Do these MPs or MLAs really represent the people?

Can Civil Soceity draft a Bill?
While a debate is raging over whether members of civil society have the right to draft a bill for being enacted by the Parliament, or whether the same 'happens to be' the exclusive right of either the government or the MPs (Members of the Parliament), it important for the result of this debate to be the outcome of an informed analysis, and not one born out of misinformed rhetoric. In order to be fully informed, it is pertinent to note that even the Constitution of India was not only drafted, but can be even said to be Enacted by 'unelected members of civil society'. If this statement surprises one, as it ought to, then it is not only a cause of ignorance, which may be excused, but more importantly of misinformation spread by those in power for over 6 decades.
It might surprise several youngsters to know that prior to independence, elections were of course being held in India, under the Government of India Act, 1935. However, these elections were conducted under the influence of the British Monarchy. Under this act, only about 15\% of the entire adult population was having a right to vote. Elections were probably never held in most of the princely states. Before India attained independence on 15th August 1947, a Constituent Assembly was formed and it was charged with drafting and enacting a Constitution for India, until which the governance was to be continued under British law. Initially, over 370 members were present in the Constituent Assembly, of which a sizable number were 'nominated' from the princely states, either by the Princes, or by British Residents. Owing to partition, several members of the Constituent Assembly shifted to Pakistan, reducing the strength of the Assembly to under 300 members. Under these circumstances, several persons having eminence in various fields were 'nominated' to the Constituent Assembly, which included even Dr. Ambedkar, revered as the father of the Constitution of India. The other members of the Constituent Assembly were 'indirectly elected' by the Provincial Legislatures.
Could this Assembly really represent the masses of India, given that only 15\% of adults could vote for the elections to the Provincial Legislatures? Can the members be said to represent the common man of 1947, when they were not directly elected by the common man? Could a nominated member from a Princely State be free of the influence exerted by British Monarchy. The words and opinions of Mahatma Gandhi as well as those of Jawarharlal Nehru clearly indicate that even they were not satisfied with such a Constituent Assembly, which was not elected directly by the people on the basis on 'Adult Suffrage' (Adult Franchise). They had agreed to the formation of the Constituent Assembly as a 'compromise'. The words of Mahatma Gandhi, The proposed Constituent Assembly is not a free Assembly. There are many defects in the scheme, but since we have been fighting for the last so many years, why should we be afraid of defects? and of Jawaharlal Nehru, If I am asked to give my own point of view, I would say it (the Assembly) is not obviously something which we have desired and worked for. There are many difficulties and snags, and the scales are weighted against us. On the other hand, it is obvious also that it is not so bad....When India is free, India will do just what she likes.I do think that sometime or other in the future, we may have to summon our own proper revolutionary Constituent Assembly. That does not mean we should not take advantage of this and work it out to our own advantage. clearly indicate that even the formation of the Constituent Assembly was reluctantly accepted as a compromise by our national leaders who had fought for our independence.
IN the background of the above information, can we not gather that even the Constitution of our country was drafted by members of civil society and even enacted by them? If so, then what are the demerits in allowing the members of civil society to draft the Jan Lokpal Bill and put it before the Parliament for consideration? Wouldn't the passage ultimately rest in Parliament's hands? Does not the reluctance of the Government betray an endeavour, aimed at suppressing our rights, caused by an apprehension of skeletons tumbling out of various cupboards?

Do the Members of the Lok Sabha really, fairly or truly represent the masses?
Having established that drafting of a bill by civil society is not something to be frowned upon, we come to the possibility that the same will surely be rejected by the Lok Sabha (and maybe the Rajya Sabha too), for the simple reason that several of the MPs will be adversely affected by the passage of such a bill. Can we infer that such MPs do not reflect or express the sentiment of the masses?
It is observed that on an average, the voting percentage in elections is about 60\%. The winning candidate obtains around 40\% of the polled votes. Does this not mean, that the winning candidate is favoured by only 24\% of the total voters? Even if only the polled votes are considered, can the winning candidate be said to be favoured by a 'majority' of voters, when only 40\% have voted for him? Does 40\% or 24\% constitute a majority? How can such members, elected by a flawed system, claim to represent the masses? Is there a remedy for this flaw?
