In a country of royalty, monarchy or official nobility themannerism and etiquette are more polished and polite. There people becomeformal and ceremonious because they have an ideal to relate to. On thecontrary, in a democracy of periodical elections the opposition startscriticising the elected leadership from day one, and begins the term with asustained effort for its own election the next time. Thus the modern democraticleadership never gets idealised for emulation. So the manners here become a socialaffair readily mutable as the society moves/ develops faster than thetradition. Britain and America afford good examples of formality andcasualness. Pornography has grown in America for lack of mannerism. It doesn’tgo well to infer that America’s progress is also owing to its informality. InJapan modern technology co-exists with the time honoured culture that hasevolved over the centuries of royal existence.
This is not to say that the monarchy is preferable overdemocracy. But democracy appears to have ripened for an improvisation. Aninherent flaw in the modern democracy is its wrong prioritisation of theconstituents. Being only residually the government for the people, by the timea government of and by the people realises the need to be for the people, itsterm is already at the verge of expiration. So it better starts campaigning forthe new election.
Another flaw is its dogma of being a majority government!This is actually far from truth. We have checked it out with the figures of twobig elections, the US presidential election of 2012 and the Indianparliamentary election of 2014. The two countries are chosen as typicaldemocracies, but there shouldn’t be much in the inferences as US or Indiaspecific.
In July 2012 America had a total population of 31,39,14,040of which the number of registered electors (not the voting age population) was12,90,67,662 (which is 41.1% of the population). In the presidential electionof that year almost all the registered electors, precisely 98% or 12,68,31,812,voters cast their votes.
Of all the votes cast 51.1%, i.e., 6,58,99,660, votes weresecured by the Democratic candidate Mr. Barak Obama while as 47.2%, i.e.,6,09,32,152, votes were secured by the Republican candidate Mr. Mitt Romney.(The figures are available online on various official sites like us censusbureau and statista.com.) The number of voters (6,58,99,660) who voted for Mr.Obama constitute 20.99% of the population (of 31,39,14,040).
Of the total votes cast a sizable 47.2% (6,09,32,152) voteshave been actually cast against Mr. Obama. Mathematically speaking, when wecancel the votes cast in his favour by those cast against him, Mr. Obama isleft only with a handful of 49,67,500 more votes than his opponent. In effect,therefore, during his second term Mr. Obama literally governed the UnitedStates of America with the help of a meagre five million voters who do notconstitute more than 1.58% of its population!
Now come to India. In 2014 it had a total population of1,23,88,90,000 of which the number of registered electors was 83,40,82,814. Inthe parliamentary election of that year only 66.30%, i.e., 54,78,00,004, votersactually cast their votes.
Of these total votes cast only 31.33%, i.e., 17,16,60,230,votes were secured by BJP (through its 282 seats) while as 38.50%, i.e.,21,09,03,002, votes were secured by the National Democratic Alliance, NDA,(through their 336 seats including BJP’s 282 seats). This number of21,09,03,002 votes secured by NDA is 38.50% of the votes cast (54,78,00,004),only 25.28% of the total registered voters (83,40,82,814), and just 17.02% ofthe population (of 1,23,88,90,000).
Of the total votes cast 61.50% (33,68,97,002) have beenactually polled in favour of the other political parties/ candidates; or againstthe NDA, in other words. (Figures have been taken from the election commissionof India and the senses directorate.) There isn’t a single parameter for whichthe NDA government could be said to be representing a majority of thepopulation.
Nevertheless, both the governments under discussion wereindeed “democratically” elected, in spite of the paradox of the mathematicalmaze discussed above.
Significantly, considering an NDTV report of the time, theprojected expenditure to elect the 16th Lok Sabha of 2014 was set to rival theUSD seven billion (approximately ₹42000 crores) spent by the candidates and the parties in 2012 USpresidential election. This was in addition to the official expenditure of ₹3600crores!
What a pity! If the governments are to form by such a thinmargin (as with Obama) or with negative margin (as with NDA), then why waste somuch of human and material resources on their election? Why not to have arestricted number of voters who can use the vote in a cost effective manner? Whymake arrangements for voting of a crowd following one influential person? Whynot take his vote only? In short, simplification and minimization of theelectoral process could save a lot of resources that can be utilized for thebenefit of the commoners who deserve these the most. Nationalism should be loveof the nation – of rather the people than geography.
Another aspect. Why not elect a leader for life to run thecountry? Periodical elections are like head transplants repeated every four orfive years! How can a body perform well when its head changes now and then? Ifwe cannot find a man of integrity, efficiency and rectitude among the millionsand billions of persons, then we are simply wild and disentitled to discussanything. Lifetime election of a leader would not only idealise him, it wouldalso do the best favour of abolishing the political aspirants who are alwaysambushing for a chance. And come the chance, they not only recover their lossesof the wait, but ensure future profits for themselves and their cronies.
Interestingly the results did not turn out to be anydifferent with US presidential elections of 2012. If this is the strength ofmandate, why waste so much money and time for it? Why can’t we simplify theelection process and make it economical?