The resultant competition improved quality, gave choice,
and stablized prices. As monopolies are broken and genuine
competition is ushered in, firms became competitive, and
productivity went up. But in the realm of politics, entry
barriors remain, monopolies continue, and choices are denied
to citizens.
Should
we interpret greater choice in politics as license to defect
at will? Obviously a lot of defections are self-serving,
and voters are still denied choices. Today all mainstream
parties are somewhat indistinguishable, notwithstanding
their valiant efforts to differentiate themselves by symbolism
and clever jargon. Therefore people feel cheated despite
a 'free' and 'fair' poll. No genuine alternatives are offered
to the electorate. Politicians too can cross fences with
the ease of acrobats, as all major parties look and feel
alike. Who will represent which party on a given day is
a delightful guessing game. Except for a few top leaders
of the major parties, almost anyone can switch loyalties
any time. It is as simple as selling the shares of the company,
and buying those of a new one. All that matters is anticipated
returns, and short-term maximization.
Clearly,
that is not the kind of 'competition', and 'choice' we seek
in politics. Then how do we reconcile our notions of freedom,
choice and competition with fairness, principles and public
good? This question needs to be addressed, if we are to
build a political system which we can trust and respect.
How
can we then offer choices, encourage competition, generate
opportunities, and promote freedom in the political arena?
There are four complementary ways of addressing this question.
First, we need internal democracy among political parties.
The choice of candidates for elective offices is now left
to the top leadership, which itself is often self-imposed.
Members are denied choice, and there is no true or fair
competition among contenders within a party in the only
arena that matters - the market place of ideas. Look at
the just concluded Democratic Party's presidential primaries
in the US. After months of a highly competitive, public,
transparent process, the candidate has been chosen. Until
the ballots were counted on super Tuesday, anyone could
have been the candidate. Howard Dean, John Edwards, Joe
Liberman, Dick Gephadt, Wesley Clark, and John Kerry - all
had a chance. Finally the members chose in a fair and competitive
election. None of the candidates can complain of having
been sidelined by party bosses. The party is rejuvenated
in the process, and a strong candidate who could unite all
factions emerged. Most of all, new ideas and nuanced positions
emerged, and the party platform could accommodate the many
concerns of the people - global leadership, national security,
jobs, health care, social security reform etc.
Second,
the monopoly of power in state and national governments
must end. People get better choices, and party workers get
opportunities for leadership if local governments are truly
empowered. In all of India, there are only 5000 elective
offices of serious consequence today for a billion people.
The jostling, and unseemly scramble for these limited slots
is both repulsive and counterproductive. Political ambition
is no sin. If we expand opportunities by making local governments
meaningful, we can provide space to many ambitious politicians,
and harness their talents for positive goals. Right now,
much of political energy is exhausted in check-mating each
other.
Third,
there are serious entry barriers in politics, promoting
oligopolies. A party cannot be viable until it gets about
35% or more vote in a state. Realistically, there are only
two major political parties in most states which can get
legislators elected. Other parties are marginalized, and
people are denied real choices. The election is often between
Tweedledom and Tweedledee. There is also an entry barrier
for candidates on account of high cost of elections, mostly
for illegitimate purposes. And worst of all, in single-member
territorial constituencies, the votes cast in favour of
the losing candidates are 'wasted', and have no bearing
on representation. A large number of people have no voice
in this first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Often the voters
experience excruciating dilemmas between the candidate they
like, and a party that best represents their views. FPTP
system does not promote competition or choice. The answer
lies in some form of Proportional Representation, by which
the parties get candidates elected on the basis of their
vote share in the state. This can be mixed with half the
seats elected by FPTP system, so that the choice is wider,
and the conflict between the candidate and party can be
resolved. In order to prevent fragmentation, we can have
a reasonable entry barrier - high enough to promote consolidation,
and low enough to allow real competition in the form of
a minimum vote share requirement for representation in legislatures.
Finally,
our parliamentary executive model does not guarantee voice
to citizens in choosing the leader. While the elections
have become increasingly plebiscitary - Vajpayee vs Sonia
Gandhi; Chandrababu Naidu vs Rajasekhar Reddy - there is
no guarantee that the legislators will honour those choices
finally. This problem is far more acute in states where
a group of legislators can organise a midnight coup, and
change leadership. The Jagadambica Pal episode in UP (1998),
Nadendla Bhaskara Rao unseating NTR in AP (1984), and GM
Shah displacing Farooq Abdulla in J&K (1984) are among
the more dramatic illustrations of people's choices being
dishonoured. The solution lies in clear separation of powers
in states, with the people electing the head of the government
directly. Then government cannot be held captive by power
brokers, and the legislature can exercise effective law
making and oversight functions.
Our
electoral and political system and the shenanigans of politicians
are excellent examples of inadequate choices, entry barriers,
monopolies and lack of opportunities. The principles of
economic reform apply to politics as well. Competitive economy
cannot thrive without truly competitive politics offering
real choice, and promoting leadership.
***