A remedy, which is implemented in several countries is the Preferential Voting System. In such a system, instead of marking a cross (x) before the choosen candidate, the voter has to numerically express the priority of his choice. The voter is needed to put the digit '1' against that candidate who is most favoured by him. He has to mark the digit '2' before the candidate of 2nd preference and so forth. In some countries, instead of marking the preference by digits, columns of 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th preference are provided after the list of the candidates' names. The voter then marks a cross in the 1st column against the candidate most favoured by him. He also marks a cross against the 2nd preferred candidate in the 2nd column and so forth. The basic underlying principle of the preferential ballot is that no candidate emerges as a winner until he secures a true majority, which is equal to 50\% polled votes, plus an extra vote. Thus, if 1,00,000 votes have been polled, a candidate emerges as a winner if, and only if, he obtains 50,001 votes.
When there are more than 2 candidates, it is possible that no one gets 50,001 votes, or a 'true majority'. In such cases, the votes of the candidate getting the least number of 1st preference votes are re-distributed to other candidates by referring to the 2nd preference markings in the votes polled by him. This is known as the 2nd round of counting. If even this fails to pronounce any candidate as a winner with a 'true majority', then once again, the candidate with the least votes in the 2nd round is removed from consideration and the votes polled by him are again re-distributed amongst the remaining candidates by referring to the 2nd preference votes in the ballot obtained by him. These rounds continue until a candidate emerges with a 'true majority'. It is beyond me to give graphical representation of this system herein, but one is encouraged to obtain more information from various web-sites, (official and well as educational) for clarity. The beauty of this system, is that a candidate emerges as a winner on the basis of him being the 'most favoured' (or, as some may put it, 'the least disliked'), by the voters.
The advantages of the above system are obvious. Rigging an election becomes difficult, though it may not be eliminated. Tactical Voting tending to favour persons on the basis of race and caste can be avoided. There are certain disadvantages too. Most notably, the ballot papers may be cumbersome and may not be fully understood by voters. This disadvantage, however is only a short-lived and temporary one. When this system is implemented, awareness is bound to increase amongst the masses and the disadvantage may turn into an advantage. Implementation of such a system will surely lead to long-term benefits to the common man.
The other drawback of our system, that of low voting percentages, may be remedied by making voting compulsory. However, that itself may not be sufficient as people may still indulge in invalid votes. The true reason for lack of participation in voting is not a laziness on the part of the voters, but something entirely different. Several persons abstain from voting because they have a conscience. They find it difficult to answer their own conscience, when they observe that the person whom they voted for, has turned out to be a callous opportunist. Therefore the above malady cannot be remedied by making voting compulsory. It can surely be remedied if a 'right to recall' is included in the exercise. Though there are several ways to implement this, one of the easiest and fairest ways would be to have an Annual Appraisal Vote. Once a candidate emerges as a winner, such an appraisal vote is held annually. If the MP holding office wins the appraisal vote, then nothing happens. However, if he loses two consecutive appraisals then he loses office and fresh elections are held. In essence, even if an MP loses an appraisal vote once, he still gets a breather for another year, during which he can tidy up his act. If he does not, and is rejected even in the next appraisal vote, then he leaves for good and fresh elections are held. A clause may included for debarring such a person from contesting consequent mid-term elections.
The advantage of this mechanism, is that the MP will have to be accountable to his constituency. We won't have to be at the mercy of an MP for 5 years. The obvious disadvantage is that mid-term election may have to be held, if someone loses 2 consecutive appraisals. Expenses incurred on such mid-term elections should not be a deterrent for implementing this system, as even otherwise, we have had to face several mid-term elections. Even such expenses are intra-country; the money does not flow out of the country owing to an election. That should not be a deterrent for this system. However, this system may lead to instability for the PM too, if several of his supporting MPs lose thier office owing to loss in consecutive appraisals. I leave it to the reader to decide whether this is really an instability. Is this really a disadvantage to We, the People or not? Can it be termed as a disadvantage when not only the MP, but even the PM is forced to be accountable to We, the People, by such a system?

