Was restricted franchise a good idea?

I will most probably have a review of Arun Shourie’s latest book “Parliamentary System” in the next issue of Pragati. In that book, Shourie is contemptuous of popular sovereignty. He proposes a Presidential system because that will apparently reduce the influence of popular moods. I take issue with much of his logic in the review, though I support the Presidential form.

But since doing the review, I’ve had another thought. Was adopting universal franchise right from independence a bad idea? Of course, I am not the first person to have this idea; many others have had it. Nani Palkhivala used to say the same. But I always used to dismiss the idea, because it rests on the assumption that voting is a duty you perform for your nation rather than something you do in your self-interest. Even assuming that educated voters have a better grasp of issues and are more “qualified” to judge the candidates (an assumption I am doubtful about) I am highly sceptical of the argument that they will use these superior powers to elect candidates who will do good for the country rather than just for themselves.

But now I have found two plausible reasons why starting off with a limited franchise was a good idea:

  1. It reduced the size of constituencies. Smaller constituencies means better control over representatives
  2. Because the voters were rich, confident of their rights and peers the idea that governments existed for the “people” rather than the other way round could be established.

The two points need to be taken together. When you have a small group of people, democracy works much better. Everyone can participate, voice their views and come to a decision. In large groups, voting every five years is the only job for the average individual. Power gets delegated to the “representatives” and very soon they become rulers. This problem gets worsened when you have poor and illiterate people who are unaware of their rights.

So the hypothesis is that limited franchise led to the development of a tradition of good governance which stayed stable even when voting was expanded. When the barons got together and got King John to put his seal on the Magna Carta -for themselves but not for the laymen under them – or when the property owners established the United States, they also established principles of good governance and actually practised them. Yes, the principles and practices were only for themselves, but when the poor started demanding the same rights for themselves, they had a running vehicle to hop onto rather than one whose engine needed priming.

Anyway, this is a hypothesis and I am not fully convinced of it. This is not an argument for restricting frachise now (I am not even sure it would have been a good argument for restricting it in 1950). I do not know if these allegedly positive aspects outweigh the negative effects of disenfranchising large numbers of people, but it does give us an idea for how to improve governance.

6 thoughts on “Was restricted franchise a good idea?”

  1. I am offended by the insinuation that universal franchise is bad. The average voter in India is very savvy and votes according to his requirements. They may be different from you and me, but they are still important to him.

    Bijli sadak and paani are not mere buzzwords. Govts who do not deliver on these are voted out. Peace is also important. Riots have very long term consequences (>20 years). The greatest achievement was the voting out of congress in 77-78.

    What is needed is more democracy, not less. Power should be given to local councils. Referendums should be held on important issues. Currently the bureaucrat makes the rules. The politician should be the one to do so. Then he can be accountable to the people.

    There are many ways in which are democracy is lacking. Restricted franchise is not one of them.

    Rishi

  2. Hi Ravi,

    First welcome back to blogging,

    Now on topic I have just finished the same book,

    and following is based on my limited understanding

    I too do favour presidential governance however I think it is comparitively a long term solution and not meant for the economic or political reform. (For most of the part we had sort of presidential system)

    Second with regards to franchise, I think more important is the group identities and conflict, which in turn is greatly influenced by wealth and power distribution. Considering the case of India I doubt even limited franchise would have any effect.

  4. The Parliamentary system has served post-colonial Third World countries much better than the Presidential system.

    Have you published your review somewhere? If so, can you lead me to the link? Thanks.

  6. Thanks! Interesting review. I can see the criticisms towards the current system. I still don’t think a Presidential system is good. India has already had too many kitchen cabinets. It was always the presence of ambitious (but carefully silent) rivals within the cabinet as well as the fear that someone from the opposition could capture power without an election that has kept those kitchen cabinets in check to some extent.

    I agree completely with your argument against the proposed Proportional Representation system. PR with list is indeed an open invitation for the creation of an oligarchy. Also it is not understood well not even in Europe.

    I don’t see why political bargaining in run-off elections are bad. In fact, a parliamentary system with run-offs in each constituency would be great. Then the backroom power brokers may come out to display their votebanks. More transparency.

    Nice magazine. I will keep reading it.

Comments are closed.