Electoral reforms are the need of the hour in India. Civil society must come together to advocate for transparency, accountability, increased civic engagement, and to ensure that the Election Commission fulfils its constitutional mandate.
By Dr. Khan Yasir
Democracy is a system and mechanism of governance. Like every system and mechanism, it has a purpose to serve. Let’s take the example of the system of electricity and sanitation in a city. The purpose of electric power system is to generate, transmit, distribute, and deliver electrical power to homes, businesses, and industries in a reliable, efficient, and safe manner. The purpose of a sanitation system is to manage and dispose of waste in a way that protects public health, maintains hygiene, and prevents environmental contamination. Likewise, it can be argued that, the purpose of a democratic system is to provide a framework for governance that empowers citizens to participate in decision-making processes, ensures accountability of leaders and institutions, protects individual rights and freedoms, and fosters social, political, and economic progress.
Like every system, democracy too needs constant maintenance and refinement. It has to be judged, evaluated and upgraded continually to deal with newer challenges without which it may lead to political instability, disenfranchisement, and a loss of public trust. Just as a city invests in its infrastructure to provide reliable services, a nation needs to invest in its democratic processes to ensure a vibrant and functioning political system.
A democracy cannot boast greatness merely on the basis of statistics. In a nutshell, neither the number of citizens and voters nor the vastness of the country makes a democracy great. What counts is the efficiency and smooth functioning of the democratic system and the efficacy of its institutions. All the components of democracy i.e. rule of law, separation of powers, protection for human rights and freedoms, respect for diversity, concerted efforts for inclusion, periodic elections, educated citizens, active civil society, strong opposition, unbiased media, and independent judiciary, etc. are imperative; and neglecting even a single one of them is detrimental to the proper functioning of the overall system.
After this prelude, that establishes democracy as a system with different indispensable components, it can be said that free and fair elections are the cornerstone of a vibrant democracy. They serve as the primary mechanism through which the will of the people is expressed and translated into governance. They ensure accountability, provide a platform for public participation, and uphold the principle of representative government. Yesterday, results of the Lok Sabha elections were announced. Diverse electorate and a myriad of political parties make every election in India unique and provide analysts an interesting opportunity to analyse the political landscape, voter behaviour, and emerging trends in Indian democracy.
However, the integrity of a democracy hinges on the fairness and transparency of elections. If elections are not conducted fairly, the very foundation of democracy is compromised. It is the duty of the Election Commission to ensure a level playing field for all candidates and parties, strictly adhering to the rule of law and model code of conduct. Without rigorous enforcement of electoral regulations, including impartial monitoring of campaigns, unbiased handling of complaints, and prevention of electoral malpractices – such as seeking votes by spreading hate, fake news, or demonising a particular community, etc. – elections can devolve into mere formalities. This erosion of democratic principles can lead to widespread disillusionment among the electorate, undermining public trust in the political system. When the Election Commission fails to uphold its responsibilities, it risks transforming the democratic process into a mockery, where power is seized rather than earned through genuine public support. Thus, the efficacy and impartiality of the Election Commission are vital in ensuring that the sanctity of elections is preserved, and democracy remains true to its core ideals of fairness, representation, and accountability.
Despite concerns regarding the overall fairness of the election process, we will be taking and analysing the results of Lok Sabha polls 2024 at face value as it is essential to engage with the data available to understand the broader electoral trends and implications. Here are some takeaways:
- Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured 240 seats, making it the largest party in the Lok Sabha. With a vote share of 36.56%, the BJP has demonstrated a strong support base across the country. Although the BJP juggernaut may have experienced a setback compared to 2014 and 2019, its dominance in national politics remains intact. Statistically, the BJP has emerged as the single largest party; however, for a party that had clinched a majority on its own in 2014 and 2019, falling well short of the magical 272-mark despite grand dreams and arrogant claims of 400+ seats is a moral (not mathematical) defeat.
