GK: Issue of Contesting Elections from 2 Seats (POLITY)

When BJP prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi contested from Varanasi as well as Vadodara in the last Lok Sabha elections, the obvious objective was to demonstrate his mass appeal across states, besides drumming up support for the BJP in Uttar Pradesh. After he won from both constituencies, PM Modi retained Varanasi and gave up Vadodara.

Over the years, several senior leaders have contested two constituencies in Lok Sabha and Assembly elections. Some contested even three, until 1996, when an amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, restricted to two the number of seats one candidate could contest in one election. And whenever they have won more than one, the candidates have retained only one, forcing bypolls in the rest.

Last week, the Election Commission told the Supreme Court in an affidavit that Section 33(7) of the Act should be amended to restrict any candidate to only one seat in one election. This was after the court had sought the EC’s response to a public interest petition challenging the validity of the provision that still allows a candidate to contest two seats simultaneously.

The affidavit said: “When a candidate contests from two seats, it is imperative that he has to vacate one of the two seats if he wins both. This, apart from the consequent unavoidable financial burden on the public exchequer, government manpower and other resources for holding by-election against the resultant vacancy, is also an injustice to the voters of the constituency which the candidate is quitting from. There have been several cases where a person contests election from two constituencies and wins both.”

It referred to an earlier proposal to end or restrict this practice: “The Election Commission proposed amendment of Section 33(7) in the year 2004 to provide that a person cannot contest from more than one constituency at a time. However, in case the existing provisions are to be retained, a candidate contesting from two seats should bear the cost of the by-election to the seat that contestant decides to vacate in the event of him/her winning both seats. The amount in such an event could be Rs 5 lakh for state assembly and Rs 10 lakh for the general election.”

That cost would have multiplied many times now. The latter proposal, if put into practice, would have allowed only candidates with resources to contest two seats, and then bear the cost of a resultant by-election in the event of their winning both. Also, if winners were to pay for causing by-elections, what about those caused by the resignations of sitting MPs, like those of the YSR Congress last week?

The Law Commission has agreed with the proposal to bar a person from contesting more than one seat at a time but has not endorsed the alternative proposal that winning candidates also shoulder the cost of ensuing by-elections. Earlier, the Dinesh Goswami Committee report in 1990 and the 170th report of the Law Commission on “Electoral Reforms” in 1999 had included recommendations for restricting one contestant to one seat.

In the original 1951 Act, Section 33 permitted a person to contest from more than one seat, while Section 70 of the Act prevented him or her from holding on to more than one seat in state or central legislatures. In the 1957 Lok Sabha election, when a fledgling Bharatiya Jana Sangh was struggling to grow, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, then 32, tried his luck from three constituencies in UP — Balrampur, Mathura and Lucknow — after having finished third in Lucknow in the 1952 polls. Vajpayee got elected from Balrampur, finished second in Lucknow and forfeited his deposit in Mathura. The Balrampur victory introduced the young Opposition leader to Lok Sabha, dominated by the Congress then.

In 1977, Indira Gandhi suffered a surprise defeat in her well-nursed constituency, Rae Bareli; in 1980, she did not want to risk that again. She filed her nomination from Medak (now in Telangana) and Rae Bareli. It was packaged as an attempt to bridge the divide between the North and the South. She won from both constituencies, and chose to forgo Medak.

Many leaders continued the trend, both before and after the 1996 amendment that set the limit at two seats — Vajpayee (Vidisha and Lucknow in 1991), L K Advani (New Delhi and Gandhinagar in 1991), Sonia Gandhi (Bellary and Amethi in 1999), Mulayam Singh Yadav (Azamgarh and Mainpuri in 2014) and Lalu Prasad (Saran and Pataliputra in 2009).

Regional leaders took this to another level. Telugu Desam Party founder N T Rama Rao contested three seats — Gudivada, Hindupur and Nalgonda — in the 1985 Assembly polls, won all, retained Hindupur and vacated the other two, forcing by-elections there. In 1991, Haryana deputy chief minister Devi Lal contested three Lok Sabha seats — Sikar, Rohtak and Ferozepur — as well as the Ghirai assembly seat. He lost them all. Had he won everywhere, three by-elections would have been necessitated.

Now, the Supreme Court is seized of the matter. And the Election Commission has taken a position.

Credit: Indian Express Explained

Lack of Intra-Party Democracy: Consequences and Remedies

Lack of Intra-Party Democracy: Consequences and Remedies

By Looma Kushwaha

UPSC General Studies: Paper II (Representation of People's Act)

Table of Content

What is inner party democracy?

Why it is necessary for India to have inner party democracy?

Without inner party democracy, India has been reduced to a procedural democracy rather than being a substantive democracy. Discuss.

Observations of the 15th Law Commission

Recommendations of 20th Law Commission Report

Conclusion

What is intra-party democracy?

Internal democracy in political parties, also known as intra-party democracy, refers to the level and methods of including party members in the decision making and deliberation within the party structure.

Intra-party democracy is usually known to nurture citizens’ political competencies and/or producing more capable representatives which in turn ensures that the party produces better policies and political programmes.

