Some reforms for enhanced democracy
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
Masihur Rahman in the last of a three-part article
THE Election Commission is contemplating a broad range of reforms including regulation of ideological / policy stances and internal party management. Leaving aside the complex agenda, there is a lot of reforms which can be introduced for systemic improvement of election.
The number of voters in the constituencies should be uniform as far as practicable, making allowance for density of settlement and transportation difficulties. If the number of voters differs widely, one voter in a small constituency gets more weight than in a large constituency. The Election Commission may determine the extent of permissible inter-constituency variation (standard deviation around average) and re-delimit the constituencies accordingly, which will correct past gerrymandering. This will give advantage to the constituencies in rural and relatively sparsely populated areas.
The Election Commission may take a more active role for registration of voters. The rule that the enumerators visit the households to register the voters and verify 10% of initial registration by house-to-house visit implies that the Commission has an obligation for registration as well as correctness. In Sripur pilot, the Commission undertook a motivational campaign to bring the voters to the registration camp, showing that the Commission is conscious of its obligation. The national parties should be involved in motivation if there is no explicit and lawful ban. It is not prudent to use NGOs and Imams only for motivation. .
The design of the ballot paper may be improved which helps in speedy casting of votes and election campaign by the parties. Inside the polling booth, most voters identify the candidates of the national parties by the symbols. The small parties and the independent candidates clutter the ballot paper. The ballot paper may first list the national parties arranged alphabetically; the next should be the small and regional parties, also arranged alphabetically; the last to be listed are the independent candidates by name arranged alphabetically. The classes of parties need to be specified for this purpose.
The national parties are those which had contested in all seats in the last three elections, won at least 30% popular votes on average, and formed the government or the opposition in the three parliaments since 1991 (three conditions apply). The parties which had contested in one-third constituencies, received at least 10% popular votes on average, and had won seats in at least one-third administrative divisions may be treated as minor parties. The regional parties are like the minor parties in two respects - contested in at least one-third constituencies and received at least 10% popular votes - but won at least two seats. The rest are to be treated as independent members, including groups formed by those who won as independent candidates.
The splinter and new parties will present a problem for classification and location on the ballot. These parties most probably will include dissidents of the old parties and new members who did not have a place in the national political space. Dissidence and marginalization deny them the benefit of the old established parties. They may be placed after the regional parties and before the independent candidates; the parties will be alphabetically arranged.
The above design is clearly to the advantage of the large and old parties, and against the new parties and independent candidates. Large parties with national representation are needed for democracy to work, for they alone can provide coherent policy and discipline unprincipled personal ambition. A conglomeration of small parties and independents destabilizes democratic systems and paves the path for authoritarian interventions. [T. J. Lowi, B. Ginsberg, K. A. Shepsle, American Government, 8th edition, 2004, pp. 464-7, 472-3]
The Supreme Court in India recognizes the importance of the party system in democracy, 'to abolish or ignore which would be to permit a chorus of discordant notes to replace an organized discussion.' The Court has even suggested that independent candidates be discouraged from contesting elections because they cause unnecessary confusion to the voters. The Court also held that there may not be any cap on election expenditure by a party and that it is not unlawful not to postpone an election for death of an independent candidate [M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 5th edition, 2005, p.825]
Regulation and government finance for political parties: The government and the Election Commission contemplate reforms which address the internal management and ideological / policy stances of the political parties. Most countries regulate the points of contact between the parties and the citizens - e.g. fund raising, accounts, audit and disclosure. The internal management and ideology / policies are left to the parties, which are judged by the people in election. The parties reform in response to the election system and public judgment.
The Election Commission suggested that the government may finance the political parties. Two main patterns for public funding of political parties can be identified. First, the parties in USA depend on private fund raising. There are laws which regulate the amount a candidate can raise or spend on an election, but which allow unlimited fund raising and expenditure through Political Action Committees, voluntary groups set up to support party candidates. The Court holds that political contributions are part of the right to free speech. The Federal Government gives grants to the parties to motivate voters to register and to cast votes. Reforming private contributions too often surfaces as election campaign issue. [Thomas A. Patterson, The American Democracy, 7th edition, 2005, pp. 261-5]
Second, at the other end Germany makes the most generous government grants to the political parties. The total government expenditure is some 250 million deutschemark for 50 million voters in post-unification Germany (5 DM for each vote won by a party which crosses the threshold). Apart from Germany, the parties in Europe depend on membership fees and voluntary contributions from supporters. The socialist / workers parties depend mainly on membership fees which does not exceed one-fourth of the party funds, and is declining; the contributions by the low income supporters are small. The parties representing the corporate interest get generous contributions. [Michael Gallagher, M. Laver, P. Mair, Representative Government in Europe, 3rd edition, 2001, pp. 289-92]
It is understood that the government will finance only a small portion of the party expenditures, if at all. The government and the Commission may consider the following methods and principles. First, grants may be made to meet direct election expenditures based on determination of standard unit cost, scale of election campaign and mobilization, the size of constituencies and problems of mobility, etc. The Election Commission can conduct audit on the basis of standard cost later, which will facilitate better enforcement of the capon election campaign expenditure.
