Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Should India have proportional representation ?
I do not believe that calls for proportional representation in India carry any weight in the current context. After 63 years of a certain system, what is the trigger to switch to proportional representation ? Merely the fact that a single party has an absolute majority of it's own by securing just a little under 30 % of the vote ?
This call to 'reform' the system is manifestly false as the motivation is not electoral reform but to discredit the achievements of the single party. The first-past-the-post rule has been well-understood by everyone in the last few decades and regional parties have exploited it disproportionately in the era of coalition politics. (The thought that regional parties with 20-30 seats and sub 3 % vote-share could sometimes dictate national policy on security (say Sri Lanka) in opposition to the national interest was a perverted sense of democracy.)
So lets for a moment examine what would happen if we suddenly did away with the current system. In an instant all regional parties would lose their power. Because even the most dominant regional party can not get more than 5 % of the vote and 5 % of the seats - 25 seats at best. So now, lets do the math. In such a situation, say no party can realistically get 50% of the vote and hence seats. Hence we will have a proportional representation as follows :
In our system "Majority is 50%". Why 50 % ? What is so special about 50% ? Because 50% is first-past-the-post in a 2-party situation. Say that there are only 2 parties and the voteshare split is 51-49% of the vote-share. One view could be - how can the 51 % party be the ruling party as 49% of the voters have rejected it ? (the same argument put right now with the nos changed)
We can do one of the two things if we want to go to proportional representation in a multi-party system:
In any case no voting system is perfect. For a mathematical explanation click here.
This call to 'reform' the system is manifestly false as the motivation is not electoral reform but to discredit the achievements of the single party. The first-past-the-post rule has been well-understood by everyone in the last few decades and regional parties have exploited it disproportionately in the era of coalition politics. (The thought that regional parties with 20-30 seats and sub 3 % vote-share could sometimes dictate national policy on security (say Sri Lanka) in opposition to the national interest was a perverted sense of democracy.)
So lets for a moment examine what would happen if we suddenly did away with the current system. In an instant all regional parties would lose their power. Because even the most dominant regional party can not get more than 5 % of the vote and 5 % of the seats - 25 seats at best. So now, lets do the math. In such a situation, say no party can realistically get 50% of the vote and hence seats. Hence we will have a proportional representation as follows :
- Party no 1 : 30%
- Party no 2 : 20%
- Party no 3 : 8%
- Long tail of say 30 parties each between 0-5% of the voteshare
In our system "Majority is 50%". Why 50 % ? What is so special about 50% ? Because 50% is first-past-the-post in a 2-party situation. Say that there are only 2 parties and the voteshare split is 51-49% of the vote-share. One view could be - how can the 51 % party be the ruling party as 49% of the voters have rejected it ? (the same argument put right now with the nos changed)
We can do one of the two things if we want to go to proportional representation in a multi-party system:
- Only allow 'national' parties to compete for Lok Sabha (the current definition is a technical one of % voteshare plus representation in 4 states). In that case, most of the regional parties will get bumped-off. Do we want that ? Perhaps 'No' as India is an incredibly diverse country with a plurality which is mind-blowing. Sections of the population should be allowed to express their POV though the ballot - even if such views seem to be parochial. Democracy is about diverse opinions even though you might not agree with some.
- Allow the multi-party system of proportional representation but there should be nothing sacrosanct about 50 %. Basically the party with the highest vote-share governs. Realize that this is first-past-the-post at a voteshare level vs the constituency level.
In any case no voting system is perfect. For a mathematical explanation click here.
Four Vectors of Political Parties
In India there are four vectors of political parties. They are parties primarily based on :
1. Caste
2. Religion
3. Region
4. Class
The core appeal for all parties is one or more of the above. In that sense, the Congress is the only party which has an appeal across all vectors.
The question is that which of these vectors will remain viable over the next 20-30 years and which ones will fade away into oblivion. For example, one can postulate that caste will become increasingly unimportant in a rapidly urbanising country.
One answer to that question can be looking at the experience of other parts of the world and see which way have they gone. After a lengthy discussion, here are a few thoughts that I will leave right now and come back later for validation.
- The caste vector will rapidly merge into the class vector. At the end of the day, the caste divide will only become an economic one where the lower castes will want to have more economic independence.
