Introduction
After Independence, India has embraced democracy, a move touted as one of the largescale experiment worldwide. Although many nations after being unchained from the shackles of colonial rule fell prey to either dictatorship or military rule, India came out a winner to remain a democracy, irrespective of the large size and diversity. Even as we feel proud to be world’s largest democracy, it is the need of the hour that we start finding out the solutions to the problems and challenges that are being faced by Indian democracy. To reflect on the extent we have achieved since Independence in terms of core issues related to democracy, and recurring issues of scams, criminal records of elected representatives and disorder in Parliament, a more relevant issue need to be addressed: how democratic, actually, is Indian democracy?
India is a representative democracy, where elections are held every five years so that people can select their representatives to discuss their problems in Parliament. Even though the idea of ‘Of the People, by the People, for the People’ is advertised in democracy, in India, it is disheartening to see that people’s participation has merely been limited to voting once in five years. The irony of today’s time is that although the government is elected by people, they are given less priority over big shots and corporate houses to cater to their interests against being funded while elections, resulting in people’s interests being side lined. So, what institutional mechanism do the people have to make their voice heard, if their representatives do not represent their interests?
Referendum and Initiative
India has seen a rise in demand to increase people’s participation in policy formation. Although India still lags behind to find any amicable solution, many democracies worldwide have searched for solutions, Referendum (R) and the Initiative (I), to this structural defect. These instruments are used in a situation when some issues of policy and law-making are ‘referred’ to a direct vote by the electorate, instead of being solely adjudged by their representatives. They present citizens with a chance to have their say through an institutional channel in any issue, if it is felt that they are not being adequately represented by their representatives.
Switzerland was pioneer to announce these instruments, as far back as 1848. Although 36 other countries, mainly in Europe and Latin America, use these instruments at a national level, and various other countries like Germany, Brazil and the United States, at the state and regional levels. However, India is one among only five democracies never to have gathered courage to use them.
The Referendum (R): Referendum is an instrument that vests citizens with the power, by a direct vote, to take a call whether a legislation passed by Parliament should be rejected. If citizens are not sure of credibility of any legislation passed by the Parliament, they can, by acquiring signatures of a small percentage of the electorate, force a direct vote, by the entire electorate, on the law or policy in question. If a majority vote stands out against the legislation, then Parliament has no other option than to scrap the same. In Switzerland, to initiate a referendum, only support of 1 per cent of electorate is needed.
For instance in 2000, the ‘Electricity Market Law’ was constituted by the Swiss Parliament to liberalise and deregulate the electricity market. As apprehensions about law being anti-public service grew, the required number of signatures were collected and the law was put to vote. Finally, the law was scrapped as majority of the people opposed it.
The Initiative (I): Although the Referendum only lets citizens to accept or reject legislation passed by the Parliament, an ‘Initiative’ gives them the power to initiate a new legislation or constitutional amendment that they seem is required for them. Then, a bill prepared a group of citizens and supported by at least 2 per cent of the electorate (again established by signatures) is put to a nationwide direct vote. Finally, the draft is eligible to become is law if the same is supported by majority.
A classic example of people’s victory by Initiative can be cited by the vote held in Uruguay in 2002. In 2002, after making commitment to International Monetary Fund (IMF) to privatise the supply of drinking water and sanitation services of the entire nation, the Uruguay government had to take the law back in 2004 after facing successful opposition from people, who with the help of Initiative voted against the proposal of government.
Benefits
I&R mainly aims to bring legislative behaviour in line with the public opinion. The mere existence of I&R, even if not used, keeps the government on toes to not make any law or policy that may face opposition from the I&R channel to ‘trump’ them. For instance, in Uruguay in 2002, privatisation of the state-owned mobile phone operator was opposed by citizens. The government was forced to repeal the law even before the referendum could be held as the citizens have already collected required signatures to initiate the process of referendum.
Second, significant governance reforms are the result of I&R. The legislature hesitates to bring transparency in process of framing policy as it will typically curtail their own power. Due to conflict of interest, the lawmakers normally overlook or even damage such reforms. For instance, in India, there has been a long wait of 42 years to get the Lokpal Bill passed as it could investigate and prosecute corrupt lawmakers. In contrast, California has voted on 67 Initiatives on governance between 1912 and 2006, where policies related to campaign finance and prevention of elected representatives holding other offices have been made possible via Initiatives.
Third, the I&R process has played a positive role in forming more politically informed and participative citizenry by having the educative and transformative effect on people. Scholars are of the view that people are well informed and have more opportunities for direct political participation in Switzerland and American states where I&R is active.
Challenges
There exist a few challenges in announcing I&R as it comes with many responsibilities to handle it properly.
First is the logistical challenge in conducting direct voting at the national or even state level. This challenge can be handled by the use of the information and communication technologies (ICT) in innovative ways. In addition, the content of the ballot is required to be formatted in a way that is easily understood by a wide variety of voters with varying linguistic backgrounds and levels of literacy. Here again, various solutions exist.
Another challenge is related to the competence of voter in making clear and effective judgment on matters of law and policy. An answer to this concern is that if our elected representatives (who are not experts on many of the issues they take decisions on) are able to make decisions on laws and policies with the help of experts, so can the people. The fact that referendums play a role in making informed and ideologically consistent choices can be established by the finding that even when voters fail to understand the complexity of issues, they are able to take simple cues, for example, who is supporting or opposing the proposition. It also motivates citizens to know about the issues to be voted by listening to the experts and engaging in debate. It is necessary to devise a framework that provides a diverse expert opinions for people to frame their mind.
Another challenge is to foil monetary special interests from affecting the I&R process, such as by funding high-spending deceptive campaigns. This important issue was traced some American states like California, Oregon and Colorado. For instance in 2006, an amount of $34 million was collected by two oil companies to rout an initiative for the funding of renewable energy research and production by oil companies.
Conclusion
It is noted that it turns out to be difficult and costly to influence large number of citizens for monetary special interests than to convince a smaller set of lawmakers through lobbying. With the view to limit or eliminate campaign financing in the I&R process, it is required to put a system in place to avoid it.
Irrespective of the challenges expected to be faced while announcing such democratic reform, it is the high time that people start to track government to implement such measures to do justice to the meaning of democracy. As the constitution of democracy falling short on this count, the I&R process has the potential to ensure that citizens’ voices counterbalance a legislature unresponsive to peoples’ interests. This is the time when everyone has to stand to help reinstate the core value of democracy, that is, ‘Of the People, by the People, for the People’.