What happens to the voice of sanity?
Have we given any thought to the subtle difference between 'popular' and 'good'? Can something, an object, a thought or an idea, or for that matter, even a process be accepted as good, merely because it is popular? Can we make an inference by referring to some ordinary example?
We all know about the preference of the youngsters in modern society. Given a choice, they will root for the extravagant pizza, instead of the humble dal-roti. Even we, in our younger days, would have plumped for chhole-tikki or pav-bhaji, instead of some nutritious home-made stuff. Yet, can we state that these foodstuffs are good on a long-term basis? Does not this comparison prove that what is popular, need not be good; and what is good, may not be popular?
A number of parallel examples can be cited to prove the previous inference. It has been held as accepted by even the founding fathers of our nation, as proven by the presence of two houses within the Parliament. What is referred to as Upper and Lower House, in western countries, is referred to as Lok and Rajya Sabha respectively in our system. However, what was intended by the founding fathers was much different from what is happening today. The Lok Sabha was intended to reflect the 'popular sentiment', while the Rajya Sabha was expected to give 'wise counsel'. The Lok Sabha was to be periodically elected and also periodically purged by direct elections, conducted according to adult franchise. It is not a permanent body. However, the Rajya Sabha is a permanent body, yet, with its members having a finite duration of membership. By creating two houses within parliament, the founding fathers of our nation wanted to balance popular mandate with wise counsel. However, what we observe today is that the Rajya Sabha serves to merely accomodate the dropouts of the Lok Sabha elections. Today, it is possible for a ruffian or even a hoodlum to get elected into the Lok Sabha (of course it might change if electoral reforms as suggested in preceding paragraphs are implemented). In due course of time, it will be possible for these ruffians and hoodlums to be absorbed into the Rajya Sabha, if they fail to get elected into the Lok Sabha. Can the Rajya Sabha function as a house representing wise counsel. Won't there be a danger of the enactment of intrinsically unjust laws, owing to popular mandate, given that the average person who votes for the Lok Sabha is generally not one, who votes with an informed and conscious intellect. Is it not observed that mob-mentality serves to only stifle the voice of sanity? How can the degradation of the Rajya Sabha, into a cess-pool of rejected Lok Sabha aspirants, be averted?
To bing with, all members who wish to be elected into the Rajya Sabha should be elected from various professions. As an example, the community of doctors may elect, say, 5 persons from themselves to represent them in the Rajya Sabha. The same can be done with other professions, including but not restricted to, Lawyers, Tax Professionals, Artists, Dramatists, Playwrights, Businessmen (yes, they too are citizens), Teachers, Engineers, other Graduates, and so many other professions. The number of persons to be elected from each profession would have to be decided and periodically reviewed. However, what is most important is that election to the Rajya Sabha should be also on preferential ballot (as is already the case, even today) and that none of the members of the houses elected on popular mandate should be allowed to corrupt such elections by any right to vote. In essence, all state assemblies and even members of the Lok Sabha (whatever their professions may be) should not be allowed to exercise any voting for electing members into the Rajya Sabha. Readers may realise that even today, representation of Graduates and Teachers constituencies is corrupted by tactical voting, indulged in, by the members of several state legislatures. If such a system is put into place, then the Rajya Sabha will reflect the true opinion of the experts who constitute the same; experts who are chosen from the various professionals from amongst themselves. In such a scenario, even if the members of Lok Sabha attempt to foist some unjust law owing to popular mandate, then the same will be either tempered or modified by the wise counsel of the Rajya Sabha, before any enactment into law.
Lastly, but most importantly, it needs to be remembered, that in a democracy, the government is not the ruler of the people. The people are rulers of themselves. The elected members are merely the representatives of the people. The members of the executive are merely the servants of the people, recruited to carry out the instructions passed on to them through the elected members. The judiciary, also a part of the government, serves to settle disputes between members of the public, the executive and the legislature. As the government consists of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, it is only the 4th estate, which has the duty to express the concerns of the public, if and when the 3 arms of government pay no heed, as is happening today.
--- Neelesh Viswanathan
[email protected]