
candidate running in their constituency for one of the 30%
seats. The one who gets more votes than other candidates in
such constituencies will be declared elected.
Voters will also have a second vote, which they can cast to a
party of their choice looking at the ideology, policies,
programmes laid out in Manifesto, integrity of candidates etc.
Depending on the total percentage of votes that a party obtains
a corresponding number of candidates will go into the
parliament from that party in the full membership of parliament,
single member constituencies and List PR seats combined.
Totally 70% of parliamentary members will be elected through
the second vote of the voters.
It is possible that candidates, appearing on the party list may
also run for election in that constituency, in which they reside.
If such a candidate wins the seat "directly" in his/her
constituency he/she will get a seat in parliament in any case,
regardless of the rank on which he/she is positioned on the
party list. (Example: even if he/she is positioned on rank 100
of the party list and the party is eligible for only 80 seats he/
she will get a seat. But consequently only 79 seats according
to the ranking-order of the party-list can be distributed. )
11 12 If e.g. 20 candidates of a particular party win their seat "directly"
in their respective constituencies, these 20 seats will be
deducted from the total number of seats for which the party is
eligible. (Example: if a party is eligible for 80 seats according
to the percentage of votes and 20 of their candidates win a
"direct seat", only the 60 remaining seats will be distributed
according to the ranking on the party-list.)
The party list will be a closed list. There are countries that opt
for an open list system. Considering the complexities of Indian
politics the Workshop of Experts has proposed a closed list
system. In an open list system voters are able to give preference
votes to candidates and by doing so change the order of the
list. For that reason an open list system can't be combined
with reservations/quotas. If a country opts to introduce quotas
on a party list, it has to be a closed list. A list is considered to
be closed the moment it is submitted to the Election
Commission and elections are conducted. Parties will have
no right to change the order of priority in the list after election
results are declared. They will have to follow the order of the
list strictly after declaration of election results. In an open list
system voters may give individual votes within the lists and
that will decide who is filling the party's seats but is regarded
as too complicated within an MMP system for India.. This is
bound to lead to many types of manipulations by party
leadership after elections and voters may not have any say in
such post poll decisions of parties.
As the ranking of the candidates on the party-list obviously
becomes a vital feature in the life and performance of any
party, the ranking process should follow democratic principles
(inner-party voting)! These processes are vital for the internal
party democracy and party governance. The right to nominate
the candidates for a particular constituency has to be regulated
in the statutes of the parties and should also follow democratic
principles.
5. Reservation
In principle a List PR system is more inclusive than FPTP even
without provisions for reserved seats. This is due to the fact that
more votes in a constituency may give a party more seats. Therefore
a party will attempt to nominate inclusive candidate lists so that
they attract the votes of the Dalits, Women, Adivasis etc. In FPTP
having the highest number of votes suffices to win seats, for example
when one can win a seat with only 25 % of votes and gaining 35 %
of votes does not bring more seats. In list PR every extra vote makes
a difference.
However, many countries that in addition to the automatic effect on
inclusiveness also built in minimum requirements form inclusiveness
into the List PR system in order to make their democracy more
inclusive have also integrated one or other form of reservation/separate
electorate/separate parliament etc. This workshop of experts on
electoral systems deliberated extensively on the question of
reservation/separate electorate for Dalits, Adivasis/Tribals, Women
and Minorities in the new MMP and took into serious consideration
the historical exclusion of these communities of people in many
spheres of governance. It is recognized that the present system of
reserved seats in the Parliament for SC/ST candidates has a
compulsive element of elected members from these categories towing
party lines. If such parties happen to be dominant parties it becomes
difficult for SC/ST members to truly represent the aspirations of their
communities. Also in the present FPTP system people belonging to
other categories are allowed to vote for SC/ST candidates. This makes
the question of representation of excluded peoples more complex
and often impossible given the political compulsions within each
party. Such risks are reduced to the minimum in the party list system.
It is well possible to accommodate proportional representation in
the party list system under the MMP and this Workshop of Experts
recommends that at least the presently given reserved seats will
have to be reflected in the list of any party, running in the election.
The Parliament of India or the Election Commission of India may
decide, according to Indian law, the exact order in the party list in
13 14which names of women, Dalits, Minorities, Adivasis/Tribals etc. have
to be placed. Such an order of names in every party list will ensure
that a certain percentage of candidates from particular communities
or women are elected to the parliament. It must be noted that this
is an India specific recommendation taking into account the
composition of India's population. In order to ensure maximum
representation of communities according to their population in the
country it will be necessary not to expand the categories in the
party list and keep as less as possible. Simultaneously the Workshop
trusts that a healthy competition will emerge between the parties
on which of them will take these reservations really seriously and
try to be the most inclusive one in the choice of their candidates.
The same reservation mechanism as with the party lists could also
apply to the candidates running for election in the FPTP
constituencies. However, there are more disadvantages since the
candidates even in such districts will have to appeal to main stream
voters more than when being one out of many candidates on a list.
It addition it limits people's right to stand for elections. With MMP
one may choose to keep all reservation in the List PR part, but one
may also consider continuing the current reservation system. All
reservation should only be kept until such time when inclusive
representation of hitherto excluded communities becomes a natural
reflection through the electoral system.