Why is it necessary for India to have inner party democracy?

The roots of the most pertinent challenges faced by Indian politics today can be traced to the lack of intra-party democracy in candidate selection and party elections.

The absence of intra-party democracy has contributed to political parties becoming

* Closed autocratic structures with increasing fragmentation within parties

* Selection of poor electoral representatives

* Growing criminalization

* Abuse of financial power in elections. 

Without inner party democracy, India has been reduced to a procedural democracy rather than being a substantive democracy. Discuss.

Law commission makes a very important distinction between:

Procedural democracy: the practice of universal adult franchise, periodic elections, secret ballot.

Substantive democracy: “to refer to the internal democratic functioning of the parties, which purportedly represent the people.”

Noting that “currently, there is no express provision for internal democratic regulation of political parties in India,” there is no mechanism to review a party’s practice against the principles enshrined in the constitution or against the requirements of the ECI’s Guidelines and Application Format for the Registration of Political Parties under Section 29A. 

Observations of the 15^th Law Commission on this matter:

“It must be said that if democracy and accountability constitute the core of our constitutional system, the same concepts must also apply to and bind the political parties which are integral to parliamentary democracy. It is the political parties that form the government, man parliament and run the governance of the country.

It is, therefore, necessary to introduce

Internal democracy, financial transparency and accountability in the working of the political parties.

A political party which does not respect democratic principles in its internal working cannot be expected to respect those principles in the governance of the country. It cannot be dictatorship internally and democratic in its functioning outside”.

Recommendations of 20^th Law Commission Report:

* Insert a new chapter (IV-C) into the Representation of People Act dealing with the ‘Regulation of Political Parties’. Thus, sections 29J to 29Q will deal with internal democracy, party constitutions, party organisation, internal elections, candidate selection, voting procedures, and the ECI’s power to de-register a party in certain cases of non-compliance.

* Another section 29R should be inserted in the same part, providing for the de-registration of a political party for failure to contest parliamentary or state elections for 10 consecutive years.

Conclusion :

Politics is inseparable from political parties as they are the prime instruments for the execution of democracy in the country. The selection of candidates, the mobilisation of the electorate, the formulation of agendas and the passing of legislation are all conducted through political parties. They are the only organisations in the country that seek, compete for, and acquire power over state apparatus, control over public funds, government bureaucracy and legislative mechanisms.

It is therefore surprising how little has been done to strengthen the processes of institutionalisation of intra-party democracy in political parties in India. It is imperative that political parties open their eyes to growing calls for electoral political reforms and take steps towards bringing in intra-party democracy.

Also Democracy requires more than just institutions. It also requires that people use those institutions in good faith, and believe in them. It requires that individuals encourage substantial debate, allow for dissent, and seek compromise rather than misuse power. Nonetheless, democratic institutions are important because they enable such individuals to pursue changes. 

Bibliography

*Dynasty politics in the largest democracy

http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-editorials/dynasty-politics-in-the-largest-democracy/

*Let them fight

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/akhilesh-shivpal-yadav-fight-resign-uttar-pradesh-elections-3033259/

*Political parties must institutionalise intra-party democracy

http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorials/political-parties-must-institutionalise-intra-party-democracy/story-3DLRJ45xIpHdDWHZ8OhkQJ.html

*How your vote can be more effective

http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/how-your-vote-can-be-more-effective

*Is There Intra-party Democracy in Indian Political Parties?

http://www.thehinducentre.com/verdict/get-the-fact/article5896168.ece

*Democracy Within and Without: A Report on Inner-Party Democracy in Political Parties in India

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1749317

*Methods of Promoting Internal Democracy in Political Parties;

http://aceproject.org/electoral-advice/archive/questions/replies/110615365

One Nation One Election. Is it Desirable?

One Nation One Election. Is it Desirable?

- Looma Kushwaha

UPSC GENERAL STUDIES: PAPER II (Indian Constitution - Significant Provision; Salient Features of Representation of People's Act)

Table of Content

The Case for Simultaneous Elections in India

Arguments in support of holding Simultaneous Elections

Law Commission proposal for Simultaneous Elections

Logistical and Financial Challenges in holding Simultaneous Elections

Consequences of Aligning Elections

Counter Argument: Is this the best way of improving governance?

Conclusion

The first general election to the Lok Sabha was held simultaneously with the elections of all State Assemblies in 1951-52.

This practice continued in three subsequent general elections held in the years — 1957, 1962 and 1967.

However, due to the premature dissolution of some Legislative Assemblies in 1968 and 1969, the cycle got disrupted.

As a result of premature dissolutions and extension of terms of both the Lok Sabha and various State Assemblies, the last 48 years have seen separate elections to the Lok Sabha and the Assemblies.

The Case for Simultaneous Elections in India

‘The permanent campaign’ was a phrase coined and popularised by Sidney Blumenthal, adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton, in his 1980 book that lamented the culture of election campaigns crowding out time for policymaking. Prime Minister Narendra Modi agrees with Mr. Blumenthal. He recently bemoaned the incessant demands of electioneering for various State elections leaving little time for governance. He called for reforming India’s electoral cycle to hold simultaneous elections to State Legislatures and Parliament, ostensibly to break out of this ‘permanent campaign’ syndrome.

