Primary benefits
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/258700._.html
Within a week, we have witnessed two different versions of democracy. In Pakistan, the leadership of a “democratic¶ party is decided based on a will (wills, apparently, are not just for properties; or is a political party just family property?) and a 19-year-old youth alters his surname in order to nominally take charge. In a mid-western state in the US, two individuals without any inheritance (financial or otherwise), without any aristocratic connections, emerged as front-runners for the leadership of two of the oldest political parties in the oldest continuous constitutional republic in the world. I refer of course to the “surprising¶ emergence of Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee.
If leaders of countries can be chosen by its members (that is, its citizens) why is it that the leaders of political parties are ‘nominated’ or literally inherit the mantle? Incidentally, the present system of primaries was not always there in the US. It is a twentieth-century innovation done expressly with the idea of reducing the power of party bosses and moneyed fixers. Political parties are not voluntary supporters of transparency and popular sovereignty in their own inner workings. They prefer secret deals behind closed doors. Open caucuses and well-monitored primary elections ensure that an unrepresentative elite does not gain control of parties which then has the insidious impact of the voters’ choices being severely curtailed — a choice between one cabal or another. While the system of primaries is not perfect (it is seen as too long, too gruelling, too expensive), it is definitely an improvement on the older system and it does give an opportunity for fresh leadership to emerge.
Even old, established democracies see the need for constant evolutionary change in order to survive and succeed. In Britain, a coterie of “senior wise men¶ of the Tory party would choose the leader. (Needless to say, there were presumably no wise women!) This system suited elitists like Anthony Eden and Alec Douglas Hume. It is only after the Tories changed their process for selecting leaders that a middle-class person — and a woman at that, Margaret Thatcher — was able to emerge. The rest, of course, is history.
Labour discovered to its dismay that union bosses who represented at best a small section of activists had disproportionate power. Local party units were getting infiltrated by diehard Marxists as most ordinary Labour supporters did not have the time or the inclination to attend endless boring committee meetings. The union bosses and the extremists controlling the constituency units were making Labour virtually unelectable. The party realised this and went in for reforms, which reduced the power of unions and made it impossible for unrepresentative extremists to gain control. That was the beginning of Labour’s revival.
In India and our immediate neighbourhood, we have regressed rather than evolve constructively. The beginning of the end of i nner-party democracy in the Congress must squarely be placed as Mahatma Gandhi’s doing. When Subhash Chandra Bose defeated the Mahatma’s candidate, Dr Pattabhi Sitaramayya, in a fairly fought election for the Tripuri session, Bose was simply “not allowed¶ to operate and he subsequently resigned. It was clear to all observers that only Gandhi’s nominee could lead the Congress irrespective of the views of the rank and file party members. The Congress party has an unelected body known as the “High Command¶, which appoints state leaders and chooses MP/MLA candidates. Other parties now imitate the Congress. The expression ‘High Command’ was used in Germany not so long ago by a very undemocratic dispensation. For parties nominally committed to democratic principles to routinely use this expression is very curious indeed.
One of the most interesting features of the primaries is that you do not have to be a party activist to vote. In many states, you don’t even have to be a party member. The result is that ordinary citizens who are too busy to be involved in the day-to-day running of parties can have a say in the selection of the candidate that a political party finally puts up. I believe the time has come for us to try a similar experiment in India. In the current situation none of us feels that we have sufficient impact on the choices presented to us and therefore on the political process. Irrespective of whether I am an active member of a party or not, if I can have a say in the choice of the MLA or MP candidate for my constituency, I will view the final ballot paper not as a choice between unknown externally imposed representatives of familiar symbols, but as an expression of confidence in one or other person in whose candidacy I had a role to play. At one stroke, potential candidates will start paying attention to our concerns and not only to the party supremos in Delhi or the state capitals.
Clearly, the current leaders of political parties in India will vehemently oppose any change. The very real fear that they will become marginalised will be at the root of their opposition. But why cannot a refreshing ‘alternative’ party like the Lok Satta Party (I hope Dr Jayaprakash is reading this) voluntarily go in for primaries and invite all voters, not just party members to vote? We can use our existing voter ID cards and go to caucuses or polling booths and have a say in the choice of the Lok Satta Party’s candidate for our constituency. The Election Commission should be willing to supervise these primaries. But even if they refuse to do so, an alternative, transparent arrangement can be made. At one stroke, we would have exponentially increased the sense of ownership, involvement and commitment of ordinary people to the democratic process. My bet is that even if this is only moderately successful in some areas, it is likely to catch on like wildfire. The established parties will be forced to follow suit. And finally we may move to a genuine democratic choice in candidates, not just cronies ‘nominated’ by party bosses or ‘inheritors’ of parties.
The writer is an observer of the contemporary Indian scene
jerry.rao@ expressindia.com
