Opinion Democracy and the five-year ritual

However,let’s not think there are no cynics and angry people among those who vote. Many of them also wonder,“What do we get by voting?” It’s probably their sense of duty as citizens,or even the realisation that their vote has a certain power—and this realisation has been steadily increasing everywhere,including in a place like Jammu & Kashmir—which gets the better of their discontent. Let’s also accept that the use of power of the vote to get someone from one’s own caste or community elected is also an important consideration that brings voters to the polling booth.

What has puzzled and agitated me since the time I voted for the first time in an election—and I am sure I share the sentiment of most voters on this point—is that the voter’s engagement with democracy ends once his or her vote is cast. The next engagement is,usually only after five years. During this period,the voters mostly have no voice,no forum to express their views,no activity or responsibility,barring what some self-motivated citizens do by keeping the flame of democracy burning. How can we make democracy more than a five-yearly voting ritual? How can we improve our democratic system as if the voter mattered? All of us learnt in our high schools,long before we became voters that democracy is of,by and for the people. It’s a wonderfully simplified encapsulation of a profound concept. How can we ensure greater functional content in ‘of’ and ‘by’ the people,so that democratic governance also becomes more manifestly ‘for’ the people? Here are five thoughts.

First,make voting compulsory by giving the option of ‘none of the above candidates’ option. Compulsion is justified because when a citizen enjoys the rights and freedoms in a democracy,he also has duties to perform,one of them being the duty to vote. When voting becomes compulsory,voters are more likely to become aware of their right to ask questions of their elected representatives,political parties and members of government.

Second,it should be made compulsory,in some institutionalised way,for elected representatives,candidates and leaders of political parties to listen to voters. Today most of the communication is one way: leaders give speeches to people,but rarely listen to what the people have to say. And it would be wrong to think that the people only voice their personal grievances when they get an opportunity to talk to their MPs,MLAs or political leaders. They do have views and concerns to share about the larger issues facing the country. Many of them also have creative solutions to offer. After all,common citizens care as much about the nation as,if not more than,the leaders who hog the limelight. Sadly,their voice goes unheard because all political parties are more or less impervious to accepting ideas from ordinary citizens,much less making them participants in governance.

Institutionalisation of this two-way dialogue is a matter that needs wider debate. How about compulsory,well-structured and regular sessions for an MP to interact with his constituents? How about making it compulsory for an MP to respond to every representation coming from voters in his constituency,just as it is mandatory for a minister or a government officer to reply to any letter coming from an MP? How about making it mandatory for an MP to present an annual report detailing his activities in Parliament,parliamentary committees,constituency,and spending under the MPLADS fund with some kind of social audit?

Third,for the voters’ voice to be heard,it is necessary for them to be organissed. In Delhi,for example,the Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) have become powerful grassroots groupings,which deal not only with neighbourhood issues but,at the time of assembly or parliamentary elections,also as platforms for ordinary citizens to talk to candidates and campaigners. We need more such autonomous,non-political platforms that mobilise common people’s opinions.

Fourth,when it comes to nurturing the interaction between voters and their elected representatives,a huge disappointment is the functioning of the media. As the fourth pillar of democracy,the press enjoys enormous freedom,prestige and power,which are of course its due. Sadly,coverage of parliamentary news by the big media has plummeted alarmingly over the years. Not only voters but even MPs feel that they have no place in the media. Lok Sabha TV,in its present format,is a poor substitute to what the larger media can and should do. Clearly,owners and editors of privately owned media would do well to introspect if they are doing enough to promote vox populi.

Fifth,we now have a powerful new medium in the Internet to empower the voters. It can do what the traditional print and TV media are either loath to do or cannot do—give people a medium that they can ‘own’. Internet is indeed the greatest tool of democratic empowerment in human history. We in India need to devise ways of using it effectively to let the people speak truth to power.

Write to: sudheenkulkarni@gmail.com