- The Indian National Congress (INC) emerged as the second-largest party with 99 seats and a vote share of 21.19%. This indicates a significant presence and support base for the grand old party of India. The gap between 99 and 240 seats is substantial, but it must be kept in mind that the INC has risen from the ashes like a phoenix. From 44 seats in 2014 and 52 seats in 2019, by reaching 99 seats in 2024, Congress has not only made a remarkable recovery but has also slayed the ghost of the “Congress-Mukt Bharat”. Combined with the performance of the INDIA bloc, which collectively boasts around 230+ seats, this can be interpreted as a moral victory.
- Collectively with the INC, regional parties like the Samajwadi Party (SP), All India Trinamool Congress (AITC), and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) have substantial representation with 37, 29, and 22 seats, respectively. This not only highlights the significant influence of regional parties in Indian politics but also ensures a strong opposition at the centre.
- India has a multiparty system, but the 2024 Lok Sabha elections have proved yet again that its political and electoral landscape suggests a bipolar system, with BJP and INC as the major contenders, and strong regional players allying with one or the other major contender.
- The disparity between vote share and seat share has become a characteristic feature of Indian democracy. This has led me to argue, since the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, that the electoral system chosen in India does not cater to the country’s realities and fails to give voice and significant representation to diverse groups, especially those not concentrated in a particular region. In the 2024 elections, this disparity between vote share and seat share is evident once again, though it is not as prominent as it was in earlier elections. As according to vote share, among national parties, BJP would have had 196-198 (instead of 240) seats and INC 114-115 (instead of 99). BSP would have had 11 seats. SP, DMK, and AITC have relatively low vote shares but significant seats, highlighting the impact of concentrated regional support.
The first-past-the-post system in India can lead to a scenario where a party with a higher vote share (like BJP) wins a disproportionate number of seats compared to parties with more evenly spread support. This phenomenon was more acute in 2014 and 2019 when INC, despite a vote share of 19.3% and 19.5%, won only 44 and 52 seats respectively, instead of 104-106, and BJP, with a vote share of 31.34% and 37.46%, won 282 and 303 seats respectively, instead of 170 and 203.
- The election results, in their broader context, can be viewed as a vengeance of the voters against the arrogance of the politicians. For example, the results in Amethi, where Smriti Irani (BJP) was defeated by Kishori Lal (INC) with a margin of 1,67,196 votes, illustrate this sentiment. BJP also lost Banswara (Rajasthan) by 2,47,054 votes to Raj Kumar Roat of Bharat Adivasi Party. Banswara is notable as the place where Narendra Modi had delivered a hate speech against Muslims. Despite the entire Ram Mandir plank, the fact that BJP lost Ayodhya (Faizabad) is particularly striking. Five-time MLA from Ayodhya and two-time MP from Faizabad, Lallu Singh (BJP), who lost to Awadhesh Prasad (SP) by 54,567 votes, was in the news for a viral video in which he said that BJP needs a two-thirds majority to make changes to the constitution. Madhavi Latha Kompella’s arrogant and hateful campaign couldn’t bear any fruit as Asaduddin Owaisi clinched Hyderabad with a margin of 3,38,087 votes.
- The fractured mandate has not only halted the BJP juggernaut but has also significantly damaged the brand Modi. It can no longer be said that, “Modi hai to mumkin hai.” Not only in the RSS, but even within the BJP, Modi’s credibility is at stake. The fact that he barely won Varanasi by a margin of 1.5 lakh votes, compared to Shivraj Singh Chouhan, who won Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh) by a staggering margin of 8,21,408 votes, and Amit Shah, who won Gandhinagar (Gujarat) by a margin of 7,44,716 votes, did not help.