In the Mixed Member Proportional representation system in India
70% of seats will be filled from party list. It will not be possible for
any particular caste groups to claim that a Dalit candidate or a
minority candidate won the election because of their votes as it
happens in the present FPTP system. In reserved constituencies
the dominant caste groups are able to assess the approximate
number of votes they cast to Dalit candidates. To that extend they
also apply pressure on Dalit members to serve their interests in the
post poll scenario thus making a Dalit member an ineffective
representative of his own people. In seats that are filled with party
list system such a claim is not possible for dominant caste groups.
Therefore, Dalit members will be able to represent their people
without fear or unnecessary obligations to dominant caste groups.
6. Threshold
Threshold refers to a provision in electoral systems to fix a minimum
percentage of votes for parties that will make them eligible to enter
the parliament. This is not completely new to India. The present
Election Commission has recommended more than 5% of votes
for a party to be recognized/registered as a national party. In some
electoral systems a party will be eligible to send its candidates into
the parliament only if it gains a minimum percentage of votes. If a
party does not gain the fixed minimum percentage it cannot claim
to send representative based on its percentage of votes that will be
less than the fixed Threshold.
A widespread healthy democratic practice in most countries with
proportionate electoral system is the introduction of 'threshold'. This
is done with the avowed purpose of discouraging unhealthy and
unnecessary fragmentation of parties as well as to prevent the entry
of small groups with very little popular support into parliament of
any country. Taking into consideration the need for including
legitimate aspirations of small communities of people in India and
its large population, it is realized by this workshop of electoral
systems experts that for India's MMP a threshold of 1% of overall
polled votes or a win of three FPTP seats will be the most appropriate
one. In India this may necessitate micro communities to come
together and form larger ethnic, linguistic or regional
conglomerations among themselves in order to enhance the
possibility of their representation in the parliament.
7. The Counting System and Distribution of Seats
In order that votes may not be wasted in large proportion, as is the
case in the present FPTP system in India, the proportional systems
are the most adequate ones. Translating votes into seats, however,
plays a significant role in establishing proportionality of
representation. There are many counting systems in this process
of translating votes cast into seats in representative democracies.
To make the translation of votes into seats most accurate, but equally
avoiding 'surprise' outcomes, it becomes imperative that the
Webster-System be used.
15 16Among the many distribution systems that are available the Webster
System also known as Sainte-Laguë Method is chosen mainly
because it brings more proportionality in distributing seats based
on votes without some random side effects which for example
methods like the Largest Remainder have.. The following table will
illustrate how votes are distributed as seats. Let us suppose that
Party A has obtained a total of 250,000 votes, party B has gained
190,000 votes, party C has gained 120,000 votes and party D only
80,000 votes. Odd numbers are the divisors. First all the votes are
divided by number 1. This means all parties gain one seat. As a
second step the votes of all parties are divided by number 3. As a
third step the votes are further divided by number 5 and this process
of division by odd numbers goes on till the total number of seats
are allocated. In the table below the division of votes are stopped at
the fourth step as there are only a total of ten seats, for example. If
there are more seats one or two more rounds of divisions will be
necessary. Of the ten seats party A gains four seats while party B
gains 3 seats, party C gains 2 seats and party C gains only one
seat. The 10th seat has gone to party A as the number of votes is
higher than the number of votes that party C has gained even in the
second step (only 26,670 as against the 35,710 votes that party A
has gained in the fourth step).
Divisor Party A Party B Party C Party D
1 250000 [1] 190000 [2] 120000 [3] 80000 [5]
3 83333 [4] 63333 [6] 40000 [8] 26666
5 50000 [7] 38000 [9] 24000 16000
7 35714 [10] 27142 17142 11428
The divisors in the first column are simply the odd numbers 1, 3, 5,
... in sequence, as many as are necessary. The numbers in each
row are the votes for the party divided by the divisor; the numbers
in the brackets are the ranks of these quotients. When the tenth (or
however many seats are to be apportioned) highest quotients have
been allocated, each party gets as many seats as it has of the
highest numbers. In this case, the parties are assigned 4, 3, 2, and
1 seat in order.
The distribution of seats is done for the full membership of parliament
at national level. Thereafter the number of the seats won by FPTP is
deducted from each party's number of seats and the rest are
distributed to the multi-member constituencies formed by the states
according to the votes won by the parties in the states.
8. Size of Parliament
It is suggested that the MMP for India has single-member
constituencies for the FPTP and that the List PR seats are filled
from party lists in each state or combination of states and territories.
After the results for the parties are calculated on the basis of
nationwide results their seats are filled from such multi-member
constituencies. The number of FPTP seats will be less than in the
current parliament but with multi-member constituencies for the
List PR part there may be a need for increasing the total number of
seats in order to make in particular the 30 % single member
constituencies meaningful. The reduced number of FPTP seats
will necessitate a redistricting of single member constituencies,
The introduction of List PR filled from multi-member constituencies
will not only increase the proportionality of representation in terms
of parties but will also bring in much better inclusiveness in the
Parliament.