- The religion vector will continue to remain as an important element but the distribution of religions of India is such that the core minority vote banks will be it might increasingly splinter into different parties who want to focus on the 'minority' vote.
-The region vector is the only one that will have to continue to have it's appeal for some more time. Since India is very plural in terms of language, customs etc this will continue to be an important dynamic. Regional parties will continue to pull in considerable heft as they look to secure their 'pound of flesh' from the central govt.
1. Caste
2. Religion
3. Region
4. Class
The core appeal for all parties is one or more of the above. In that sense, the Congress is the only party which has an appeal across all vectors.
The question is that which of these vectors will remain viable over the next 20-30 years and which ones will fade away into oblivion. For example, one can postulate that caste will become increasingly unimportant in a rapidly urbanising country.
One answer to that question can be looking at the experience of other parts of the world and see which way have they gone. After a lengthy discussion, here are a few thoughts that I will leave right now and come back later for validation.
- The caste vector will rapidly merge into the class vector. At the end of the day, the caste divide will only become an economic one where the lower castes will want to have more economic independence.
- The religion vector will continue to remain as an important element but the distribution of religions of India is such that the core minority vote banks will be it might increasingly splinter into different parties who want to focus on the 'minority' vote.
-The region vector is the only one that will have to continue to have it's appeal for some more time. Since India is very plural in terms of language, customs etc this will continue to be an important dynamic. Regional parties will continue to pull in considerable heft as they look to secure their 'pound of flesh' from the central govt.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Why I am against immigration
Couple of things
1. Economic migrants behave as if the folks left back in India are the 'poor things'. They attribute their immigration to being 'superior'. I would argue, if they had the guts, they should earn the equivalent PPP in India.
2. Leaving the country for merely the convenience of not paying taxes is the lowest form of entitlement mindset. (every country in the world - of course the middle-east excepted) pay taxes.
3. It is absolutely important that economic migrants take up the values of the host country. Working in US and not expecting your son/daughter to date is regressive at best, criminal at worst.
Living in the US and not supporting a US-world view is bordering on betrayal. If you have left India for economic reasons, please accept the cultural/values compromise that comes with it as well. One cannot compartmentalize - I am only an economic migrant and I covet the US passport but my values will be "Indian". This is the absolute worst form of hypocrisy.
Group membership view of Michael Sandler.
1. Economic migrants behave as if the folks left back in India are the 'poor things'. They attribute their immigration to being 'superior'. I would argue, if they had the guts, they should earn the equivalent PPP in India.
2. Leaving the country for merely the convenience of not paying taxes is the lowest form of entitlement mindset. (every country in the world - of course the middle-east excepted) pay taxes.
3. It is absolutely important that economic migrants take up the values of the host country. Working in US and not expecting your son/daughter to date is regressive at best, criminal at worst.
Living in the US and not supporting a US-world view is bordering on betrayal. If you have left India for economic reasons, please accept the cultural/values compromise that comes with it as well. One cannot compartmentalize - I am only an economic migrant and I covet the US passport but my values will be "Indian". This is the absolute worst form of hypocrisy.
Group membership view of Michael Sandler.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
No party worth voting for excuse
There are several excuses of not voting but the most suprious one is : "There are no suitable candidates or parties". In democracy, espcially in a system where there is no cut-off of a lower turnout (i.e even if the voting percentage is 5%, the election will still be valid), this is nothing more than a ostrich-in-the-sand view.
So you have one vote - make it count. You may believe that all parties are venal and not worth voting for - but what you are doing by voting is simply electing one of the "most fit". So it is a relative choice and not an absolute choice. The relative choice may not be to your liking but doing nothing more than not voting is worsening the situation.
Very few folks in India do not vote along these four lines : religion, region, caste and class. If you are taking an informed choice, make it count. As the regressive millions who vote along these lines will vote anyway. You have a choice of making a slightly better choice than the blind choice made by millions. So vote and make it count.
Your feeble form of non-protest by non-voting is a half-baked, stupid, lazy and pseudo-righteous idea.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Do we deserve the leaders we get ?
One of the biggest debates around democracy revolves around two persusive arguments.