Second, the parties incur expenditure to bring the voters to the centres. The amount may be linked with the average of votes polled in the last three elections by each party; in addition, larger grants may be made for low income and rural areas where the cost of actual transportation and income foregone is high. It is wrong to ban provision of transport to the voters. In USA, the government makes grants to the parties to improve voter registration and turnout.
Third, as in UK, the government may make policy grants which help parties develop policies. The opposition party in parliament is treated preferentially for policy grants. The majority party has the whole government machinery to work out and implement policies. The opposition party cannot be effective if it does not have resources for developing its own policies and monitoring government policies.
Fourth, following Germany, the government may make grants for meeting all expenditures of the political parties calculated at a given rate for each vote won. The grants are so generous in Germany that the parties have surplus which they give to the likeminded parties in the Mediterranean countries. The grant was introduced in 1959 as a way to sustain democracy and suppress militarism, which is the breeding ground of fascism.
Finally, all democratic countries recognize that the political parties need substantial amount of money to carry on their functions. Subscription by the members is becoming inadequate. Besides, the parties which stand for the relatively poor and less privileged depend on membership fees and suffer disadvantage relative to the parties representing those who own and appropriate the larger shares of wealth, income and social power. Government funding of parties has progressed along with effectiveness of mass participation in democratic politics.
Time for elections to Parliament and local bodies: The elections to Parliament and to local councils are distinct events. Yet, there are arguments whether general and local council elections be held simultaneously and local elections precede the general election. Simultaneous election has more disadvantages than advantages, and offset the latter.
The first and the foremost disadvantage is the strong demand on the mental faculty of the voters who have to cast up to four votes and chose from amongst some 20-40 candidates (parliament, three local bodies - zila, thana & union parishad, city / municipality). The voters get tired or confused and cast votes indifferently, which does not reflect true choice and is likely to affect parliamentary election most, for the issues and candidates are remote relatively to those for the local bodies. The perverse impact will be exacerbated by absence of well-established national parties which are mechanisms for efficient processing information as regards the policies and leaders seeking electoral mandate.
The argument that simultaneous election saves cost does not stand scrutiny. Election centres are located at some permanent structures - e.g. school, college, community centres - to which temporary appurtenances are added at relatively modest cost. Simultaneous election requires more temporary appurtenances, for the booths for each election has to be physically separate. If that were not done, each voter will stay longer in the booth and too many election agents will crowd the booths. The voters may put the marked ballots in the wrong boxes. The cost for temporary appurtenances built over time may not exceed significantly or at all the cost of building them at one time.
Simultaneous elections constitute Parliament and the local bodies at the same time; therefore, their terms also expire at the same time, which creates an administrative void.
The interregnum could be avoided if the local council elections were spaced between two general elections. The country will benefit by avoiding disappearance of all representative institutions at one time and bureaucratization of the entire governance system.
There are important political advantages, too. Simultaneous election is likely to produce results to the advantage of the same party, exacerbating the ills of 'winner take all' inherent in the single constituency plurality (SMP) electoral system.
The local council elections held between the general elections can reflect changes in political support, which moderates 'winner take all' effect, signifies the need for adjustment of the ruling party's policy, and warrant mid-term election if the swing is decisive.
It is feared that elections held while a party government is in office will be rigged to the advantage of the party in office. The answer is an independent Election Commission and a neutral and competent administration. The evils of a weak Election Commission and partisan administration are to be removed by addressing their weaknesses. Besides, there is no guarantee that a non-party government will not be partisan by the consequences of its actions, not necessarily by intention. Mobilized public resistance is the ultimate safeguard against mischief by government and corrupt bureaucracy.
Whether election to the local bodies be held before or after parliamentary election is a trivial matter, essentially. However, it has taken on some significance now as the general election is distant and elected local bodies do not exist except for the city corporations which are continuing from the past and in some cases have been disabled by incarceration of the mayors and officials.
Local council elections held seemingly on non-party basis and when the parties are under restraints return persons on the political fringe but with electoral ambitions. Apolitical governments have a bias against politics, and prefer that parliamentary election be held in a sanitized environment. The persons-from-fringe elected to the local councils then provide the institutional support for election tilted towards similar fringe-politicians and against mainstream politics. Ayub Khan used basic democracy as a strategy for election against mainstream politics; his followers have not made any innovations.
