A plea for proportional representation

CP Bhambhri

INDIA has held 14 Lok Sabha elections and innumerable elections for 29 state assemblies and seven Union Territories on the basis of the progressive system of universal adult franchise, under the supervision of constitutionally created “neutral” Election Commision (EC) The EC has conducted regular elections by following a simple first-past-the post system in which any candidate or party which secures a simple majority of votes polled is declared elected. The Constitution makers had modified this system of elections by introducing a system of reservations of seats in elected representative legislatures by fixing a quota of 15 per cent for the Scheduled Castes and seven and half per cent for the Scheduled Tribe population. This can be described as an Indian variant of the system of proportional representation for defined vulnerable minorities or specific deprived social groups. Seats are allocated on the basis of proportion of the percentage of the total population of these groups. 

It is a historical legacy that the implementation of proportional representation (PR) is called the system of “reservations” or “quotas” for SCs and STs in representative assemblies. The Constitution makers stopped short of extending this special reservation to the Muslim community in spite of the fact that Muslims had many apprehensions while opting for Indian citizenship after the creation of Pakistan in 1947. 

Muslims of India constituted the largest minority community and had several doubts about their future life with dignity in a Hindu-majority country. The inter-community relationship between Hindus and Muslims was vitiated by post-Partition violence. Even saner elements in this atmosphere of violence were haunted by the reality of post-Partition independent India. A few Muslim members, along with some other members of the Constituent Assembly like KT Shah or DH Chandra Sekhariya, raised the demand for proportional representation of seats in the Parliament and state legislative assemblies. In every democracy, minorities have expressed reservations about first-past-the-post electoral system of voting because a single vote for every citizen and a simple majority for an elected representative can result into the rule by "majority" and the marginalisation of "special minority communities". Every important theoretician of liberal representative democracy has been compelled to grapple with the issue of protection of special minority communities because the first-past-the-post system can lead to brute majoritarianism of religious or racial majority groups. 

The debate on the electoral systems in various democracies in Europe has continued till the end of the 20th century. European democracies have followed either the first-past-the-post or proportional representation in elections to deal with the problems faced by minorities in specific countries. England follows the first-past-the-post system. Present Germany and many European democraciesduring the inter-war period  followed some kind of proportional representation to ensure that every special social group was represented in the legislatures 

French writer Maurice Duverger in his classic, Modern Political Parties, published in the early 1960s, grappled with the merits and demerits of these two electoral systems because his own country and other European countries during the post-War II phase of  reconstruction of democratic political systems were discussing which electoral system would be most suited to the requirements of a plural society.

 Therefore, it was not unusual for the Indian Constituent Assembly to debate and resolve the issue of allocation of seats on the basis of proportional representation for a religious minority community in legislatures. Had the Constitution makers not conceded the principle that special problems faced by Dalits deserve special reservations of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies? Why not extend this principle to Muslims, the country's largest minority community? The two-nation theory had haunted the Constitution makers, who were suffering from the trauma of the violent post-Partition  inter-religious riots. Perhaps, it was considered wise not to concede this demand of Muslims for the fear of opening a pandora's box of social conflicts. The need to reopen the issue of proportional representation and the allocation of seats to Muslims on the basis of their percentage of population in the country has assumed importance because of a fundamental change in the political situation of India, especially after the electoral victory of the BJP in the Lok Sabha elections of 2014.

The ongoing march of the BJP seems unstoppable. Important North Indian states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and north-western states of Maharashtra and Gujarat are ruled by this Hindu political formation. In every northern and north-western state there is a sizeable Muslim minority population that is insecure and feels threatened by the emergence of aggressive forces of anti-Muslim Hindutva. After the Lok Sabha elections of 2014 and in elections for the state assemblies, Muslims have been disempowered. The BJP is in government on the basis of the majority of Hindu legislators. Muslim MPs and MLAs do not find any place in the BJP-ruled governments. 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is supported by 282 Lok Sabha MPs belonging to the BJP and not a single Muslim finds a place in the ruling party. Not only this. The BJP did not nominate a single Muslim candidate for the 2017 UP Assembly elections. The Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, like Narendra Modi, occupies the highest political office in the state government only on the basis of the elected Hindu legislators of his party. The BJP and the Sangh Parivar maintain that Muslims do not vote for their party. Hence, there is no reason to nominate Muslims as party candidates for elections to the state assemblies.

The system of proportional representation is an institutional arrangement where the minority community, as a matter of right, gets an opportunity to show its presence in elected assemblies. There is an apprehension in the minds of many secular-minded democrats that proportional representation may create a wall of separatism between the majority and minority community and it may become difficult to break the barriers between religious communities. The pros and cons of the proportional representation system have to be rationally discussed if the first-past-the-post system is keeping Muslims out of representative assemblies. The only way to bring the Muslim minority community into the democratic process is proportional representation.

The present trust deficit between the Hindu-majority party governments and the 160-million Muslim minority community is worrisome. If Muslims are not made to participate in the democratic process, a section among the community may take to undemocratic methods to resolve their problems. 

In his farewell address, the former Vice President Hamid Ansari brought into sharp focus the "insecurities" faced by minorities in 2017 India. Unfortunately, the top BJP leadership, instead of taking Ansari's warning seriously, reacted in a sarcastic manner. A high-level functionary of the RSS/BJP advised Ansari to go to a country where he may feel "secure". Ansari's reference was to the present anxieties of the Muslim minority community but the Hindu leaders rejected his opinion contemptuously. Proportional representation is a better option for deepening the democratic process and it can provide rights to a religious minority group to develop stakes in the country's democratic governance.

 The writer is  Professor Emeritus, Centre for Political Studies, JNU