Everyone can win in the election

India’s Karnataka assembly elections were held on 12 May this year. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won 108 seats, securing only 36 per cent of votes, whereas Indian National Congress aka Congress Party won 80 seats, drawing 38 per cent of the popular votes. In the previous election, Congress secured 36.60 per cent of the votes, but won 122 seats. The number of votes the Congress clinched in the recent polls rose by 1.5 per cent but the number of seats declined by 42.

If the elections mean selecting representatives, then the situation indicated above suggests there is something seriously faulty with the system.

Many people dub India as the ‘largest democracy in the world’ but such faults are seen in their provincial polls as well as in the central ones.

BJP formed the government securing 31 per cent votes in the latest Lok Sabha elections and their coalition with several smaller parties got 38.50 per cent votes, which suggests around 62 per cent of the population was against them. But they have been well entrenched in power during their five-year tenure.

In the latest national elections of Pakistan, Imran Khan’s PTI (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf) attracted 32 per cent popular votes but won 43 per cent seats (116). On the other hand, Muslim League and the PPP (Pakistan People’s Party) won 107 seats though they got six per cent more votes than the PTI. It was said that people largely supported Imran Khan, but in actuality, most of the people cast their votes against the PTI. Less than four out of every 10 voters preferred the candidates of Imran Khan’s party and less than one in every three voters, which means, two third of the countrymen’s opinions were not reflected in forming the government. But no one questioned the fairness of that poll.

Elections: The Bangladesh experience

Bangladesh, like its South Asian neighbours, is vocal about ensuring participatory elections. The less controversial elections of the past show the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) formed the government in 1991 securing 31 per cent of votes casted. They got 140 seats whereas the Bangladesh Awami League (AL) won in 88 seats drawing almost 32 per cent votes. In 2001, the BNP got 41 per cent votes and 193 seats. The Awami League got 40 per cent votes but only 62 seats. That means despite getting more votes than the rival BNP, the AL got 52 seats fewer. In the next national polls they got 131 seats less but secured just one per cent fewer votes.

If the seats were distributed in proportion of the votes, in 1991 the BNP would have gotten 93 seats and the Awami League 96. In 2001, the numbers for the BNP would have been 123 and for AL 120, which would have reflected the voters’ choices in a balanced way.

The discrepancies in the current system are all the more glaringly obvious if we take a close look at any particular area. In the national elections of 1996, the Awami League won all six seats in Jashore securing 37.17 per cent votes. But, the BNP, Jatiya Party (JaPa) and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami did not get any seat there even after securing 60 per cent (28+15+17) votes jointly. As a result, 60 per cent of the Jashore voters did not have any representative in that parliament. The matter calls for deeper observation, as to whether this ‘victory’ is actually depriving the public of their representation.

It is worse for the smaller political parties. Let’s look at the 2001 elections. Jamaat won 17 seats securing 4.29 per cent votes whereas JaPa got 14 seats with 7.26 per cent votes. JaPa should have secured 22 seats as per the ratio of popular votes.

Another small party, the CPB (Communist Party of Bangladesh), got 119,000 votes but could not win any seat in the 2001 national elections. Smaller parties like the CPB, JSD, BaSad, Gano Forum, Islami Shashantantra are not winning seats in ratio to the number of votes they secure. These parties would have won a few seats had there been a proportionate distribution of seats as per number of votes. This would make the parliament more representational.

The main reason of national elections is to give value to every view in parliament. But the election has degenerated into a matter of winning and losing.

The major political parties of Bangladesh do not bother about this structural shortcoming inherent in the current electoral system. Recently religious and ethnic minorities have come up with a demand for rightful representation, but here too the majority remains silent.

All views need representation

Neighbouring Nepal is an excellent example of reforms that make the electoral system more representational. Of the 275 members of the ‘House of Representatives’, the Nepalese chose 165 MPs from 165 constituencies just as in Bangladesh. At the same time, they cast vote for parties in another election, considering the country as one constituency. The remaining 110 MPs are chosen proportionately from the candidates listed by the parties contending. And one third of the MPs of each party must be women.

Of the 59 MPs of ‘National Assembly’, the electoral colleges elect 56 members (8 each from 7 provinces) to the National Assembly and the president nominates three members, including one woman. Of the eight MPs every province chooses, three are women and one Dalit. Differently-abled persons are also chosen. This is how Nepal made their parliament representational in various aspects.

Reforms are being made in every country to make the electoral system more representational and compatible to national interests. Many countries are going into party-based or their symbol-based voting. The competing parties publish the list of their candidates before the polls and they are chosen chronologically in proportion to the votes they secure.

Many countries go into party and constituency-based voting reforming the above-mention system as Nepal has done. Sri Lanka also follows a system almost similar to that. Of the 225 MPs of parliament, 196 are elected from 22 constituencies and 29 MPs are selected from a list of candidates based on the ratio of votes competing parties get.

The model Sri Lanka follows has a chance to select more than one MP (from 4 to 19) from a constituency. Authorities fix the number of MPs for a constituency. The voting takes place based on proportion. Sri Lanka organises two-phase proportional voting to ensure diversified representatives.

It is important to ensure representatives of all views as every citizen’s opinion is valuable. Proportion-based system ensures that. All the citizens can be winners in national elections if a change is made in the electoral system. Nepal and Sri Lanka’s experiences substantiate that.

Many citizens, during informal discussions, speak in favour of electoral reforms. Such dialogues can start right at this moment in the interest for national elections, because current electoral system is riddled with errors.

*Altaf Parvez is a researcher in South Asian history. This piece, published in Prothom Alo print edition, has been rewritten in English by Shameem Reza