On one side we have the view that "we deserve the kind of politicians we get". i.e. the political class essentially represents the larger nature of the electorate, given free and fair elections. Now this would mean that in a country like India whose political class is hugely corrupt, bigoted and regressive the larger electorate by extension is corrupt, bigoted and regressive. Also that the electorate largely votes for local leaders rather than the larger national agenda. These smart leaders will then subvert the national agenda and put roadblocks on long-term economic development. This also encourages the always-difficult choice between the long-term and the short term. Economic development and structural reforms are tough in the short-term but will yield benefits in the long-term. However do voters tend to value the populist-but-bad policies in the short-run having little patience to wait it out. So if the average voter is selfish and wants 'free power' / 'free food', and agrees to vote for any unscruplous element the voter is equally culpable for bad governance.
The other argument is that that the electorate is so poor that whoever promises the moon and even delivers a fraction, will come to power. That large sections of the population have been so repressed and poor that whoever is willing to stand up and give them a sliver of hope and respect, however fantastical will win. On one hand we can blame the electorate for it's gullibility that a few individuals can manipulate it so brazenly and get away with it - effectively putting brakes on long-term development. In a nut-sheel, one can argue that those who are struggling to suvive do not really care about the national agenda. They are only looking for short-term goodies every election as that is the best they can hope for. It does not help to wait for "long-term economic development" when you are starving. Hence we 'psuedo-intellectuals' with out bellies full and ability/access to write a blog should be more kind in judging our fellow-citizens. Does extreme poverty, bigotry and obscurantism can make a mockery of democracy rendering it ineffective ?
The lesson to take away is that democracy is related to "informed" choices. So does this mean that in a country with universal adult sufferage, those folks who are not 'informed' should not have a right to vote ? It also begets the uncomfortable question that if numbers are what are important in a democracy then that population that procreates more heavily will, in the long term have a disproportinate say in the government ? (In the US context where the red states have higher birthrates, these states will in the long-term assert their numerical superiority ?)
What is the first requisite of being "informed" ? I guess it is primary eductation. For democarcy to succeed in India, the first thing to do is educate everybody. Primary education is however hampered by poverty and regressive soical values. These however, cannot be eliminated without primary education and this, sadly, remains a vicious cycle.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Bread and Circus
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Are voters bad for democracy
I have had this sneaking suspicion for some time now. But it seemed a tad too irreverent. However i will stick my neck out and say that Democracy in its modern form is flawed and the problem is not so much the political establishment but the voters. Yes you read it right. The Voters.
You see the problem fundamentally lies with voters. It may seem like insulting something sacred - after aint - vox populi vox dei (the voice of the people is the voice of God) ?
As it turns out perhaps not. The average voter is most often wrong about the issues (both social and economic) and that their wrong ideas lead to policies that make society as a whole worse off.
We tend to assume that if the government enacts bad policies, it’s because the system isn’t working properly and it isn’t working properly because voters are poorly informed. In my view the voters are not only poorly informed (and that in itself a very huge problem in a India - a country with barely 60 % adult literacy), but, they are also only thinking about their own community/caste/region/religion. And a polity more than eager to exploit these differences adroitly. In an electorate like India where dialects change every 60 kilometers. Also, in a country like India where around 300 million people are living under USD 1 a day, there is neither incentive nor the inclination to think of 'national good'. The average voter will vote for the party which promises free power/rice at Rs 2 per kilo come election time. The average voter is not interested in the big economic picture. He is ignorant and apathetic. (i.e. He doesnt know the big picture and he does not care.)
I want to state here that it is not that this is a feature of only the Indian voters. Our democracy is only 60 years old. For even the US which has almost full literacy and has a democracy which is almost 235 years old, it is instructive to know that the the political knowledge of the average american voter has been tested repeatedly, and the scores are impressively low. In polls taken since 1945, a majority of American voters have been unable to name a single branch of government, define the terms “liberal” and “conservative,” and explain what the Bill of Rights is. Nearly half do not know that states have two senators and three-quarters do not know the length of a Senate term. I am not sure how many of Indian voters have even read the Indian consitution (do they know that they cannot start a political party if they do not proclaim that they support socialism) or even have an inkling of the rights and duties as a citizen.