It is recognized that even comparatively smaller countries like
Germany using MMP and Nepal with its Parallel System, another
variant of the mixed system, have more than 600 members in their
respective parliaments, for Nepal however, for the temporary
constituent assembly only. Introduction of MMP may call for an
expansion of the size of the parliament of a country. India, being a
huge country of more than one billion people will have to make an
expansion of her parliament that will be congruent to the size of its
population without undermining the need for manageability and an
acceptable relation between representative and voter in the seats
allotted through the district votes. Therefore, this workshop of
17 18
Among the many distribution systems that are available the Webster
System also known as Sainte-Laguë Method is chosen mainly
because it brings more proportionality in distributing seats based
on votes without some random side effects which for example
methods like the Largest Remainder have.. The following table will
illustrate how votes are distributed as seats. Let us suppose that
Party A has obtained a total of 250,000 votes, party B has gained
190,000 votes, party C has gained 120,000 votes and party D only
80,000 votes. Odd numbers are the divisors. First all the votes are
divided by number 1. This means all parties gain one seat. As a
second step the votes of all parties are divided by number 3. As a
third step the votes are further divided by number 5 and this process
of division by odd numbers goes on till the total number of seats
are allocated. In the table below the division of votes are stopped at
the fourth step as there are only a total of ten seats, for example. If
there are more seats one or two more rounds of divisions will be
necessary. Of the ten seats party A gains four seats while party B
gains 3 seats, party C gains 2 seats and party C gains only one
seat. The 10th seat has gone to party A as the number of votes is
higher than the number of votes that party C has gained even in the
second step (only 26,670 as against the 35,710 votes that party A
has gained in the fourth step).
Divisor Party A Party B Party C Party D
1 250000 [1] 190000 [2] 120000 [3] 80000 [5]
3 83333 [4] 63333 [6] 40000 [8] 26666
5 50000 [7] 38000 [9] 24000 16000
7 35714 [10] 27142 17142 11428
The divisors in the first column are simply the odd numbers 1, 3, 5,
... in sequence, as many as are necessary. The numbers in each
row are the votes for the party divided by the divisor; the numbers
in the brackets are the ranks of these quotients. When the tenth (or
however many seats are to be apportioned) highest quotients have
been allocated, each party gets as many seats as it has of theelectoral systems experts likes to recommend to a later
Parliamentary Committee of India that we hope will be set up, to
consider all possible complex dimensions and arrive at a number
that will be proportionally inclusive and professionally manageable.
This will also simultaneously call for the empowerment of the
Election Commission of India to determine the number of seats
per multi-member constituency taking into serious consideration
the size and composition of population and the latent diversity of
each constituency according to principles defined by law.
9. Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering refers to the manipulative mechanism of governments
taking recourse to, from time to time, redefining the boundaries of
electoral districts (constituencies). It is not the same as re-districting.
Generally ruling parties in some countries indulge in gerrymandering
according to the electoral advantages that they want to ensure in
the next elections. It is to be noted that gerrymandering is not just a
matter of redistricting, which may be necessary after some new
census. Gerrymandering is always associated with manipulative
redistricting. So there may be a "genuine need" for redistricting but
never for gerrymandering. Therefore, this workshop is of the opinion
that if there is a genuine need for redistricting, it should be done by
the Election Commission, following only technical criteria such as
population, size of constituencies, administrative boundaries etc.,
but never political considerations. However, this problem is practically
irrelevant under MMP, as the basis for the number of seats, won by
a party will always be distributed according to the number of votes
under the party-lists.
10. "Extras"
There are issues that pertain to the FPTP system and have no
relevance to PR system and vice versa. However, in view of the
fact that various issues were raised during the different State
Conferences in India on electoral reforms it is the responsibility of
this workshop to take stock of all such issues. This workshop wishes
to inform the Indian public that certain issues like negative voting
and recall of elected candidates will not have relevance in electoral
politics if the Mixed Member Proportionate system is ushered in
India. Experience in countries that have one or other form of
proportional representation system has proved over a period of time
that larger issues like corruption, violence, communalism are much
better contained to the minimum when proportional electoral system
is ushered in. However, this Workshop of Experts likes to caution
voters that proportional representation election system is not a
panacea for all problems that a society faces. There are problems in
any society that need to be resolved by mechanisms other than
electoral system. Electoral system forms one of the most significant
mechanisms of representative democracy. However, it is must be
noted that there are many other instruments and mechanisms of
governance.
10.1 Financing of Elections
This workshop of electoral systems experts is of the view that
financing of parties in elections through direct corporate funding will
lead to unhealthy practices of democracy and negatively impact
governance. In situations specific to India there are communities
whose parties may be at a comparative disadvantage to campaign
for legitimate success in elections. Therefore, it becomes imperative
that State funding of elections is put in place to curb corruption by
wealthy parties and to support resource crunched parties. It must
be noted that since voters will be casting 70% votes for party list in
MMP the unhealthy practice connected to money for individual
candidates will be less and party funding will increase transparency.
Electoral expenses will be reduced considerably. Corruption as one
witnesses at the time of elections increases when the onus of
spending for campaign is shifted to individual candidates. In a party
list system there will be a need to increase the percentage of a
party vote and not to gain edge over a particular candidate, at least
in 70% of the seats.
The Election Commission of India will have the authority to decide
on necessary criteria for approving electoral expenses of eligible
parties.
