The problem

back to issue

CENTRAL to the working of any electoral democracy is the exercise of defining the boundaries of electoral units – the constituencies and the voters expected to elect their representative. Since how the final boundaries get drawn (delimitation) and the principles, methodology and process governing the exercise have immense bearing on who our eventual representatives will be, both the working and final orders of the Delimitation Commission arouse intense interest, most of all in the political class. The outcome becomes even more important because the orders of the Delimitation Commission, a statutory authority constituted under an Act of Parliament, are final and cannot be challenged in a court of law.

The Fourth Delimitation Commission under the Chairpersonship of retired Justice Kuldip Singh recently completed its task. Coming as it did a little over three decades after the report of the Third Delimitation Commission (1976), and since the next exercise is scheduled for after the Census of 2031, there was widespread expectation that the current delimitation would help correct the various distortions and anomalies that had crept into our electoral system. In particular, it was hoped that the commission would help restore the principle of one vote one value so crucial in enhancing the legitimacy of our representative democracy. Equally of concern was the final listing of reserved constituencies for electing scheduled caste and scheduled tribe representatives to both the Parliament and state assemblies.

Since the final orders of the commission have only recently become available and new voter lists are in the process of being drawn up, the political fallouts of the exercise remain a matter of speculation. (The recent elections to the Karnataka assembly are the first carried out under the new political map.) Nevertheless, if the initial reactions of the political class, as reflected in the Lok Sabha debate and media commentary, is any indication, the exercise has created serious consternation. More important than the reactions of the affected politicians, in particular those whose constituencies have either been reserved/de-reserved or where boundary lines have been substantially redrawn, is the disappointment among political analysts about the failure to address the infirmities in our representative design.

In a single member, first past the post electoral system, both the size (number of voters) of a constituency and its specific boundaries are critical to the eventual outcome. Moreover, large variations in constituency size impact the quality of representation (ability of the representative to serve the voter) in addition to under or over-enfranchising voters in different constituencies. Similarly, a drawing of constituency boundaries without adequate concern for either the social constitution of voters or administrative convenience can have serious political and governance implications. The decision to foreground the size of the electorate while keeping the number of parliamentary seats frozen at levels decided in 1976 has over the years resulted in some constituencies becoming many times the size of others, for instance, urban peripheral constituencies experiencing significant in-migration. Similarly, in sparsely populated regions, the physical size of the constituencies can become administratively unmanageable. Equally, in hill states, the political balance can easily shift to the plain regions, since it is here that the greatest demographic changes take place. All these require that we give greater attention to the principles underlying the fixing of electoral boundaries.

Given the political salience of the decisions of the commission, it is crucial that its working be seen and accepted as both non-partisan and fair. Notably, the political class has felt that both the composition of the commission and its mode of functioning, which provided only a consultative role to MLAs and MPs, has been less than fair to them in disregarding their specific suggestions. It must, however, be pointed out that this is a reflection of intellectual laziness on the part of Parliament when discussing the specifics of the Delimitation Act, 2002, for instance by leaving the power to frame the rules of business to the commission rather than specifying them in Parliament, a fact now admitted by the Law Minister.

It is often forgotten that the country has two parallel electoral rolls – one for the Lok Sabha and assembly elections and another for panchayat and municipal elections. Surely, now that the electoral system for the third tier of democracy has stabilized, we could have aligned the two sets of lists by defining each assembly constituency in terms of a group of panchayats and municipality wards, just as assembly and parliamentary seats are aligned for each state. Not only would this have reduced future expenditure and administrative energy, it might have helped align the political map of the country by linking all the three levels of our polity.

Exploring the various ramifications of the decisions of the Delimitation Commission highlights not just the practical problems which can arise in the management of elections, but also the need to rethink the principles which govern our actions. For instance, how should we address the political question of a significant under-representation of the Muslim community in representative political institutions? What would be the implications of extending women’s reservation to both state assemblies and Parliament? What lessons if any can be drawn from the experience of more widespread reservations at the third tier of our electoral democracy.

Similarly, we need to rethink our earlier decision to freeze the number of seats in Parliament (and thus state assemblies) for fear of disturbing inter-state parity and federal balance. Should not the same federal balance principle be applied to the delimitation of constituencies within a state, particularly since demographic changes are altering the balance between town and country or between hill and plain areas? Similarly, should we give greater weightage to social demography in the drawing of constituency boundaries?

All these are more than technical matters; they have the potential to alter the very fabric of our representative democracy. This issue of Seminar explores some of these questions. Hopefully this will spur a more informed debate on the manner we think about and act on issues of political design.

top