More evidence of ignorance is forthcoming in the economic field and here there is no distiction between the Indian or American voters here. Bryan Caplan, the recent author of the book "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Politics” suspects that voters cherish irrational views on many issues, but he discusses only views relevant to economic policy. The average person (from the American perspective), he says, has four biases about economics—four main areas in which he or she differs from the economic expert. The typical noneconomist does not understand or appreciate the way markets work (and thus favors regulation and is suspicious of the profit motive), dislikes foreigners (and thus tends to be protectionist), equates prosperity with employment rather than with production (and thus overvalues the preservation of existing jobs), and usually thinks that economic conditions are getting worse (and thus favors government intervention in the economy). Economists know that these positions are irrational, because the average person actually benefits from market competition, which provides the best product at the lowest price; from free trade with other countries, which usually lowers the cost of labor and thus the price of goods; and from technological change, which redistributes labor from less productive to more productive enterprises.*
Some posit that in effect democracy should work like a market. That effectively the 'invisible hand' of Adam smith should also lead to intelligence choices made by a mass of people each working in their self interest. (see the "The Wisdom of Crowds") However, in my view there is a crucial difference. Simply put by Garreth Hardin "Democracy is a commons, not a market". A commons is an unregulated public resource—in the classic example, in Garrett Hardin’s essay “The Tragedy of the Commons” (1968), it is literally a commons, a public pasture on which anyone may graze his cattle. It is in the interest of each herdsman to graze as many of his own cattle as he can, since the resource is free, but too many cattle will result in overgrazing and the destruction of the pasture. So the pursuit of individual self-interest leads to a loss for everyone. Voters do have views, and that they are, basically, prejudices. These views can be grossly irrational because since voting carries no cost, people are free to be as irrational as they like. They can ignore the consequences, just as the individual herdsman can ignore the consequences of putting one more cow on the public pasture. Voting is not a slight variation on shopping. Shoppers have incentives to be rational. Voters essentially do not. Any any self interest is contingent on the voting of hundreds of others. (the behaviour of others in the grazing example).
These conditions are endemic to democracy. They are not distortions of the process; they are what you would expect to find in a system designed to serve the wishes of the people. Democracy fails because it does what voters want. In India voters in two states (read WB and Kerela) are able to thwart national development by giving a powerful say to the communists who slow down economic liberalisation losing precious years to other countries. What one needs to understand that to make democracy successful, one needs education - primary education in India firstly to read and write and then to understand the basics of economics. As i have stated elsewhere education and beyond literacy (and not necessarily formal) is pre-requisite to the healthy functioning of a democracy. Till at least a significant percentage of the voters have a view of the big picuture, we will continue to take bad decisions as a process.
And it reinforces my view that : politicians accross the political landscape in India have a powerful incentive in keeping voters illterate and keep fanning their caste/community/religious prejudices. It is much easier to manipulate the illiterate and desparately poor.
One may say that it is easy to be an armchair critic. Till we find a better form of political organisation it is not incumbent to criticize democracy. I accpept that charge humbly. But let us not treat democracy as a holy cow. Sometimes a little less of democracy and little more of techoncracy may be just what the doctor ordered.
You see the problem fundamentally lies with voters. It may seem like insulting something sacred - after aint - vox populi vox dei (the voice of the people is the voice of God) ?
As it turns out perhaps not. The average voter is most often wrong about the issues (both social and economic) and that their wrong ideas lead to policies that make society as a whole worse off.
We tend to assume that if the government enacts bad policies, it’s because the system isn’t working properly and it isn’t working properly because voters are poorly informed. In my view the voters are not only poorly informed (and that in itself a very huge problem in a India - a country with barely 60 % adult literacy), but, they are also only thinking about their own community/caste/region/religion. And a polity more than eager to exploit these differences adroitly. In an electorate like India where dialects change every 60 kilometers. Also, in a country like India where around 300 million people are living under USD 1 a day, there is neither incentive nor the inclination to think of 'national good'. The average voter will vote for the party which promises free power/rice at Rs 2 per kilo come election time. The average voter is not interested in the big economic picture. He is ignorant and apathetic. (i.e. He doesnt know the big picture and he does not care.)