Amendment of law is being considered to return to the Election Commission the power to determine the time for election. The problem has arisen from confusion between the meaning of time and date. The time for election is determined in law. For example, the Constitution states that 'a general election of members of Parliament shall be held within ninety days after Parliament is dissolved for expiration of its term or otherwise' - i.e. dissolved by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Commission fixes the particular date for election within
Publish draft law and detail rationale: The government and the Election Commission may publish the full text of the proposed law along with detailed justification, which would allow people to respond and suggest changes. Any authority which makes law or policy benefits from informing the people and receiving their criticism. Law gets legitimacy from consent of the people given explicitly through elected deputies in representative government, and from the legitimacy of the lawgiver in unrepresentative government.
Legislation by parliament has built-in procedure for getting public response. The proposed law is discussed and criticized in the House; the rules of business of parliament have provision for eliciting public opinion; and finally, a draft law placed in the House is in the public domain and is open to criticism by the citizens. The discussion in the House is important to the extent it reflects or generates public support or apathy to a proposed law.
Ordinances are passed within a bureaucratic context even when an elected government is in office. The departments make the draft which is vetted by the Law Ministry and signed into law by the President acting on Prime Minister's advice. The ordinances are submitted as bills to Parliament for approval and usually passed without much discussion.
The present government is aware of the importance of consulting the people. The government posted the budget for FY 2008 in its website and discussed in several public fora. The initial proposals were adjusted in the light of the public suggestions. The government has established its own mechanism for public consultation, though it is no substitute for elected Parliament.
Conclusion: The suggestions in the article reflect the perceptions of a concerned citizen. They are based on three principles: (a) independence of the Election Commission within its sphere of responsibility; (b) public accountability and institution by the Commission its own operational audit rules including public enquiry and public disclosure; (c) proactive role of the Commission for qualitative and quantitative improvement of voter registration and strengthening the national parties vis-à-vis small and regional parties. There is little focus on the ideological and internal reforms of the political parties which respond to adverse public judgment in a proper election. Reforms of the State institutions are critical for establishing and consolidating democracy. Concluded
The writer, a Ph.D., is a retired secretary to government and writes on economic
and policy issues
THE Election Commission is contemplating a broad range of reforms including regulation of ideological / policy stances and internal party management. Leaving aside the complex agenda, there is a lot of reforms which can be introduced for systemic improvement of election.
The number of voters in the constituencies should be uniform as far as practicable, making allowance for density of settlement and transportation difficulties. If the number of voters differs widely, one voter in a small constituency gets more weight than in a large constituency. The Election Commission may determine the extent of permissible inter-constituency variation (standard deviation around average) and re-delimit the constituencies accordingly, which will correct past gerrymandering. This will give advantage to the constituencies in rural and relatively sparsely populated areas.
The Election Commission may take a more active role for registration of voters. The rule that the enumerators visit the households to register the voters and verify 10% of initial registration by house-to-house visit implies that the Commission has an obligation for registration as well as correctness. In Sripur pilot, the Commission undertook a motivational campaign to bring the voters to the registration camp, showing that the Commission is conscious of its obligation. The national parties should be involved in motivation if there is no explicit and lawful ban. It is not prudent to use NGOs and Imams only for motivation. .
The design of the ballot paper may be improved which helps in speedy casting of votes and election campaign by the parties. Inside the polling booth, most voters identify the candidates of the national parties by the symbols. The small parties and the independent candidates clutter the ballot paper. The ballot paper may first list the national parties arranged alphabetically; the next should be the small and regional parties, also arranged alphabetically; the last to be listed are the independent candidates by name arranged alphabetically. The classes of parties need to be specified for this purpose.
The national parties are those which had contested in all seats in the last three elections, won at least 30% popular votes on average, and formed the government or the opposition in the three parliaments since 1991 (three conditions apply). The parties which had contested in one-third constituencies, received at least 10% popular votes on average, and had won seats in at least one-third administrative divisions may be treated as minor parties. The regional parties are like the minor parties in two respects - contested in at least one-third constituencies and received at least 10% popular votes - but won at least two seats. The rest are to be treated as independent members, including groups formed by those who won as independent candidates.
The splinter and new parties will present a problem for classification and location on the ballot. These parties most probably will include dissidents of the old parties and new members who did not have a place in the national political space. Dissidence and marginalization deny them the benefit of the old established parties. They may be placed after the regional parties and before the independent candidates; the parties will be alphabetically arranged.