Arguments in support of holding Simultaneous Elections

79th Report of the Department-related Parliamentary Committee on the ‘Feasibility of Holding Simultaneous Elections to the House of People (Lok Sabha) and State Legislative Assemblies’ says that the holding of simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and state assemblies would reduce:

• The massive expenditure that is currently incurred for the conduct of separate elections;

• The policy paralysis that results from the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct during election time;  

• Impact on delivery of essential services;

• Burden on crucial manpower that is deployed during election time*;

• The disruption to normal public life associated with elections, such as increased traffic and noise pollution.

* For example, the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, which were held along with State Assembly Elections in Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, was spread over nine phases and 1077 in situ companies and 1349 mobile companies of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) were deployed,” the report states.

Law Commission proposal for Simultaneous Elections

Law Commission of India, which had suggested that elections of legislative assemblies whose term ends six months after the general elections to Lok Sabha can be clubbed together. However, the results of such elections can be declared at the end of the assembly’s tenure.

In fact the Representation of People Act, 1951 permits the Election Commission to notify general elections six months prior to the end of the terms of Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

Holding of elections in two phases: The Parliamentary Committee recommended that elections could be held in two phases. It stated that elections to some Legislative Assemblies could be held during the midterm of Lok Sabha. Elections to the remaining legislative assemblies could be held with the end of Lok Sabha’s term.

Logistical and Financial Challenges in holding Simultaneous Elections

There are several logistical and financial challenges that have to be overcome before India can hold state and central elections together:

Constitutional Amendment: For starters, the government will have to amend the Constitution to either curtail or extend the term of some of the state Assemblies to enable the EC to draw up a common poll schedule. (Articles 83, 85, 172, 174)

Gears and Equipment: Such an exercise will require large-scale purchase of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines. According to the Commission, it would need Rs 9,284.15 crore to procure the additional EVMs and VVPATs and the machines will have to be replaced every 15 years which would again entail more expenditure.

Manpower: The EC will also need more central armed forces personnel for deployment at separate polling booths meant for Lok Sabha and state assembly election

Consequences of Aligning Elections

Centralization of Polity: Political incentives for aligning elections is to increase the extent to which national politics dominates state-level electoral contests, or in other words to centralise political life. It would attempt to reverse the trend of the last several decades in which state politics has been the pre-eminent arena of Indian politics. Evidence from other countries suggests that simultaneous elections do indeed have a nationalising effect on political competition. The trend of choosing the same party at the state and the centre has gone from 68 per cent in 1999 to 77 per cent in 2004 to 76 per cent in 2009 and 86 per cent in 2014.  

International Scenario: Evidence from countries like Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Germany, the US and Europe supports the idea that elections that are held simultaneously produce greater alignment between national and regional election outcome.

Counter Argument: Is this the best way of improving governance?

When we turn to the governance implications of streamlining elections, the evidence is even less clear. The government’s argument essentially boils down to the notion that elections are a costly distraction from governance. But the real challenges of governance in India’s multi-level electoral context are more profound than that. These include:

The Challenges of Accountability: This arises from voters’ difficulties in attributing policy responsibility to one level of government or the other. If the voters can distinguish between the roles and responsibility of the state and the centre, hold the respective governments accountable in their working, then governance will automatically improve. For this what is required is voter education and awareness programs.

Divergent policy preferences across regions: Different states have different issues. One nation one election may not give the scope for accommodation of different needs of the region.

Homogenization of Polity not envisaged in the Constitution: Given the evidence that voters tend to vote for a single party when asked to cast vote simultaneously for different elections, there is a tendency that same party wins both the elections. In a federal, multi-party democracy that is India this is not desirable. A multi-party democracy was established with the vision that parties, with different ideologies, governing different states will work as a laboratory for public policy making and implementation. The best practices thus evolved could be adopted in other areas. This diversity will be sacrificed at the altar of homogenization that simultaneous elections will usher in.

Conclusion

Also states have different policy priorities and capacities which shape how well they implement the initiatives of the central government. Working upon capacity building of laggard states is more important thus. These are the real challenges for thinking about governance in India – not the frequency with which elections are held. 

These challenges require coalition building, information sharing, and political skills to navigate.

Bibliography

Discussion on Simultaneous Elections

https://www.mygov.in/group-issue/discussion-simultaneous-elections/

05.07.16: EC ready for simultaneous national, State polls

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ec-ready-for-simultaneous-national-state polls/article8811791.eceutm_source=InternalRef&utm_medium=relatedNews&utm_campaign=RelatedNews

08.07.16: Can hold Lok Sabha, all state polls at once: Election Commission tells Law Ministry

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/election-commission-of-india-parliament-elections-state-assembly-election-clubbing-polls-modi-2840348/

07.04.16: Constitutional Experts Decry Modi’s Call to Hold Simultaneous Polls to Parliament, Assemblies

http://thewire.in/28116/constitutional-experts-decry-narendra-modis-call-to-hold-simultaneous-polls-to-parliament-state-assemblies/