In a democracy, election of candidates and the rules of governance are based on the principle of social contract. The elected representatives undertake to govern/serve the nation in the best interest of ‘The People’.
Social contracting takes place through the act of voting, therefore voting has to a free, devoid of any other influences, be it money, caste, community or any other. Social contract like any contract needs to fulfil the basic requirement of a free consent.
In countries like India, voting is far from a free choice. Factors like money, muscle, caste and community etc do play a vital role in the election process. Besides, illiteracy, poverty, unemployment and many other oppressive circumstance, like fraud and undue influences affect the voting, raising a fundamental issue, as to whether the elected representatives, are really and truly people’s representative?
In the existing system of adult franchise, where the single non-transferable vote exists, a candidate is elected merely on the basis that he/she secured more votes than all other candidates contesting from that constituency. Depending upon the number of candidates it might so happen that a candidate even with only 20% votes in his favour would get elected. That is, a candidate who is rejected by 80% of the electorate is elected by this twist of fate by the system of single non-transferable vote.
India is now the world’s most populous nation with 1.486 billion people, around 912 million people are eligible to vote, and voter turnout was about 67 percent in the last Lok Sabha elections.
In terms of percentage only about 60% of the population has voting rights. Of these only 67% actually vote ie 611 million, in reality only 41% of the total population votes. Of these 611 billions, the total vote share of all the winning candidate together is less than 30% that is mere 18 million only. Thereafter when a majority party or their coalition forms the government, the ruling disposition or the government is elected by 60% of 18 million that is about 10 million. That is, the government in power is elected by less than 1% of the total population. The claim that they represent majority of the population is an euphemism and skewed interpretation of reality.
This is the dance of Indian democracy and a twist of fate of the Nation and its people.
The above mentioned two factors undermine the true essence of democracy in India , one that the electorate has no real free choice(consent) secondly the ruling composition does not in reality is, not elected or chosen by the majority of the population but by a miniscule of the population.
But the law, ethics, the conventions and traditions of democracy requires, these elected representatives, who are ruling the nation, to represent the whole nation and cater to the needs of all the people, irrespective of their, caste, status, religion or support, in all their conduct , they cannot and should not ignore the needs and aspirations of the 1.4 billion (We The People) people. That’s why it is secret ballot and is the spirit and essence of democracy.
The government therefore becomes a responsible government and is accountable, to the whole people, and to the Constitution through its courts. This in substance is what is meant by Government accountability.
‘Accountability’ is the only antidote to corruption in public life. A functional democracy requires strong safeguards against official corruption, which erodes public services as well as public faith. In a constitutional democracy, this accountability is owed to the electorate by all persons in government. Accountability can help citizens find ways to hold governments accountable. Accountability is needed to instil discipline into government activities.
In the earlier days of the Republic, when elected leaders felt that they have a responsibility to the people as well as the nation, they would often resign, when a mishap like the railway accident happens or even for any failure of a ministry. But now the strategy is to shift the responsibility by holding prolonged enquiry, even into self-evident events and ultimately hold the lowest possible employee and punish such employee. The most recent illustration is that of the Odisha rail accident.
The contemporary trend seems to be that neither the Minister, nor the high ranking officials or the system implementers take responsibility, but just the lower most employee becomes liable. When the ruling politicians and the bureaucrats have adopted this kind of mind set and reasoning, it’s worth to revisit the idea of government responsibility, especially in the light of the true representative character of an elected government.
The idea of social contract requires, elected representatives, to accept greater responsibility for government’s misdoings as well as undoings as equally and in the same vigour as they do about small or little achievements.
The cabinet collectively and the ministers individually, need to get into this responsibility mode for a nation to survive. The strategy of blame game should never be a reason to absolve themselves from responsibility. Then only, there can be good governance and a responsible government.
Another popular evasive strategy used by those in power is to speak of what will happen and what they will do after ten years and so on, forgetting the fact that they are all elected to deal with the contemporary real problems faced by the people. This kind of merchandising ‘Dreams of the future’ is rather an escapist strategy.
Raking up past beyond the memory of the present population merely to create a crisis situation of friction and hatred so that their present-day short coming remains unnoticed seems to be another commonly used approach. The country needs politicians and leaders who can understand and find viable solution to the present-day problems. Be it environmental degradation, unemployment, or communal rift, ‘India needs problem solvers and not problem creators’.
(The writer is a professor of law & an education consultant)