The above design is clearly to the advantage of the large and old parties, and against the new parties and independent candidates. Large parties with national representation are needed for democracy to work, for they alone can provide coherent policy and discipline unprincipled personal ambition. A conglomeration of small parties and independents destabilizes democratic systems and paves the path for authoritarian interventions. [T. J. Lowi, B. Ginsberg, K. A. Shepsle, American Government, 8th edition, 2004, pp. 464-7, 472-3]
The Supreme Court in India recognizes the importance of the party system in democracy, 'to abolish or ignore which would be to permit a chorus of discordant notes to replace an organized discussion.' The Court has even suggested that independent candidates be discouraged from contesting elections because they cause unnecessary confusion to the voters. The Court also held that there may not be any cap on election expenditure by a party and that it is not unlawful not to postpone an election for death of an independent candidate [M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 5th edition, 2005, p.825]
Regulation and government finance for political parties: The government and the Election Commission contemplate reforms which address the internal management and ideological / policy stances of the political parties. Most countries regulate the points of contact between the parties and the citizens - e.g. fund raising, accounts, audit and disclosure. The internal management and ideology / policies are left to the parties, which are judged by the people in election. The parties reform in response to the election system and public judgment.
The Election Commission suggested that the government may finance the political parties. Two main patterns for public funding of political parties can be identified. First, the parties in USA depend on private fund raising. There are laws which regulate the amount a candidate can raise or spend on an election, but which allow unlimited fund raising and expenditure through Political Action Committees, voluntary groups set up to support party candidates. The Court holds that political contributions are part of the right to free speech. The Federal Government gives grants to the parties to motivate voters to register and to cast votes. Reforming private contributions too often surfaces as election campaign issue. [Thomas A. Patterson, The American Democracy, 7th edition, 2005, pp. 261-5]
Second, at the other end Germany makes the most generous government grants to the political parties. The total government expenditure is some 250 million deutschemark for 50 million voters in post-unification Germany (5 DM for each vote won by a party which crosses the threshold). Apart from Germany, the parties in Europe depend on membership fees and voluntary contributions from supporters. The socialist / workers parties depend mainly on membership fees which does not exceed one-fourth of the party funds, and is declining; the contributions by the low income supporters are small. The parties representing the corporate interest get generous contributions. [Michael Gallagher, M. Laver, P. Mair, Representative Government in Europe, 3rd edition, 2001, pp. 289-92]
It is understood that the government will finance only a small portion of the party expenditures, if at all. The government and the Commission may consider the following methods and principles. First, grants may be made to meet direct election expenditures based on determination of standard unit cost, scale of election campaign and mobilization, the size of constituencies and problems of mobility, etc. The Election Commission can conduct audit on the basis of standard cost later, which will facilitate better enforcement of the capon election campaign expenditure.
Second, the parties incur expenditure to bring the voters to the centres. The amount may be linked with the average of votes polled in the last three elections by each party; in addition, larger grants may be made for low income and rural areas where the cost of actual transportation and income foregone is high. It is wrong to ban provision of transport to the voters. In USA, the government makes grants to the parties to improve voter registration and turnout.
Third, as in UK, the government may make policy grants which help parties develop policies. The opposition party in parliament is treated preferentially for policy grants. The majority party has the whole government machinery to work out and implement policies. The opposition party cannot be effective if it does not have resources for developing its own policies and monitoring government policies.
Fourth, following Germany, the government may make grants for meeting all expenditures of the political parties calculated at a given rate for each vote won. The grants are so generous in Germany that the parties have surplus which they give to the likeminded parties in the Mediterranean countries. The grant was introduced in 1959 as a way to sustain democracy and suppress militarism, which is the breeding ground of fascism.
Finally, all democratic countries recognize that the political parties need substantial amount of money to carry on their functions. Subscription by the members is becoming inadequate. Besides, the parties which stand for the relatively poor and less privileged depend on membership fees and suffer disadvantage relative to the parties representing those who own and appropriate the larger shares of wealth, income and social power. Government funding of parties has progressed along with effectiveness of mass participation in democratic politics.
Time for elections to Parliament and local bodies: The elections to Parliament and to local councils are distinct events. Yet, there are arguments whether general and local council elections be held simultaneously and local elections precede the general election. Simultaneous election has more disadvantages than advantages, and offset the latter.
The first and the foremost disadvantage is the strong demand on the mental faculty of the voters who have to cast up to four votes and chose from amongst some 20-40 candidates (parliament, three local bodies - zila, thana & union parishad, city / municipality). The voters get tired or confused and cast votes indifferently, which does not reflect true choice and is likely to affect parliamentary election most, for the issues and candidates are remote relatively to those for the local bodies. The perverse impact will be exacerbated by absence of well-established national parties which are mechanisms for efficient processing information as regards the policies and leaders seeking electoral mandate.