I want to state here that it is not that this is a feature of only the Indian voters. Our democracy is only 60 years old. For even the US which has almost full literacy and has a democracy which is almost 235 years old, it is instructive to know that the the political knowledge of the average american voter has been tested repeatedly, and the scores are impressively low. In polls taken since 1945, a majority of American voters have been unable to name a single branch of government, define the terms “liberal” and “conservative,” and explain what the Bill of Rights is. Nearly half do not know that states have two senators and three-quarters do not know the length of a Senate term. I am not sure how many of Indian voters have even read the Indian consitution (do they know that they cannot start a political party if they do not proclaim that they support socialism) or even have an inkling of the rights and duties as a citizen.
More evidence of ignorance is forthcoming in the economic field and here there is no distiction between the Indian or American voters here. Bryan Caplan, the recent author of the book "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Politics” suspects that voters cherish irrational views on many issues, but he discusses only views relevant to economic policy. The average person (from the American perspective), he says, has four biases about economics—four main areas in which he or she differs from the economic expert. The typical noneconomist does not understand or appreciate the way markets work (and thus favors regulation and is suspicious of the profit motive), dislikes foreigners (and thus tends to be protectionist), equates prosperity with employment rather than with production (and thus overvalues the preservation of existing jobs), and usually thinks that economic conditions are getting worse (and thus favors government intervention in the economy). Economists know that these positions are irrational, because the average person actually benefits from market competition, which provides the best product at the lowest price; from free trade with other countries, which usually lowers the cost of labor and thus the price of goods; and from technological change, which redistributes labor from less productive to more productive enterprises.*
Some posit that in effect democracy should work like a market. That effectively the 'invisible hand' of Adam smith should also lead to intelligence choices made by a mass of people each working in their self interest. (see the "The Wisdom of Crowds") However, in my view there is a crucial difference. Simply put by Garreth Hardin "Democracy is a commons, not a market". A commons is an unregulated public resource—in the classic example, in Garrett Hardin’s essay “The Tragedy of the Commons” (1968), it is literally a commons, a public pasture on which anyone may graze his cattle. It is in the interest of each herdsman to graze as many of his own cattle as he can, since the resource is free, but too many cattle will result in overgrazing and the destruction of the pasture. So the pursuit of individual self-interest leads to a loss for everyone. Voters do have views, and that they are, basically, prejudices. These views can be grossly irrational because since voting carries no cost, people are free to be as irrational as they like. They can ignore the consequences, just as the individual herdsman can ignore the consequences of putting one more cow on the public pasture. Voting is not a slight variation on shopping. Shoppers have incentives to be rational. Voters essentially do not. Any any self interest is contingent on the voting of hundreds of others. (the behaviour of others in the grazing example).
These conditions are endemic to democracy. They are not distortions of the process; they are what you would expect to find in a system designed to serve the wishes of the people. Democracy fails because it does what voters want. In India voters in two states (read WB and Kerela) are able to thwart national development by giving a powerful say to the communists who slow down economic liberalisation losing precious years to other countries. What one needs to understand that to make democracy successful, one needs education - primary education in India firstly to read and write and then to understand the basics of economics. As i have stated elsewhere education and beyond literacy (and not necessarily formal) is pre-requisite to the healthy functioning of a democracy. Till at least a significant percentage of the voters have a view of the big picuture, we will continue to take bad decisions as a process.
And it reinforces my view that : politicians accross the political landscape in India have a powerful incentive in keeping voters illterate and keep fanning their caste/community/religious prejudices. It is much easier to manipulate the illiterate and desparately poor.
One may say that it is easy to be an armchair critic. Till we find a better form of political organisation it is not incumbent to criticize democracy. I accpept that charge humbly. But let us not treat democracy as a holy cow. Sometimes a little less of democracy and little more of techoncracy may be just what the doctor ordered.
*Source : http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/07/09/070709crbo_books_menand?currentPage=all
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Universal "Sufferage"
I think Indians, in 1957 got Universal Sufferage when they were not ready for it. This has lead to the almost Universal Suffering of India today.
- India in 1947 was a classic case of 'democracy-from-tomorrow' when vast swathes of the people had never even been free of feudalism (there were 512 'princely states' even in 1947).
- India got Universal Sufferage at a stage when majority of Indians were just not ready for democracy. Adult literacy in India was 36 % at the time of independence and many millions did not fully understand the democratic process and their rights and duties as 'citizens'.