19 2010.2 Internal Party Democracy
This workshop took into serious consideration that in a democracy,
parties should have utmost freedom of how they want to conduct the
affairs of their party without the government exercising much
normative control. However, taking into serious consideration the
existence of feudalism, nepotism and tendencies to perpetuate
dynastic control over parties, this workshop also highlights the utmost
importance of ensuring inner party democracy in every electoral
system, be it FPTP or PR system. One may cite as an example the
mechanisms of preparing the party list prior to submitting it to the
election commission. The Election Commission of India may draw
out basic criteria of internal party democracy for preparing the party
list. If the preparation of party lists are not based on the criteria
evolved by the Election Commission it may be necessary that the
Election Commission demand a party to prepare the party list once
again. The same mechanism may be applied to other aspects of
electoral processes.
10.3 Direct Democracy
Direct democracy refers to a mechanism in which citizens make
decisions directly without going through elected representatives. Any
vibrant democracy will take recourse to mechanisms of direct
democracy. However, in the modern and postmodern nation states
direct democracy is not easily possible given the type of complex
realities of the nation state politics. This workshop realizes that the
question of direct democracy is fast spreading in many countries of
the world and India will have to face it sooner than later but as of now
it is not an immediate need to add to the already ambitious shift
from FPTP to MMP. However, It will be important to think of how
some elements of direct democracy can be combined with the MMP
system in the course of time.
10.4. Bicameral Parliament
Bicameral Parliament refers to a parliamentary system that has two
houses, usually one Upper House and one Lower House. This
workshop takes note of the serious nature of the bicameral parliament
as it exists in India. However, it desists from delving deep into this
question in this workshop, as this is more of a Nation State subject
and not an electoral system subject. We respect the wisdom of the
Indian State to deal with this issue.
10.5. Pre-poll or Post-poll Alliance
This is a very difficult question to be determined by any group or
institution. The essential principle of electoral system is that voters
must know what type of coalition will be in place in order to exercise
their electoral choice. It will not be truly democratic if a coalition is
set up after elections against the will of voters. It will be very difficult
to also assess the choice of voters of a party after the poll results
are declared. Therefore, in principle it looks better that pre-poll
alliances are made in the best interest of voter choice. However, it
must be noted that a proportional electoral system may also
necessitate the compulsion of post-poll coalitions in order to form
lasting governments. This Workshop of electoral systems experts
is of the opinion that there cannot be any hard and fast rule of what
type of coalition should exist in a democracy. Political parties should
have the liberty to determine the type of coalitions that they want to
make. It is best left to parties either to elicit the consensus of
members of their parties for a possible pre-poll alliance or to convince
members of their parties of the compulsions that lead to a post-poll
alliance. The voters should know the alternatives at hand when they
cast their vote even if there are situations where pre-poll alliance is
not possible.
11. Other Related Issues
This workshop of experts on electoral systems dealt with certain
specific issues taking into account the Indian situation and arrived
at a consensus in the following manner. These issues have been
taken up mainly because they are the consequence of the voice of
the people who participated in different state conference in India on
electoral reforms organized by CERI.
21 2211.1 Voting age: This workshop insists on the need for making
the youth take part in electoral practices at an early age.
However, the present praxis of 18 years as voting age is a
universally accepted principle and there is no reason to
change it as of now. However, this workshop is of the strong
opinion that there should be no disparity between the
eligibility criteria for voting and contesting. The eligibility for
voting and for contesting should be same.
11.2 One Day Poll: There are countries that conduct their
elections for more than a day. In such cases voters have
the freedom to cast their votes in any one the assigned
days. This workshop of experts is of the firm view that the
present practice of polling on one day is an appropriate one
for India. However, it recommends counting of votes at the
earliest possible time after the voting day without efforts to
prolong the counting of votes.
11.3 Electronic or Paper Voting: This workshop of experts on
electoral systems is of the view that even if electronic voting
system is in place one may consider systems where a
paper trail is kept in a physical ballot box to facilitate
alternative manual control counts. in place. The Election
Commission of India can consider the complicities related
to this aspect and make appropriate decision according to
its wisdom based on ground realities.
11.4 Compulsory Voting: This workshop of electoral systems
experts sets aside any recommendation on the issue of
compulsory voting, as it is more an ideological and political
question than a question of electoral procedures. The
workshop is, however, of the opinion that the MMP itself
will lead to more participation and thus a high level of polling.
This workshop of experts has agreed that despite differences of opinion
on certain issues among experts, consensus has been reached on
all the above listed dimensions of electoral systems that will be
tailor-made for India.
23 24Experts and Delegates
The following are the experts and delegates in the workshop of
electoral systems experts held in Berlin, Germany from 17 to 19
October 2011.
01. Dr. Arshi Khan - India, Associate Professor (Since September
2009) Department of Political Science, Aligar Muslim
University, Aligarh-202002, State of Uttar Pradesh, India.
Area Specialisation
Conflict Resolution, Peace and Federal Governance in
Multicultural Societies
Federalism, Regional Autonomy and Minority Rights--Major Issue
related to Federalism in a Multicultural Society with special reference
to India-- Union-State Relations, Party Politics, Coalition Politics,
Rights for Minorities and Deprived Sections, Autonomy and Special
Status for Regions, Constitutional Reforms, Constituent Assembly
Debates, and Impact of Identity Consciousness on the Working of
the Establishment and Nation Building in India.
02. Prof. Dr. Joachim Behnke - Germany
Professor Dr. Joachim Behnke was appointed at the Zeppelin
University (ZU) to the chair of political science. Behnke comes
from the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, where he was
last a professorship for Empirical Policy Research and Policy
Analysis. At the beginning of the spring semester, he started
work.