- The results of Purnia (Bihar), Siwan (Bihar), Nagina (Uttar Pradesh), and Aurangabad (Maharashtra), etc. are lessons in humility for the INDIA bloc as well, which failed to broaden the appeal of the alliance and make some selfless decisions. In Purnia, Pappu Yadav, snubbed by RJD, won as an independent candidate. In Nagina, Chandrashekhar defeated the BJP, SP, and BSP candidates. In Siwan, Hena Shahab, snubbed by RJD, fought as an independent candidate but lost to JD(U) by 92,857 votes. The fact that she polled 2,93,084 votes compared to RJD’s 1,98,063 votes is a testament that she was a better choice for the INDIA bloc from that seat. The division of votes cost the seat. The same story played out in Aurangabad (Maharashtra), where sitting MP Imtiaz Jaleel (AIMIM) lost to Shiv Sena. Despite polling 3,41,480 votes, he lost by a margin of 1,34,650 votes, whereas Shiv Sena (UBT) polled 2,93,450 and Vanchit Bahujan Aaghadi polled 69,266. Collectively, they could have easily defeated Shiv Sena and won Aurangabad.
- In the national capital, BJP swept all seven seats despite an alliance between AAP and INC. This is a lesson in understanding ground realities and working on the ground. The alliance should have ensured cooperation between the workers of both parties at the grassroots level, which failed to happen. Despite the alliance, both parties generally fought on their own. From North-East Delhi, Manoj Tiwari (BJP) defeated INDIA bloc candidate Kanhaiya Kumar (INC). Despite Kanhaiya’s hypocrisy and opportunism, he was a well-educated and better candidate compared to Tiwari. An analyst noted that Kanhaiya’s strategy to ignore Delhi riots and taking Muslim voters for granted, cost him Muslim votes and resulted in a low turnout among Muslims in the constituency.
- In Indore (Madhya Pradesh), INC candidate Akshay Kanti Bam left Congress and joined BJP just a day before the polls. With BJP left to conquer the seat without a fight, INC urged voters to vote for Nota. While Shankar Lalwani of BJP did win the seat, it was Nota that became the talk of the town by polling 14% of the votes, i.e., 2,18,355 votes. It has been noted that in Madhya Pradesh, BJP has swept all 29 seats, but the maximum growth in the vote share has been registered by Nota. TOI has reported, “In 2019 LS polls, Nota share was only 0.6% (3.4 lakh votes). This time, it shot up to 1.4% (5.3 lakh). Three constituencies saw Nota votes grow by more than 100% over 2019 – Balaghat by 171%, Rewa by 139% and Morena by 134%.” When a significant number of citizens choose to press Nota, despite knowing that even if Nota is polled more than all the candidates, the candidate scoring the most votes would be declared the winner, it reflects a serious form of protest that showcases the distrust and dissatisfaction of the voters.
In summary, the narrative of social justice, caste census, and the preservation of Ambedkar’s Constitution overshadowed the narrative of Islamophobia and communal polarisation. BJP entered these elections elegantly rather arrogantly but soon resorted to Hindu-Muslim rhetoric after the first phase of polling. However, this time Modi failed to seize the narrative despite stooping lower and lower in his successive election speeches. In a context where all the rules and referees were playing for a party, and Opposition was rendered powerless through various means, including freezing of accounts, manipulation of media (whose latest brazen manifestation was exit polls), and misuse of the government agencies, this fractured verdict seems nothing short of victory for INDIA bloc.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that electoral reforms are the need of the hour in India. Civil society must come together to advocate for transparency, accountability, increased civic engagement, and to ensure that the Election Commission fulfils its constitutional mandate.
I propose that, given the complex and diverse nature of Indian society, the implementation of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system could significantly enhance the democratic process and do away with several ills of FPTP system. The STV system allows for more proportional representation, ensuring that the government reflects the true preferences of the electorate. This system could help mitigate the issues of caste and communal polarisation by shifting the focus of elections to substantive issues that matter to the populace. By enabling voters to rank candidates in order of preference, STV encourages political parties to broaden their appeal beyond narrow identities, fostering a more inclusive and issue-based political discourse. This minimises wastage of votes and discourages all sorts of negative campaigning. In a diverse country like India, this can be a clinching weapon against communalism and majoritarianism. Such a move would not only make the government more representative and acceptable to all segments of society but also strengthen the foundations of Indian democracy. Is INDIA listening?
