A better democratic framework in India

This is a series of posts about the change I would like India to embrace. These are simple to bring about. They cost very little money. They do not require people to alter their habits or attitudes. Which means a person in power can easily bring about these changes. And, in my opinion (though I might be wrong) these will have support from the common man if presented to them.

Update: I got a few unflattering comments offline. I will address them here.

• “The post is too high-level.” Yes, it is meant to be high-level.
• “asserting a presidential type democracy as better than
  multiparty parlimentary democracy like india is questionable.” The post does not call for a change to a Presidential system. It only asks for a rigid timetable in the current system.
• Ceremonial posts … not India’s burning problem.” I agree. There is a problem however with Governors having the power to call for President’s rule in a state. This current system is controversial. The post should have been more clear on that.
• “there are many who criticize the US approach of electing local justices.” This post is high-level. Take it with a grain of salt. I agree electing judges is not a really good idea. But, electing school board members is. And referendums are much needed in India. People of Nandigram could have expressed their views democratically and enforced what they wanted.

India is the world’s largest democracy. To many, it is a surprise that it is even one. While this is a positive, India is not a very good democracy. The Economist computes a Democracy Index for countries. India is ranked 35, with a score of 7.80/10.00 and is considered a “flawed democracy.” We can and should do better.

Ramachandra Guha in his book “India after Gandhi” and on other occasions has talked about the challenges that India’s democracy faces. Some challenges he outlines include:

The threat of religious bigotry on the right wing of the political spectrum, the rise of the Maoist movement in the heartland of central and eastern India on the left wing, corruption and corrosion of the established democratic order, policy incoherence caused by coalition governments, especially in economic development, and environmental degradation

These are challenges because of the way people think and act. It is going to be very difficult to change how people act, and who am I to say what is right and what others should do. My argument is that our democratic framework as provided by the Constitution and laws is by itself fundamentally flawed. Our system does not allow for citizens to express themselves in a robust manner. I would bring about the following changes to India’s democratic system.

A rigid timetable

India should move to having a rigid timetable for elections. Look at the US. Election day is always the first Tuesday after Nov 1 of even-numbered years. When will the next President be elected? Nov 6, 2012 (the first Tuesday after Nov 1). When is the President’s inauguration? Jan 20, every four years. That is how it is every time. The terms for representatives in the House (2 years), Presidents (4 years) and Senators (6 years) are set in stone.

Contrast this with India. We don’t know for how long the administration in power will have the confidence of the Lok Sabha. We don’t know when the Lok Sabha will be dissolved. We can have a Prime Minster who lasts only 13 days in office. We can have three back to back Prime Minsters who each last less than a year in office. How can we expect stability in such a system? In the US, each of the hundred senators can belong to a different party. Even then the wheels of government will move on.

Eliminate ceremonial posts

Why is it that we in India have no real say in electing the Head of State? And, why is it that we have a Head of State who is merely ceremonial? We might as well have a statue of Gandhi and call him our President for eternity. At least, that won’t cost any money. And same is the case with governors. Jayalalitha used to block traffic every day on her way to work as Chief Minister in Chennai. They could have given the Governor’s mansion to her.

Let people actually have a say

Why do we pretend that a population of 1.1 billion people can merely have 550 representatives, and call that system representative democracy? That is one representative per 2 million (20,00,000) citizens. How effective is that going to be? On top of that, all you get to do is elect a Lok Sabha MP, State MLA, possibly someone for Councillor or Mayor. After that, you have to shut up for the next five years.

Take a look at this sample ballot from the US. In the US, you get to vote in Federal, State, County and City elections. You get to vote for President, Senator (like MP), Representative (like MP), Governor, State Senator (like MLA), State Representative (like MLA), Mayor, State Supreme Court judges, District judges, District attorney, Sheriff, Commissioner, and so on. Add to this the opportunity to vote on state and local referendums. In India, the referendum process is non-existent, and non-binding.

How can this change happen?

I assume that you and a overwhelming majority of citizens will support this idea. All that it takes is one politician in a position of power, say Manmohan Singh, to stand up and propose these changes. Bring it to a vote in the Lok Sabha, I can’t see how it can be voted down.

Change I want to see in India

Update: This is a series of posts about the change I would like India to embrace. These are simple to bring about. They cost very little money. They do not require people to alter their habits or attitudes. Which means a person in power can easily bring about these changes. And, in my opinion (though I might be wrong) these will have support from the common man if presented to them.

• A better democratic framework in India

Original article: We all have various complaints about what is wrong in our country. But, it is not an easy task to specify exactly what is wrong, to come up with a solution on paper, and to actually get it to work. It is very difficult to say what should tangibly be changed in India, and how to get it done.

One grand vision

A first approximation indicator of the state our country is the Human Development Index (HDI). (India’s score is 0.609/1.000 and it’s rank is 132). It is a single number that takes into account life expectancy at birth, literacy, and per capita GDP. I am impressed by how useful the life expectancy indicator is. It combines so many factors that improve or reduce lifespan, into a single number.

Do citizens have access to health care? Can citizens afford healthy meals everyday? Is the county often at war? Are there mass-murders? How effective is protection from natural calamities? How clean is the environment? How safe are industries? How safe is transportation? What is the crime rate? …

To improve lifespans, a country must restrain factors that case death and boost those that prolong life. This is easier said than done. First there needs to exist a will to act. In addition, limited resources must be channeled towards improving various factors. Any person who wants to increase longevity (and by definition improve the state of development of a country) must look at such factors. These improvements require societal action, political will, and money.

One grand vision is to see India made great strides in these fronts and as a result improve the HDI rating of India. This is tangible, but not easy to achieve.

Policy changes that are easier to bring about

I would like to India make changes for the better on all these fronts and more, towards this vision. However, I lack knowledge, expertise and time to even begin to fathom how to bring about these changes. Instead, I will talk about changes that are simple to bring about. These cost very little money. They do not require people to alter their habits or attitudes. They do not directly address improving HDI but I feel will lay a foundation that will help us address such complex issues.

This is merely a thought exercise that I want to share with others. I will attempt to lay down what can be changed without a lot of money or societal action. Even a powerful leader can’t will away xenophobia or religious fundamentalism or casteist bigotry. It is extremely difficult to imagine universal healthcare for all or universal education for all. To bring that we have to answer questions about how we plan to pay for it. More importantly, we need to figure how we can get enough quality doctors or teachers. So, I will not talk about such changes.

Positive change though simple legislation

I will instead present change that can be brought through a simple legislation. Such an instance in the past was the Right to Information Act (RTI). It took a few strong leaders to pass it, it cost very little or no money, and they had to convince no one to change their behavior. Whether people utilize the act is a different question. There is at least a tool for people to use and reform governance if they want to.

I’d like to express my thoughts and I hope others like it. Who knows, these thoughts might reach someone who can effect such changes.