In a way democracy was 'imposed on India' in 1947 when the country was not ready. One can argue that it was the only thing to do given the herculean task of unifying the country. But the very seeds sown then lead to a host of problems later.
Even in a country like England, where democracy as a form of political organisation was evolving for centuries, (starting from 1215 in Magna Carta), universal sufferage did not happen as late as 1921 (where women were allowed to vote). Even the ancient democratic republic of the greeks and romans there was no 'universal sufferage'. Voting rights were not universal and only 'free citizens' with a certain amount of property could vote.
In 1947, when India became independent the newly-independent polity was idealistic, supercharged on lofty principles, stardust in their eyes...they chose to have universal sufferage for India from day 1. this meant that anybody without consideration was able to cast his/her vote in a multi-party system. A great thought in theory, but a disastrous move in a country with only a 36 % literacy. The thought was noble, yes, but the ugly spawn of this system is self-evident. Today in India vote-bank politics predominate - any slice of the vote base which can cobble together a majority tends to win...having a scant regard for a greater common good of the whole country...This, coupled with a multi-party system, has ensured that anybody who with a narrow-enough view-point with enough narrow-enough majority in a given consituency can get legitimately elected and can effectively sabotage the national agenda. Education ensures that this narrow point of view does not get elected.
Why is education important in a democracy. Education is important for the electorate to realise that they need to look beyond their immediate enviornment and 'see-through' the rhetoric of the divisive political establishment. Education is required simply to take an informed choice. In an economy sometimes, harsh short-term measures may be required which may be painful in the short-run but surely are beneficial in the long-run. Adult universal sufferage ensures that such 'tough decisions' never get taken but keep on getting postponed due to political expediency. In absence of education, not a single party can make the electorate realise the need to take a a decision which requires shot-term sacrifice. Eventually, the country just totters from one band-aid solution to the other.
In most countries in the world, democracy as a form of govt, evolved...there was no flip to democracy in one swoop that happened when India became independent in 1947. This swoop would not have mattered if however the majority of the people understood democracy and were educated enough to look beyond their immediate caste/community/religious alligiances. This plug-and-play universal sufferage sowed the seeds of the problems which continue to plague our country till today.
Even in a country like England, where democracy as a form of political organisation was evolving for centuries, (starting from 1215 in Magna Carta), universal sufferage did not happen as late as 1921 (where women were allowed to vote). Even the ancient democratic republic of the greeks and romans there was no 'universal sufferage'. Voting rights were not universal and only 'free citizens' with a certain amount of property could vote.
In 1947, when India became independent the newly-independent polity was idealistic, supercharged on lofty principles, stardust in their eyes...they chose to have universal sufferage for India from day 1. this meant that anybody without consideration was able to cast his/her vote in a multi-party system. A great thought in theory, but a disastrous move in a country with only a 36 % literacy. The thought was noble, yes, but the ugly spawn of this system is self-evident. Today in India vote-bank politics predominate - any slice of the vote base which can cobble together a majority tends to win...having a scant regard for a greater common good of the whole country...This, coupled with a multi-party system, has ensured that anybody who with a narrow-enough view-point with enough narrow-enough majority in a given consituency can get legitimately elected and can effectively sabotage the national agenda. Education ensures that this narrow point of view does not get elected.
Why is education important in a democracy. Education is important for the electorate to realise that they need to look beyond their immediate enviornment and 'see-through' the rhetoric of the divisive political establishment. Education is required simply to take an informed choice. In an economy sometimes, harsh short-term measures may be required which may be painful in the short-run but surely are beneficial in the long-run. Adult universal sufferage ensures that such 'tough decisions' never get taken but keep on getting postponed due to political expediency. In absence of education, not a single party can make the electorate realise the need to take a a decision which requires shot-term sacrifice. Eventually, the country just totters from one band-aid solution to the other.
In most countries in the world, democracy as a form of govt, evolved...there was no flip to democracy in one swoop that happened when India became independent in 1947. This swoop would not have mattered if however the majority of the people understood democracy and were educated enough to look beyond their immediate caste/community/religious alligiances. This plug-and-play universal sufferage sowed the seeds of the problems which continue to plague our country till today.