The argument that simultaneous election saves cost does not stand scrutiny. Election centres are located at some permanent structures - e.g. school, college, community centres - to which temporary appurtenances are added at relatively modest cost. Simultaneous election requires more temporary appurtenances, for the booths for each election has to be physically separate. If that were not done, each voter will stay longer in the booth and too many election agents will crowd the booths. The voters may put the marked ballots in the wrong boxes. The cost for temporary appurtenances built over time may not exceed significantly or at all the cost of building them at one time.
Simultaneous elections constitute Parliament and the local bodies at the same time; therefore, their terms also expire at the same time, which creates an administrative void.
The interregnum could be avoided if the local council elections were spaced between two general elections. The country will benefit by avoiding disappearance of all representative institutions at one time and bureaucratization of the entire governance system.
There are important political advantages, too. Simultaneous election is likely to produce results to the advantage of the same party, exacerbating the ills of 'winner take all' inherent in the single constituency plurality (SMP) electoral system.
The local council elections held between the general elections can reflect changes in political support, which moderates 'winner take all' effect, signifies the need for adjustment of the ruling party's policy, and warrant mid-term election if the swing is decisive.
It is feared that elections held while a party government is in office will be rigged to the advantage of the party in office. The answer is an independent Election Commission and a neutral and competent administration. The evils of a weak Election Commission and partisan administration are to be removed by addressing their weaknesses. Besides, there is no guarantee that a non-party government will not be partisan by the consequences of its actions, not necessarily by intention. Mobilized public resistance is the ultimate safeguard against mischief by government and corrupt bureaucracy.
Whether election to the local bodies be held before or after parliamentary election is a trivial matter, essentially. However, it has taken on some significance now as the general election is distant and elected local bodies do not exist except for the city corporations which are continuing from the past and in some cases have been disabled by incarceration of the mayors and officials.
Local council elections held seemingly on non-party basis and when the parties are under restraints return persons on the political fringe but with electoral ambitions. Apolitical governments have a bias against politics, and prefer that parliamentary election be held in a sanitized environment. The persons-from-fringe elected to the local councils then provide the institutional support for election tilted towards similar fringe-politicians and against mainstream politics. Ayub Khan used basic democracy as a strategy for election against mainstream politics; his followers have not made any innovations.
Amendment of law is being considered to return to the Election Commission the power to determine the time for election. The problem has arisen from confusion between the meaning of time and date. The time for election is determined in law. For example, the Constitution states that 'a general election of members of Parliament shall be held within ninety days after Parliament is dissolved for expiration of its term or otherwise' - i.e. dissolved by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Commission fixes the particular date for election within
Publish draft law and detail rationale: The government and the Election Commission may publish the full text of the proposed law along with detailed justification, which would allow people to respond and suggest changes. Any authority which makes law or policy benefits from informing the people and receiving their criticism. Law gets legitimacy from consent of the people given explicitly through elected deputies in representative government, and from the legitimacy of the lawgiver in unrepresentative government.
Legislation by parliament has built-in procedure for getting public response. The proposed law is discussed and criticized in the House; the rules of business of parliament have provision for eliciting public opinion; and finally, a draft law placed in the House is in the public domain and is open to criticism by the citizens. The discussion in the House is important to the extent it reflects or generates public support or apathy to a proposed law.
Ordinances are passed within a bureaucratic context even when an elected government is in office. The departments make the draft which is vetted by the Law Ministry and signed into law by the President acting on Prime Minister's advice. The ordinances are submitted as bills to Parliament for approval and usually passed without much discussion.
The present government is aware of the importance of consulting the people. The government posted the budget for FY 2008 in its website and discussed in several public fora. The initial proposals were adjusted in the light of the public suggestions. The government has established its own mechanism for public consultation, though it is no substitute for elected Parliament.
Conclusion: The suggestions in the article reflect the perceptions of a concerned citizen. They are based on three principles: (a) independence of the Election Commission within its sphere of responsibility; (b) public accountability and institution by the Commission its own operational audit rules including public enquiry and public disclosure; (c) proactive role of the Commission for qualitative and quantitative improvement of voter registration and strengthening the national parties vis-à-vis small and regional parties. There is little focus on the ideological and internal reforms of the political parties which respond to adverse public judgment in a proper election. Reforms of the State institutions are critical for establishing and consolidating democracy. Concluded
The writer, a Ph.D., is a retired secretary to government and writes on economic
and policy issues