Doctorate after studying theatre arts, philosophy,
communication studies, economics and political science at
the Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich and habilitated
Behnke at the Otto-Friedrich-University Bamberg. His research
interests lie in the choice of subject systems, voter behaviour,
Empirical value research, modern political theory, game theory
and public choice theory and empirical methods and science.
03. Dr. Ron de Jong - The Netherlands
Researcher Kiesraad (Electoral Council). Conducting research
on behalf of the Electoral Council. Runs a database on Dutch
election results 1848-2011 (www.verkiezingsuitslagen.nl) and
published in 2011 an Electoral atlas of the Netherlands 1848-
2010
04. Prof. Fuchs, Martin - Germany
05. Mr. Hahn, Walter - Germany
Joined the Public Relation Department of "Bread for the World"
in August 1984, the development agency of the Protestant
Churches of Germany, informing the donors about the
supported projects. From 1988 until 2002 active as project
officer for the projects supported in South India (Andhra
Pradesh) - most of these projects had at least a specific
Dalit component or were exclusively geared to Dalit-issues ;
taking over the special responsibility for Dalit empowerment
policy of the organization in 1997. Founding member of the
"International Dalit Solidarity Network", which was constituted
in March 2000 and active in its steering-group until 2005;
now member of the IDSN-Council. Initiated the formation of
the platform "Dalit Solidarity in Germany", which finally came
into being in May 2001 and bringing together ca. 80
organisations, one-world-groups and individuals. Since 2002
working as its coordinator
06. Mr. Y L Jayaraj - India, Consultant
Jayaraj is actively engaged with the Voluntary Sector for the
past 34 years from grassroots to international levels. He is
the principal consultant of Atma Consultacncy Services and
champions the cause of justice and democracy with
marginalized communities. He has a special emphasis on
affirmative action for strengthening mass movements and
institutions in their empowerment and sustainable
development.
25 2607. Mr. Jeroninio Almeida, India, iCONGO
Jeroninio Almeida is a Management Consultant/ Professional
Trainer & Mentor Coach (Leadership, Neuro Linguistic
Programming (NLP), Enneagram, Performance Coaching,
Organisation Development, Developing Human Potential &
Personal Effectiveness, CSR, Social Entrepreneurship,
Sales , Marketing & Communications) , Motivational
Speaker, Social Entrepreneur, Business/Marketing
Strategist, Curator & Promoter of big ticket Charity Events &
Knowledge Forums, Social Development Worker , Writer,
Fundraiser, Philanthropist & Just Another Volunteer. He also
speaks at various forums and coaches senior executives in
blue chip companies & bilateral/multilateral organisations like
the Un in India and overseas. He is also a board member on
the UNV national committee formed by UNDP & the ministry
of sports and youth affairs to promote volunteerism in India
and on the advisory panel of the National Foundation for
Communal Harmony promoted by the Ministry of Home
Affairs to promote secularism, peace and communal
harmony.
He is also the founder of the International Confederation of
NGOs (www.icongo.in) and the person who conceptualized
& pioneered movements with the UN and other partners like
the JOY OF GIVING, RIGHT EVERY WRONG,
KARMAVEER awards and KARMAYUGA in India with an
intent to create attitudinal & behavioral change in people for
encouraging citizen action for social justice. He is also a
much sought after high energy keynote & motivational
speaker and has spoken in forums organised by the UN,
World Economic Forum, Rotary International, ISB, World
Affairs Council and various other prestigious institutions and
universities. He is also an Executive Coach to various CEOs,
a veteran politician in Goa and 2 young parliamentarians in
Delhi. Jerry through the RIGHT every WRONG movement also
pioneered the thought leadership for the fight against corruption
and electoral reforms in India with former Chief Election
Commissioners like Mr. James Michael Lyngdoh and Mr.
Krishnamurthy.
08. Mrs. Jyothiraj - India
A post graduate in sociology and a Diploma holder in Human
resource Management, she is the founder of the Rural
Education for Development Society together with her
husband M C Raj. She has co-authored some books.
Functions as the Director of REDS and is one of the founding
members of CERI. She is the Co-Founder of the Dalit
Panchayat Movement and Booshakthi Kendra in Karnataka,
India.
09. Mr. Khorrum Omer - India, National Secretary, Indian Muslim
League Party
10. Prof. Krishna Khanal - Nepal.
Prof Krishna P Khanal holds Master's Degree from the
Tribhuvan University, Nepal. Currently he is a Professor of
Political Science at Tribhuvan university and is teaching in
the Central Department of Political Science, Tribhuvan
University (Kathmandu) for more than 30 years. Prof. Khanal
has extensively written in contemporary politics of Nepal and
engaged in public discourse nationwide. His latest
publications include Nepal's Discourses on Constituent
Assembly (2005), Restructuring the State (in Nepali, 2008),
He has edited Federalism in our Nepal -Execution and
Management (in Nepali, 2008).
11. Dr. Krishna Swamy Dara - India
12. Mrs. Moll, Ursula - Germany, Bread for the World
13. Mr. Muller, Philip - Germany
Philip Muller is a social worker and lecturer in Germany. He is a
lecturer in Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences. He is involved
in Dalits. One of the founding members of the Dalit Solidarity
27 28Platform, Germany, he is the treasurer of DSP. He regularly organizes
exchange programmes with Dalit groups in India.
