The Venugopal law mirrors our polity

Prime Minister Narasimha Rao once asserted that every single action taken by the government was on expert advice. Therefore, the experts, not the government, were to blame. He was apparently right but actually wrong. The government instituted wrong policies only because it chose wrong experts. As Shakespeare said, bringer of unwelcome news hath but a losing office. Therefore, intellectuals in office can only be those who mirror their masters’ desires, not those who correct their errors.

A democracy is supposed to minimise such errors by electing the right people. We are so proud of our democracy that we are prepared to confer untrammelled authority on our legislators. Unfortunately, our democratic process is deeply flawed. It is from our electoral process that all our troubles emanate: almost all our legislators are elected with a minority of the popular vote, once as little as 7 per cent of the total vote! Everybody knows and agrees that our system of one vote per voter sets at nought the wishes of a large majority. This is an error we have inherited from the British. The British have largely escaped the consequences of this because they have had, essentially, a two-party system. Our country is far too diverse to enjoy this luxury. Hence, what is tolerable distortion in Britain has become in India intolerable pain.

Where there are two candidates, each voter has four options: prefer candidate A to candidate B; prefer candidate B to candidate A; consider both A and B acceptable; deem both A and B unacceptable. With only one vote at their disposal, voters can make only the first two choices; they are prohibited, under pain of disqualification, to make the other two. This problem gets aggravated when candidates are many. For instance, where there are a score of candidates, voters are allowed to indicate only their top preference. They are compelled not to voice their opinion on any one of the other candidates. We have failed to realise that the prevailing one vote per voter rule is an unfair restriction on the freedom of voters. Worse, it is a mathematical rule that this will silence the majority. Hence, let’s not blame politicians for doing wrong. We will get politicians who will pursue only minority interests so long as the electoral system muzzles voters.

Some years ago, the Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers, the world’s largest scientific body, was troubled by a demagogue who wanted to covert it into an American trade union. Being expert communication engineers, top people in the Institute found the logical solution: they permitted voters to vote in favour of as many candidates as they desired and to indicate their disapproval of any candidate by not casting a vote in that person’s favour. The consequence was electric: instead of voting for their best choice and rejecting even those who were otherwise acceptable, voters were now free to indicate which candidates were acceptable. Candidates who depended on narrow vote banks were therefore outnumbered by those who had broader appeal. Only those candidates who favoured a broad consensus, who promoted the welfare of the majority, succeeded. In short, the system brought to the fore positive-minded leaders who sought to serve the interests of the majority and thereby rejected those who were negative and depended on an assertive minority.

We can stem the rot only when we realise that voters are being short-changed. I wonder whether it is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to set matters right. But the issue need not go to the court if mainstream parties unite to offer voters the freedom to express themselves on every candidate. It is in their self-interest to do this. That is the only way they can free themselves from the blackmail of splinter groups.

The writer is a former director of IIT, Madras