14. Dr. Nepia, Gaylene Huia - New Zealand
15. Prof. Dr. v. Prittwitz, Volker, Germany.
Prof. Dr. von Prittwitz studied History, Sociology, and Political
Science in Regensburg und Berlin. Since 1991, he held
contemporary chairs for Political Science in the Universities
of Darmstadt, Hamburg, Erlangen, and Erfurt, and he became
associated professor for Political Science at the Freie
Universität Berlin in 2004. Among his publications are the
books: Umweltaußenpolitik (1984: Theoretical and empirical
aspects of environmental diplomacy), Das
Katastrophenparadox. Elemente einer Theorie der
Umweltpolitik (1990: Theoretical foundations of environmental
policy), Politikanalyse (1994: How to analyze politics?),
Verhandeln und Argumentieren (Ed. 1996: Bargaining and
arguing), Vergleichende Politikanalyse (2007: Comparative
Politics). Since 2008, he gave lectures in Finnland, Dakha/
Bangla Desh and Seoul/Korea. Short stay as Visiting
Researcher at ESPI in March 2011. More info:
16. Mr. M C Raj - India
Holds degrees in philosophy and another in theology. Founder
of the Rural Education for Development Society, The Dalit
Panchayat Movement and the Booshakthi Kendra in
Karnataka, India! Did research on the electoral systems of
Germany, Norway, New Zealand, Nepal and the Netherlands.
A prolific author of more than 17 books. Usually writes on
philosophy, psychology and spirituality. Of late has become
a fiction writer. As a consequence of his researches he
founded and spearheads the present national Campaign for
Electoral Reforms in India (CERI).
17. Mr. D Raja - India
Mr. D. Raja CPI. July 2007 Elected to Rajya Sabha Aug.
2007-May 2009 Member, Committee on Science and
Technology, Environment and Forests Member, Consultative
Committee for the Ministry of Human Resource Development
May 2008 onwards Member, Joint Parliamentary Committee
on Security Matters in Parliament House Complex Member,
Committee on Rules June 2008 onwards Member, General
Purposes Committee July 2008-May 2009 and Jan. 2010
onwards Member, Parliamentary Forum on Global Warming
and Climate Change July 2009 onwards Member, Committee
on Ethics Aug. 2009 onwards Member, Committee on Home
Affairs Member, Committee on the Welfare of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Member, Consultative
Committee for the Ministry of External Affairs Permanent
Special Invitee, Consultative Committee for the Ministry of
Human Resource Development Oct. 2009 onwards Member,
Joint Committee on Food Management in Parliament House
Complex Dec. 2009 onwards Member, Select Committee to
examine the Commercial Division of High Courts Bill, 2009
Nov. 2010 onwards Member, Committee on Member of
Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS)
18. Mr. Rayalu Yugalkishore - India
H o D at Dharampeth Science College, Nagpur
DEE, DDE, AMIE, M.A.(Eng. Litt.) MBA (HRM), Engineering,
English Literature, Human Resource Development. Received
Maharashtra State Best Teacher Award - 2011. Attended India
- Vietnam festival at Hanoi, Vietnam. Presented Paper at
International Solidarity Convention, Laos. Presented paper at
Cairo Conference on Solidarity. President -Maharashtra
Vocational Teachers Association. V.President - All India Peace
& Solidarity Organization, Nagpur Unit. V. President - Centre
for Cultural, Educational Environmental and Social Studies.
Secretary - All India Progressive Forum
29 3019. Mr. Scheltens, Jerome - The Netherlands
Jerome studied political science (University of Amsterdam
and New York University) specializing in elections, electoral
systems and media use of opinion polls in election campaign
periods. Jerome also shortly worked as an political editor
and coordinator at the Dutch broadcasting company KRO
and at the Netherlands Government Information Service
(RVD) of the Ministry of General Affairs, the Prime minister's
ministry. Since 1998 Jerome has been involved in many
projects at the Dutch Prodemos, House for Democracy and
the Rule of Law, the former Institute for Political Participation
(IPP). Jerome started his work for NIMD in August 2011
(Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy). At NIMD
Jerome is responsible for the programmes in Tanzania and
Tunisia.
20. Mrs. Sukanya Natarajan - Visitor Delegate from India
21. Mr. Vivek Sakpal - India.
An Engineering graduate he is the Coordinator of CERI
together with M C Raj
22. Dr. Voll, Klaus - Germany
23. Mr. Vollan, Kåre - Norway
A Norwegian citizen is an internationally acclaimed expert in
electoral systems and processes. He has undertaken a lot
of advisory works on elections and elective systems across
the globe. He has been involved in elections since 1990 when
Eastern Europe opened up. He has visited Nepal a large
number of times since 2006 and was involved here in the
discussions of electoral systems and worked with the Election
Commission to make operational details of Constituent
Assembly elections based upon the Interim Constitution. He
has also advised on elections and electoral processes in many
countries like CIS countries of Eastern Europe as well as
Palestine and Guyana. He was head of elections in Bosnia
and Herzegovina and was in charge of organizing two elections
there. He is also currently working in Zimbabwe and Armenia
apart from Nepal. Mr Vollan was interviewed by MIREST Nepal
at Godavari Village Resort in Lalitpur on July 09, 2009, while
he was attending a workshop on electoral systems organized
by Election Commission of Nepal.
24. Dr. Wagner, Christian - Germany
25. Mr. Wiek, Hans-Georg - Germany
Dr. Hans-Georg Wieck, Ambassador (ret.)German
Ambassador to India 1990-1993; Chairman of German -
Indian Society 1996 - 2008; since then Honorary Chairman
of German Indian Society."
31 32Towards Proportional Representation in India
A Little History
Right from the time of India's independence sporadic efforts have
been made to reform the FPTP electoral system of India and usher
in proportional representation system. Even before the present
Constitution of India came into effect there were extensive debates
in the Constituent Assembly on both the British model of FPTP and
the Single Transferrable Vote of the PR system. The following were
the arguments for proportional representation system for India.
Constituent Assembly Deliberations
The effort for an inclusive democratic governance continued in the
Independent India through many deliberations in the Constituent
Assembly. Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur and Kazi Syed
Karimuddin are the two Muslim leaders who seethed for PR system.
Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur says the following:
"One of the best safeguards for minority rights and interests is the
system of election by proportional representation with the STV, which
has already been adopted in a large number of countries… "
"…Therefore, this method of election represents the expression of
the people's will and it will be more stable and responsible. My
submission is that all the fears that some people might entertain
that this method of election would involve the country in sections
and it will go against the solidarity of the country are false. Some
people who are really communally minded smell a rat in anything in
regard to this kind of representation, that is unjustifiable. This is the
most scientific and more democratic method of representing the
people of a country in a democratic system of government."
Kazi Syed Karimuddin asserts:
"The common (FPTP) system of representation perpetuates the
danger and the only remedy is proportional representation. That
system is also profoundly democratic for it increases the influence
of thousands of those who would have no voice in the government
and it brings men more near on equality by so contriving that no
vote shall be wasted and that every vote shall contribute to bring
into parliament a member of his own choice and opinion"
"The present electoral system is really perverse"
"Today we are faced with an electoral system in which there is no
guarantee except the reservation of seats that has been embodied
in article 292 and 293. By my amendment I plead that if proportional
representation is guaranteed the reservation of seats even on
religious grounds must go."
"The system that I regard as the best is the system of PR. It is not
based on religious grounds and it applies to all minorities."
"In my opinion, where there is heterogeneous population it is very
necessary that we should have coalition governments. It will not be
a bad thing that various representative elements should have to be
consulted in forming a ministry"
National Law Commission
The National Law Commission of India took cognizance of the need
for reforming India's electoral system and making it more inclusive.
The endeavour started in November 1995 when the Ministry Law,
Justice and Company Affairs asked the Law Commission to look
into the many pending election petitions. In August 1998 the Law
Commission undertook a thorough review of the Representation of
the Peoples Act, 1951. Between 14 November 1998 and 24 January
1999 it organized four national seminars to elicit public opinion on
the same subject. The National Law Commission finally came out
with a clear recommendation for a Proportionate Electoral System
largely based on the German model but making it fit into Indian
ground realities.
"With a view to rectifying and redressing the aforementioned
distortions and inequities, the Law Commission was of the provisional
opinion that introducing a List System may serve to redress the
33 34aforementioned distortions, at least to a partial extent. For this
purpose, we looked to the electoral system obtaining in certain
other countries including Germany where a mixed system (FPTP
and list system) is in force. In Germany, part of the seats are filled
on the basis of FPTP system where under the members are elected
from territorial constituencies and the remaining members are chosen
from the lists put forward by the political parties. We did not however,
think it advisable to import the German system whole-hog for it was
found to be extremely complicated and difficult of operation in a
country like ours where a sizeable chunk of population is illiterate
and is not able to operate such a complicated electoral system.
Accordingly, it was suggested that in the Lok Sabha as well as in
the State Legislative Assemblies, the present strength should be
increased by 25% of the existing strength which increased strength
should be filled on the basis of list system. The list system was to
be confined only to recognized political parties (RPP). There would
be no separate vote, nor a separate election for the members to be
chosen under the list system."
In between the first and the latest efforts there have been many
endeavors to bring in proportional representation system in India.
Already in 1930, Jawaharlal Nehru argued for proportionate electoral
system. "…the only rational and just way of meeting the fears and
claims of various communities …' '…we have no doubt …that
proportional representation will in future be the solution of our
problem" (Jawaharlal Nehru, 'Note on Minority', Young India, 15 May
1930)
In 1974 Mr Jayaprakash Narayan appointed the Tharkunde
Committee to look at electoral reforms and Justice V M Tharkunde
recommended proportionate electoral system for India based on the
German model of MMP.
In the year 2003 Mr. G M Banathwala of the Indian Muslim League
Party moved a Private Member's Constitution Amendment Bill in the
Parliament demanding proportional representation in India. This was
vehemently opposed by the BJP. (The Hindu, New Delhi: July 25,
2003)
In the year 2008, the Campaign for Electoral Reforms in India (CERI)
was initiated with an explicit purpose of working towards
proportionate electoral system in India.
When the present dispensation came into effect in 2009 one of the
first things to be raised in the parliament was a call for proportionate
electoral system by Mr. Sitaram Yechury of the Communist Party of
India (Marxist). This was assiduously followed by also the CPI
through Mr. D Raja. He argued that proportional representation
would effectively resolve the issues of corruption and violence in
India.
35 36Campaign for Electoral Reforms in India
(CERI)
The Path Traversed
The Campaign for Electoral Reforms in India was launched in October
2008 after having seriously considered the non-representative and
non-participatory nature of the First Past The Post electoral system
that is in vogue in India. Power as participation should lead to
participatory democracy. Unfortunately the Indian electoral system
denies to a large extent not only participation but also genuine
inclusion to many sections of Indian population. While exploring the
possibilities of embellishing Indian democratic governance with
principles and policies of inclusive representation it was decided to
take up researches in countries that have reformed their electoral
systems. There are countries that are serious about giving inclusive
representation to their cities. In this effort some of them have made
special provisions to enhance the representation of communities in
their countries that are ill equipped for historical reasons. The German
Dalit Solidarity Platform was a big supporter in these researches
and subsequent explorations.
1. A Research was taken up by M C Raj on the German Electoral
System and as a consequence the book Dalitocracy, Theory
and Praxis of Dalit Politics was published and has been widely
distributed for general education. It did not stop with being a
book but stimulated a lot of discussion in many circles on the
need for reexamining the Indian Majoritarian Electoral
System.
2. It was decided to launch a Campaign to bring about
proportionate electoral system and the launching took place
in Dhaka in an International Conference in October 2008. In
this launching Conference a Core Group of CERI was set up
with State Coordinators from 15 States.
3. The International Conference was followed up by a National
Conference in Delhi where interested people from different parts
of India took part. Participants from Nepal along with their
present Chief Election Commissioner placed a formal request
to CERI to start a chapter of CERI in Nepal and also organize
an International Conference in Kathmandu in view of the
urgency for integrating the Proportionate Electoral System
into the new Constitution of Nepal.
4. Subsequently seventeen State Conferences and innumerable
District level Conferences have taken place all over India.
5. The Communist Party of India has officially declared its support
to CERI in the State Conference of Tamilnadu. Greater
assertions from the Left parties have come for the
Proportionate Electoral System in India. CERI team has had
official negotiations with the top guys in CPI and subsequently
Mr. D. Raja one of the general secretaries of CPI raised the
issue of Proportionate Electoral System in the Upper House
of India's Parliament.
6. Many Intellectuals from North Eastern States have started
openly saying that Proportionate Electoral System may be
the only solution to the stalemate in democratic functioning
in their region. Assam, Tripura, Manipur, Sikkim and Mizoram
have already organized State Conferences.
7. The Core Group of CERI has been meeting regularly and has
planned out national programmes gradually also increasing
its ownership level. It is a great measure of commitment that
the original Coordinators of CERI still remain as Coordinators
on a voluntary basis and new ones have joined for new States.
Besides the Coordinators a lot of others have joined hands in
all the States to promote PR system in India.
8. Three Training of Trainers have taken place, one at the national
level and other two for Maharashtra and Tamilnadu cadre of
the Campaign. CERI is now also training scholars from all
over the country in order to equip the intellectual resource
base of the campaign.
37 389. In order to broaden the horizon and scope of CERI it was also
decided to look at other existing variants of the Proportionate
Electoral System. Researches were taken up in Norway, New
Zealand, Nepal and the Netherlands.
10. These researches led to the realization that indigenous peoples
for whom many countries have made special provisions in
their electoral laws must be brought together to reflect on
inclusive governance of the world. Such aspirations and
planning ultimately led to the historic first ever Round Table of
the World Parliament of Indigenous Peoples. This took place
in January 2011 at the Booshakthi Kendra in Tumkur. 39
delegates from 10 countries attended it.
11. The Core Group of CERI spent three intensive days in discussions
to prepare the Manifesto and also to develop gelling mechanisms to
develop collective ownership of the Campaign. All are happy about
the utter seriousness with which the Core Group worked and ended
with a strategic plan for the future work of the Campaign.
12. There is also happiness that in such a short time CERI
Nepal (CERiN) has been launched with active support from the
Chief Election Commissioner of Nepal and many members of the
Constituent Assembly and of the Parliament of Nepal.
13. As of now the Campaign has stepped into 22 States of
India with also a huge signature campaign for electoral reforms to
collect signatures across the country. The London School of
Economics is in constant touch with the efforts of CERI.
14. In an endeavor to enter the corridors of the Parliament of
India with proposals for electoral reforms in India and to bring about
proportional representation system, it was decided to bring together
as many top-level experts of the world on electoral systems. The
aim of organizing such a Workshop of Experts was to place a
substantial policy document in the hands of parliamentarians as
they begin to move a bill in the parliament. The Workshop of Electoral
Systems experts was organized in Berlin from 17 to 19 October
2011. Experts from different countries assembled for three full days
and as a result CERI has come out with this policy document.
15. CERI is very happy that in such a short time of its campaign
the issue of Proportionate Electoral System has been explicitly
voiced in the Rajya Sabha by Comrade D. Raja in the debates on
corruption as a way of containing many difficulties in governance
including corruption. CERI is happy that the All India Progressive
Forum has taken serious note of the dire need for electoral reforms
in India to bring about proportional representation system. CERI is
more than willing to join hands with any progressive individuals
and groups that are genuinely concerned about greater
democratization of India and about ushering in more and more
inclusive governance.
There is every reason to believe that this Campaign for Electoral
Reforms in India will be carried forward by all and sundry in the
future and the tasks of CERI will be considerably reduced as we
move along.
39 40
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment