Indian Political Science Association The Indian Journal of Political Science

Indian Political Science Association
REPRESENTATION IN MODERN DEMOCRACIES: THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL

PERSPECTIVES
Author(s): SUDAMA SINGH
Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1991), pp. 508-
529
Published by: Indian Political Science Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41855585
Accessed: 26-04-2020 11:42 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Indian Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Indian Journal of Political Science
This content downloaded from 210.212.197.114 on Sun, 26 Apr 2020 11:42:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
REPRESENTATION IN MODERN
DEMOCRACIES: THEORETICAL AND
PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVES
SUDAMA SINGH
The idea of political representation is not new; - it is

as State. But the history of political representation as a p
is confined only to the evolution and development of dem
- representative governments in modern period. During
City States and later during the autocratic periods of
Imperial rule or in the later middle ages as a general the
the supremacy of the secular or ecclesiastical groups,
rulers have been regarded as in some aspects the spokesm
agents of the people.1 But all these remained mainly in t
and plans of the political thinkers owing to their philoso
thoughts. The modern system of political representation
as a device for making popular control over national gover
policies which were practicable for those communities whi
too extensive for direct democracy. In any case, it wa
deliberate plan or imitation of any prevailing system in th
It was associated with the evolution of modern national State
and simultaneous decay of the old feudal order and formation of
political nobility and rise of middle classes and gradual movement
from autocracy to democracy.
It all began through some incidental developments in modern

Europe while in the later middle period the monarchs of Europe
began to consult other groups. Notable among them were the
lower nobility, landed gentry and townsmen. Since the landed gentry
and townsmen forming the mass population could not assemble
enmasse at one place or in the King's Court, representational
The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 52, No. 4, October - December, 1991.
REPRESENTATION IN MODERN DEMOCRACIES 509
devices were bound to be employed. In England such a situation

was compelled to emerge in another way. In the later midd
period the King of England was forced by the situations t
summon the representative bodies to fulfil the need of addition
funds. It was felt quite difficult to raise such additional funds
without the consent of the groups that were to bear the burden
of the taxes; and therefore the king was compelled to consult th
representatives of these groups.2 Thus, time and often the
representatives of the landed gentry and townsmen and th
nobility and clergy of England started to meet in three autono
mous bodies, i.e. estate general . It was a typical form of centr
parliament. Later on, the high prelates decided to merge wit
the nobility in a 'House of Lords' and the landed gentry with th
townsmen in a 'House of Commons' - thus developing into
bicameral system of parliament. However, for a long period th
representatives could not appear as spokesmen of the whole natio
or of a local segment of a consolidated population but of hithert
unorganized 'estate of realms'. Mackenzie has rightly observ
that "in the period before the commons arrived the whole natio
conceived to be present in the king's great Council."3 But th
presence of the whole nation via representatives was a precond
tion to the existence of English monarchy. Moreover, when th
commons arrived, the great principle of political representatio
was very apparently present there.
Some Theoretical Aspects of Representation
Every modern State in which the will of the people prevails

necessarily attaches responsibility to the government. The will o
the people can itself have no constitutional or legal respons
bility, but it can establish the responsibility of the power it can
create. This is the real ground of its (people's wills) control ove
government. This is the meaning of responsible government, fo
it can endure so long and so long only as it can claim the su
port of a majority (or at any rate of the largest electoral grou
under a system which the minority (or the other groups) accept
Such authorization of responsibility on behalf of the will of th
people - the ultimate sovereign - can comfortably be assure
only through representation. Thus, it primarily reflects the wil
of the people pertaining to the responsible democratic govern-
ment.
510 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
To define representation, 'it is a process through which the

influence which the entire citizenry or a part of them have upon
governmental action is, with their expressed approval, exercised
on their behalf by a smaller number among them, with binding
effect upon those represented/4 Friedrich calls the phrase with
their expressed approval , the most essential part of this definition.
In this phrase we recognize the constitutional setting of represen-
tation.6 In another way representation is defined as "a relation
between two persons, representative and represented, with
representative holding the authority to perform various actions
that incorporates the agreements of the represented."6 Generally
speaking, the term representation is very especially used in a
political sense and pertains to modern governments as a method
of solving the problem, 'how to enable a very large number of
people to participate in the shaping of legislation and execution
of governmental policies and decisions.'
And herewith, the question of 'how to enable a large number

of people...' is related with the questions 'What to be represented'
and 'who to represent' in a consequent manner. The 'how' of
representation stipulates the methods of representation or to say
clearly the electoral systems in modern democracies whereas 'what'
and 'who' of representation form the content of it. Thus, coming
to the latter i.e. 'what' and 'who' of representation, following
questions are to be covered:
(1) What and whom does a representative represent?

(2) Is it the whole state or a locality i.e. electoral district
or constituency for practical purposes that a represen-
tative does represent?
(3) Does a representative represent in his individual capa-
city, own convictions, or his party allegiance and affilia-
tion?
The above questions have been variously answered by scho-

lars. One set of answers to these questions is found in a consi-
deration what R. M. Mclver has called 'relation of means to
end.'7 Thus, whatever is ought to be represented is an end and
whosoever through whatsoever representative method or system
are supposed to represent, are the means. These answers may be
detailed in the following submission by Mclver:
The representative is elected on the ground of a general

policy which he supports. The elector expresses his attitude
towards that policy, not towards individual measures. Apart
from such particular pledges as he may give, the representa-
tive is bound to a cause, a movement, a party, not to a whole
series of individual projects. So long as he is faithful to the
cause, he must use his own judgement in particular cases...
The representative is not under normal conditions, an agent

who goes to parliament under oders, like the mediaeval dele-
gates which the imperial free cities sent to the Reichstag...
Reduction of the representative to the party servant is
generally and rightly repudiated.8
Thus, Mclver puts emphasis on common causes instead of

individual causes of the people, personal convictions of the repre
sentatives and denies party's bond over them.
Great philosopher and English parliamentarian of the 18th

Century, Edmund Burke has rejected the idea of a constituency
as a numerical or territorial unit of representation as implying
the possession of ballot by any considerable portion of the popula
tion represented. He denied that individual citizens as such are
represented and numerical majorities have any real significance
informing the mature opinion of the country. Virtual represen
tation, that is, representation in which there is a communion o
interests and a sympathy in feelings and desires, his thought ha
most of the advantages of representation by actual election and
was free from many of its disadvantages. He has expressed his
views that once elected, the representative is responsible for th
whole interest of the nation and the empire, and he owes to hi
constituents his best judgment freely exercised, whether it agree
with their or not. As he has said, a member does not go to
school - to his constituents - to learn the principles of law and
government.9 To quote him:
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different

and hostile interests, which interest each must maintain, as
an agent and advocate against other agents and advocates;
but parliament is a deliberate assembly of one nation, which
one interest, that of the whole nation, where not local pur-
P- 10
poses, not local prejudices ought to guide but general

good.10
Almost the same views emphasising national interests over the

interests of the constituents have been expressed in William
Young's speeches some thirty years before the Burke's Bristol
speeches (1745 AD):
After a gentleman is chosen, he is the representative, or if

you please, the attorney of the people in England, and as
such is at full freedom to act as he thinks best for the people
of England in general. He may receive, he may ask, he may
even follow, the advice of his particular constituents; but he
is not obliged, nor ought he to follow their advice, if he
thinks inconsistent with the general interests of his country.11
Thus, both Burke and Young do emphasize equally on personal

convictions and consciousness of representatives in individual
capacity, interest of the nation as a whole vis- a- vis interests of
the individual and group constituents as fragmentative parts and
that the parliament is not an assembly or congress of representa-
tives as ambassadors of different hostile interests. Neither, the
entity of an organisation like political party is visible in their
above statements, speeches and views. Eighteenth century was
quite a different period from the point of view of political deve-
lopment. It was the hey-day of the laissez faire policies in the
polity of a State (in Europe) which was based on the controls of
government or State was almost a police State. But the present
20th century is the age of liberalism, welfarism, democracy and
socialism where State is just an institutional means, not an end.
The emphasis has now shifted from individuality to collective
responsibility of representatives, particularly within the frame-
work of political parties. The importance of specialized interests
of various groups, sections, communities, geographical and cul-
tural localities both within the constituencies and national whole*
have come up in a plural manner and have crossed the boun-
daries of old fashioned romantic nationalism. Friedrich asserts
that parliament is both: a deliberative assembly from one nation,
with one interest, that of the whole, and a Congress of ambassa-
dors from different and hostile interests.12 This point of view
may have implications in Presidential system, such as in American
Congress where representatives are not direct participants in
governmental affairs. But in the parliamentary system wh

they are direct participants, they cannot be treated as ambass
dors or people's advocate to their own standing in the house.
The act of voting seems to be expressing what the elector

has to say, or what the elector is (existentially), or what t
elector wills. According to the first view, opinion of the elec
is represented; according to the second, class or vocational appu
tenance; and according to the third, the individuality of t
elector is represented though he is inarticulate or silent,13 Si
all representational systems adopt a territorial criterion of el
toral appointment, what is actually being represented is t
localities. But territorial representation does not satisfy and ev
impedes occupational or functional representation. It is suggest
that while territorial representation considers the citizens, th
voters should be encouraged to respond in terms of vocationa
representation which would elicit a response in terms of mater
interests. In free societies, the idea of replacing a politic
parliament with an occupational parliament (or parliament
experts) has only led to attempts to combine the two. So
kind of technical or vocational parliaments expressing the vie
of special interests side by side political parliaments might
seen in the cases of Weimer Republic of Germany, Italy, Fran
and some other countries.14 Thus, local and community intere
class appurtenance, sectional interests, minority views an
interests, individual wants and ideas, etc. are singularly or diff
rent combinations of all these are represented. Practically tha
sort of voices which are strong enough to make themselves he
somehow find their way to a representative body. But theore
cally, as J.S. Mill sets forth> every division of the electora
every functional part of group and every minority of it - th
views and interests - must be proportionally represented. A
representative assembly should reflect various divisions in th
electorate with more or less mathematical exactness.16
With the development of democratic polity and representa-

tive government, particularly in parliamentary system of England,
emphasis on a voluntary organisation like political party started
to be laid down. Scholars of eminence on constitutional and
governmental affairs, such as Harold J. Laski and Sir Ivor W.
Jenning have greatly emphasized party allegiance of the repre-
sentatives than their individuality in all their decisions, actions
and convictions that were emphasized by Burke and Young in

the 18th Century.16 Herman Finer has also come to the follow-
ing conclusion about the role of political parties in modern demo-
cracies:
... the vast body of electors are not in fact free and equal,
though they are in law and in political opportunity... They
are marshalled, and their candidates chosen for them, by
those who have worked to acquire the controlling position
in the parties. It is in a sophisticated sense only that the
people choose their representatives.17
Thus, many things have been told in support of the party's

position in a representative democracy which set the representa-
tives in total servitude of the party, at least, for the practical
purposes.
Citizens in modern democratic governments are commonly

represented through and by political parties. This is inevitable.
However, this view point that 'after their election representa-
tives come under a contract with the electors to place their
votes and actions into the subjection of the electors, not to their
own convictions but to their (electors) decision* cannot be sup-
ported at all. A realistic view of the present day representa-
tional process conforms us with a two step process: a relationship*
responsibility and responsiveness of the representative towards his
party as well as towards the electors or the people at almost an
equidistant level.
II
The theoretical questions regarding 'who* and cwhať of

representation as discussed earlier in the first part, are inevitably
concerned with 'how* of representation. Further, the question of
how of representation has commonly been identified with electo-
ral methods or systems practised in democratic-representative
systems. Election is a process of selecting representatives of an
organisation or group by the votes of its qualified members. In
modern democracies representative bodies, with few minor ex-
ceptions, are popularly elected.
Democracies all over the world adopt electoral methods

ranging right from 'Single member Constituency', 'simple majo-
rity' to Proportion Representation or PR systems in gener

'Single member constituency* and 'simple majority' combined
popularly known as 'First-Past-the-Post* system. The PR syst
has its various forms differently adopted mainly in the countr
of Europe. Here, in the present context, we are primarily con
cerned with the philosophic bases and basic principles of t
above mentioned systems. As submitted by scholars of Politic
Science:
Electoral system is an entity by itself and also a part of

larger entity; it is a system as well as a subsystem. It is to
perform some basic functions but its performance must be in
tune with the general philosophic basis of the Constitutions
and also an integral part of the overall mechanical structure
of the government and State.18
Anyway we cannot abide by such meaningless systems which

make election a lottery and mockery distorting popular will and
opinions of the people. An urgent problem is that of securing a
system of voting which should result in the elected representative
forming an assembly that should adequately reflect the balance
of opinion in the electorate.19
The present part is concerned with examining popular electo-

ral systems while put in practice mainly in view of the theoretical
perspective of representation. This is to be analysed whether
these systems contain efficiency to give representation to those
things which are ought to be represented or not. If yes, to what
extent and to what success; if not, to what failures. In this part
Indian political and representative contexts are to be especially
examined and analyzed.
First- Past- the-Post System

or
(i Single Member Constituency - Simple Majority System)
Old democracies of Great Britain, USA, a new one in India

(only about 40 years old) and many others elect their representa-
tives by adopting what is popularly called 'first-past-the-posť
system. Underlying principle of this system is that the whole
nation is supposed to be divided in several electoral districts,
popularly known as constituencies. The constituencies contain
certain number of electors - each elector empowered commonly

with one vote.20 Electors elect representatives, one from each con-
stituency. Person getting highest votes polled in his favour in
comparison to all other contestants is elected from the concerned
constituency. The representative, thus elected, represents the
sovereign authority of an aggregate of people (not only the
aggregate of those who have cast votes in his favour) living in a
particular locality, i.e. constituency, where the voters are atomi-
sed individuals.21 In such a system representation of views, ideas
and interests of the electors or people are represented in an
atomised-scattered manner and hence their ideas, view and intere-
sts are not represented in an articulated manner as that of specia-
lised groups- section, different localities, class appurtenances,
etc. in the constituencies.
To examine the practice of the 'first-past-the-posť system,

especially in India, following problems and deficiencies have been
found:
1. Disproportional Representation :
'First-past-the-posť system results hopelessly in dispropor-

tional representation. It is disproportional on two points: First,
it does not adequately represent the views, ideas and interests of
all sections, groups, classes, localities or regions from among the
electorate; and second, under this system, as apparent in the case
of India, a representative has an enormously vast and practically
unbearable number of electorate or population on its credit to
represent in the real sense of the term 'representation'.
G. F. Strong appears correct in his conclusion in both the

British as well as Indian contexts that "the 'first-past-the-posť
system has led to the most glaring anomalies, at any rate in
Britain, for thereby it is not even assured that the majority party
in the country will gain a majority in the House of Commons,
while a very large minority may be quite inadequately represented
there."22 This trend is quite clear in the following table:
TABLE- 1
Results of General Elections for the House of Commons in

Great Britain in 1945 and 1964
General Elections- 1945 General Elections-1964;

Political Total votes Total seats Total votes Total seats
parties gain (in gain gain (in gain
millions) millions)
1. Labour 12 millions 392 12 millions 317

Party
2. Conserva- 8.5 „ 189 12 „ 303

tive party
3. Liberal
party 2.25 „ 11 3 „ 9
Source : Figures used by C. F. Strong in M
Constitutions , op . cit.9 pp. 166-67.
Figures in the above table(l) show that

tion for the House of commons of the G
Conservative Party got the 2/3rd of t
Labour Party, it could win even less than
won by the Labour Party. In the sam
Liberal Party bagged more than the 1 /6t
the Labour party. It was á sizeable numbe
support point of view. But in this elec
perform almost a non-existant succes
Labour and Conservative parties by secur
11 - about 1 /35th part of the seats won
arly, in the general elections of 1964 for
Great Britain both Labour and Conserv
almost equal number of votes and sea
though the Liberal party got l/4th of
Labours as well as the Conservatives, i
1 /35th of the seats bagged by both parti
Obviously, it was a disproportional rep

part of the elcotorate had no represen
£II
"O W vO vO . o
w-1 - ; ^ fl-> O o"-» o'
co ^
soo
wO ft o ô ^^ (N
> ûu*5 ^ inCO
in îf)
c3 G
.2 2
• fH
TJ
G G _£* !S ^ ^ '0 "<3
HH
O U-. co g io o ^
g
g vo<l>2-gcx, ° cS § £
v w
°* w
2
g O
O vo<l>2-gcx,
o' „ £ w oo'
• ^
w (N <
JG PU en
JD O G
«J - O
CG - *Xj
M qr ^ G - ^ ^ o
M 00
O O) (5 -2 S W
0000 ^ « CD
r_H 5 ~ ^" flj
~
1-3
-2
-2 .o
eflWco«.oí,? v -fl|0
o v ^ ^ ^' pG
r_H CD ^ ' " flj
•■G c O S 9 Ü ^ rêo Q£) .y
w d U ü 2^ ř CMcsiÔ •- < ^G
~0O^*->O •- < r-H ^ ^
CM O r-H S-i
I £
tì S 2 |u_ «u-fi., O^ ^ ^ «2 S
»J o
öO •» |u_ O « «=WS g °?
m _ *í o O >»Z m r> m co « "
Hí Jü
H Jü « «O)O)
¡2 mIm
» S?2°a^s C3
_ *í o m r> m co
tì - bO ^ d-
G °
H oí O ~ g
h io O ^ « o
T3 S n* ^ ^ o^ S «
G «-I
<u T3 52^03-° n* ri s ° Q s2 .y^
° .s oS ° S G
w sPü S ü2 ri ^^ lOiOOOO
° *G °. s ^ Q s2.2°ì„^ íaq
ja
w S t-i v
t-i 2 «2
G -* °?
•-< G S g
^^ *¿
<*-!
O
•-< o
CO
G m tH CO 00 ^
's HH j. CO Oí r-1 O G S
ca
<U
_
03
_o*
GO r
j.■*
.5°HG
o *í o 03 S G
tí
5 o j3 2 coturno
H X > j3 WH co CO CO ^ 2Xi K
CO w
co
<L> „
fa -2 „
3 <3
.SP Q ^
fe ^
ö i ..
o i I .. «5
ej li (N IN IH T}< V u
ü C3 IO IO N CO £ D
r* 1> 0)0)0)0) H2o
tì ^ .-H _H _H ZcO
expressed their views, ideas, and their choices in favour of som

or the other. G.F. Strong concluded that later election also tol
the same story and the similar illustrations came from Canad
and New Zealand where the 'first-past-the-posť system w
adopted.25
This very fundamental problem of disproportional represen-

tation in the 'first-past-the-posť system is apparent from the
Indian experience as well. The table-2 shows the trend in the
elections for the Lok Sabha. We have taken the figures
from the election results when the leading party polled almost
highest of votes and seats; even though it could not cross the
limit of 48.1% of the total votes polled (in 1984).
Figures shown in the table (2) indicate that in all the four
elections the INC won an overwhelming majority of more
than 70% (70% to 78.93%) getting never more than 48.1% (in
1984) of the total votes polled. Contrary to this, the opposition
in all was favoured by never less than 51.9% (55 to 51 9%) but
was never represented by more than 30% (21.07 to 30%) of the
total strength of the Lok Sabha.
In both the cases of the Great Britain and India following

kind of disproportion may be observed:
(a) The number of votes polled and the number of seats

won by the political parties do not observe the mathe-
matical exactness as supported by J. S. Mill.
(b) A very good part with sizeable number of the votes

polled remains unrepresented. It includes articulate
views, ideas and interests of several groups, sections,
classes, localities, etc.
(c) Majority representation with the support of minority

votes dominates the minority representation with majo-
rity support at various levels in the house as evident in
the Indian case. It is just a mockery to the true spirit
of democracy; for democracy is a rule supported and
run by the majority.
(d) ťThe-first-past-the post' or 'single member-simple majo-

rity' system leaves ample chance to the composition of
P- 11
the representative houses in its complete form even if a

small minority, say, 5% of the total electorate goes to
the polls. Such an unfortunate situation will lead to
disproportional representation.
Moreover, there is nothing like only one view at the national

or local constituency level, but many. Hence, all views must be
proportionally represented and adequately reflected in the com-
position of a representative house.
Numerical support and its mathematical exactness is not the

only consideration, but the individual capacity of a representa-
tive to put such support into practice and action is rather more
important concern. We have 545 members in the Indian Lok-
Sabha to represent a vast population of about 800 millions24
and the similar proportion of vast electorate - one for about
14 lac of people from each constituency on an average. This is
too disproportional for all the practical purposes of representa-
tion. In other words, such a vast population or electorate is
rather an impossible job for an individual representative.
2. Minority Representation :
By 'minority', here in this context, we mean political

minority in numerical sense and not the communal minority.
It may be assumed that more than 60% of the Indian

electorate hardly turns up to the polls; otherwise, normally it is
always less than 60% and even 50% of the total votes 26 As table
(2) shown earlier indicates, less than half, i.e. less than 30% of the
total electorate, elects more than 70%- 75% of the total seats.
Remaining more than 30% of the total electorate elects less than
30% - 21% of the total seats. It may easily be understood that
a large part of the 'remaining 30% of voters going to polls -
remains unrepresented; and thus an arithmatical calculation may
confirm that never more than about 40% of the total electorate
is represented and sizeable 60% are left unrepresented from one
point of view. Another point of view tells a different story. It is
not mere report but an established fact that mass of the votes
polled are the results of large scale rigging, both capturing, vote-
purchasing, etc. Next to it a large number of votes polled are
immature and vote without thought because of mass illiteracy
and a-political concerns, especially in vast rural areas. Thus

both electoral malpractices and immature voting together may
cost no less than 50% of the total votes polled in the particular
Indian situation. If it is so, then the arithmatics of 40%
representation comes down to 20%. If again it is counted in
terms of total population, a very frustrating result may emerge
that no more than 15% of the total population is represented in
in the real sense of the term; while a representative is authorized
and empowered to represent the whole population enmasse in
the constituency.
Conclusively, 'first-past- the-posť system has resulted in

minority representation as far as the Indian experiences are con-
cerned.
3. Unidentified Interests are Represented :
Electorate, under the present system, are atomised indivi-

duals distributed over differentiated regions or localities (in a
constituency or national whole) in a scattered manner. Represen-
tation of the interests of a national whole has been strongly sup-
ported by many great scholars. But in the present context of
social, political and economic complexity, the articulation of
various interests into national whole or national interest has
become difficult either at constituency or national level impor-
tantly because of the above said 'atomisation'. Similarly, interests
of large communal minorities are not well represented.26 It shows
regional imbalances in view of representation, for the views of
one section is well represented in one region or State but it is
rarely or badly represented in another.
In the modern complicated society interests, views, ideas

and will and wishes of the people are either well articulated or
camouflaged in various social groups, functional groups, class and
sectional appurtenances. As the 'first-past-the-post* system leads
to atomised expression of individual's views and interests, the
views, ideas, interests, etc. belonging to the social groups, func-
tional and vocational groups, class or sectional appurtenances
ctc. in a constituency or national whole remain either unrepresen-
ted or worse represented. Thus, a constant crisis of interest
identification will remain with mere numerical agglomeration of
individuals in the modern complex society; and therefore the
principle of the 'first-past-the-posť system will also remain

unrepresentative.
4. Party Dictatorship :
As discussed earlier (in the first part of this article), political

parties are inevitable in modern democracies and the representa-
tives have been assigned 'double' responsibility of maintaining
relationship with the electors or the people as well as with their
parties, possibly at equidistant level. The object of representa-
tion is directly concerned with the responsibility and responsive-
ness of the reprsentatives to their subjects or the electors; and
hence this is the core and crux of representation. But a contra-
dictory situation emerges when the electors elect their representa-
tives in the name of political parties - for it's policies, pro-
grammes, manifesto, etc.; but expect them to represent their
causes in their (representative's) individual decisions, convictions
and capacity. Such a dual but contradictory situation ends in
an unsymmetrical inclination of the representatives towards their
parties because party bonds are stronger; and thus leaves the
electors or people in almost an alienated position.
Further, to analyse party bonds over the representatives»

following points may be noted :
(i) In most cases electors are bound to elect party candi-

dates as their representatives;
(ii) Where elections are contested on party basis, usually

electors are given very limited choices. They can elect
only the nominated or selected candidates by the parties
from their constituencies. It is the party which decides
who shall be elected from where;
(iii) Practically, there happens to be a tough competition

for the nomination of the candidates from the prospe-
ctive parties. Such nominations are reported to be
made by formal selection committees formed of core
leaders or 'High Commands' of the parties.27 Thus,
party nomination is actually nomination by the party
- 'High Commands'.28
All of this increase party bondage over the representatives.

As it has been experienced in India, particularly during 1971 to
1977, party - 'High Command' meant just one person, i.e. Smt.
Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India. She converted
the whole government as one-women show, declared Emergency
and converted it into prime-ministerial dictatorship; and all the
time her party MPs kept just gaping at the sky while her cabine
colleagues were looking under the desks. The MPs and Ministers
could do nothing because they were her henchmen and nominees.29
Cautious scholars instruct us to be aware of the electoral system
becoming an instrument for establishing dictatorship in the
Country. To remind:
History shows that dictatorship in a democratic way like

that of Hitler in Germany and of Bhutto in Pakistan (apart
from military Coup of Afghanistan type) are established by
first establishing dictatorship in the party and then mani-
pulating Ballot box by various ways; if Mrs. Gandhi had not
been first a virtual dictator in her own party, her MPs and
ministers would not have been so much subservient to the
zero level of existance.30
Thus, the 'first- past- the-posť system not only keeps the
representatives under party bondage, surveillance and makes
them subservient to the extent of mere agent or spokesman of the
party, but may further lead to a dictatorial regin via dictatorship
within the party itself.
Proportional Representation System
There are several inadequacies in the 'first-pastthe-post*

system. How to remove them is a moot question. Generally
speaking, one line of reform suggested is what is usually referred
to as Proportional Representation; and it is, therefore necessary to
deal with this.
As discussed earlier, there cannot be only one view point,

but many among the electorate. There are various smaller and
bigger divisions pertaining to specialized interests, ideas and
views of sectional, class and group appurtenances in the electo-
rate. Underlying idea and the fundamental principle of the pro-
portional Representation (PR) system is to secure a representa-
tive assembly reflecting the representation of all divisions, groups
and classes with more or less mathematical exactness. John
Stuart Mill was concerned whether parliament represented all

(section or groups) or only a majority. Unless it did represent
all it was not truly r epresentative, it was false democracy. The
voice of all minorities (alongwith the majority) should be heard
and justice requires that no votes be lost. Thus, PR looks upon
the divisions in the electorate as the only entity to be represen-
ted.81 Walter Bagehot has spelt that "the function of parliament
was two-fold : for the majority to support the cabinet in its con-
duct of the government and for the minority to criticize the
actions of the government. The combination of action and
criticism enables parliament to represent the people as a whole
both toward itself and toward the outside world''32 Thus, he
incorporates all minority-majority sections, groups and classes
belonging to the electorate into two broad categories- the govern-
ment supporters and the opposition, uitimately combined toge-
ther and aimed at the similar purpose of representing the people
as a whole. The PR makes the constituency voluntary : each
voter individually is able to choose his own constituency in
accordance with his personal preference. He votes as a volunt-
ary member of a group. As Bagehot sums up, all PR systems
say to the electorate :
If so and so many among you can agree, upon a candidate,

that candidate shall be elected.35
Much may be said for and against the PR system. In theory

it may have many things in its favour, but in practice, as C.F.
Strong has said, it has not so much.34 It, undoubtedly, secures
the representation of minorities and overcomes many objections
made against 'first-past-the-posť system. However, it is not free
from some potential flaws. It may be pointed out as follows :
1. It is over-said that it secures minority representation. But

as Strong objects, "it is likely to encourage minority thinking
and freak candidatures."36 Similarly, by ensuring the ideas and
interests of the people on sectional, group, class and local or
regional lines it encourages cleavages and sharp divisions - and
therefore disintegration in the society. Friedrich maintains that
democracy can reconcile liberty with authority only by subjecting
minority to the will of the majority, otherwise if this made
impossible, will be replaced by that kind of constitutional
deadlock which will be the ideal condition for dictatorship.36
2. Under the List system of PR as adopted in Germany, en

ment of electoral district is a characteristic- sometimes the whole
country may be an electoral district. It is a dangerous situation
for the following reasons :
Frist, it increases the distance between the electors and the

elected because the electors do not vote for candidates but for
the party.
Second , if the parties issue the 'lists' of their candidates, the

number of candidates may increase to the point where the
electors find it difficult to recognize their choice and impossible
to understand what, in fact, is going on.
Third , in such a distancing situation party caucuses are

strengthened and party machines are demonstrably stronger.
Finally , such systems are controlled by party bosses through

lists giving rise to rigidity of party lines. Thus, democratic
homogeneity and flexibility would be lost. Such rigidity may
end in dictatorship by finishing up the democracy in the country
concerned.
3. Charges of instablity are laid at the door of the PR

system as the generation of multifarious factions and tendencies
make it extremely difficult because to find a common line of
action among them is tedious.37 Electoral laws are not solely
responsible for the characteristics of parties and strength of
goverement but that it does seem to be the case that the greater
the proportionality of a system, the greater the chance of more
than two parties and so of coalition government and vice-versa.38
Under such a system, there is no clear decision at the polls in
terms of which a cabinet could be set up.39 In the Indian con-
text, the Tarkunde Committee also suspected that the PR system
might well lead to political fragmentation and give rise to large
number of parties on the basis of caste, religion, language or
parochial interests approving unstable governments.40
However, for the question of instability of governments - a

very common doubt against the PR system - Prof. K.V. Rao
opines and he appears strict in his view that "it is none of the
business of the electoral system to give the country a stable and
effective government; and it is wrong to think that single member,

single ballot and PR respectively will emerge in stable and unsta-
ble governments."41 For him, stable and unstable governments
are altogether a different question.
To reach at conclusion, both the 'first-past-the-posť and the

proportional Representation systems though encompass several
positive characteristics, they are after all not free of flaws and
some very basic problems with democratic representation appear
beyond the capacity of these systems.
Ill
The foremost problem with any representative system as wel

as with the whole representational process is how to make differ
ent views, interests, will and wishes of the people correspond
a real embodiment of the national will. It is much more than
simple head counting through piece of papers called ballot or
otherwise. Secondly reason d'etre of representative body is not
only to reflect the opinion of the people but to make the repre-
sentatives continue to be fully responsible and responsive to the
people. In other words, the story of representation starts with
the reflection of people's opinion at the time of election but ends
in the continuance of responsiveness and responsibility of the
representatives to the people for the full term. Thirdly, to look
at it from altogether a different angle, unless some means are
discovered for finding really capable persons for representation,
no system whether founded among people largely illiterate (like
that in India) or developed (as in European and other countries),
can be of any avail. Thus, G.F. Strong rightly concludes that the
parliamentary candidate must be a professional politician.41
Finally, the existance of political parties, especially party-caucus
and party-machine, appears to be an inevitable concomitant; and
hence it is another hurdle in the way of representation.
It appears to have emerged a wrong notion regarding 'elec-

toral reforms' in India as if there cannot be another option for
the 'first- past-t he-post' system. Reports of the expert committees
exclusively appointed for this purpose, views expressed in seminars,
points made, analysis presented, conclusions reached at and sug-
gestions extended mostly concentrate on the practical side of the
electoral systems. The theoretical aspect of representation, th

is the fundamental of all electoral systems, has remained alm
untouched or it has been abruptly touched upon.
In view of various problems of representation, one has

look for an optional electoral system of some kind of elector
improvements in the existing system. We may have prop
improvement in the existing system or the other system/syst
may be opted or another system may be evolved. Improveme
upon the existing system has one advantage that the people a
accustomed to certain features of it.
In view of Electoral Reforms in India, it is a great challenge

either to improve upon the existing cfirst-past-the«posť system or
to adopt a different one or to evolve a new one in consonance
with the particular Indian situation as to overcome the funda-
mental problems of representation. It requires indepth research,
sincere thought, and thorough exercise.
NOTES
1. Historians and political theorists have cited isolate

instances as well as plans and schemes of elective representati
in ancient times (Vide, Barker, Ernest, Greek Political Theory
Sabine, George H., A History of Political Theory , et al.).
2. For details, see, MacKenzie, K. R., The English Parliamen
Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1950, pp. 91-92.
3. Ibid.
4. This definition of Robert von Mohl has been cited in

Friedrich, Carl J., Constitutional Government and Democracy, Oxford
IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi, 1966, p. 266.
5. Ibid.
6. The International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences , V

The Macmillan Go. & The Free Press, New York, 1968, p. 5
7. Mclver, R.M., The Modern State , Oxford University Pr
London, 1926, p. 203.
8. Ibid.y pp. 203-204.
9. Sabine, G. H., A History of Political Theory , Oxfor
IBH, New Delhi, 1973, p. 560.
P- 12
10. Vide, Celebrated Speeches of Edmund Burke to the Elec-

tors at Bristol, England (1775-80 A.D.) (Quoted from Sabine
op.cit., pp. 560-61)
11. Vide, William Young's Speeches of 1745 AD (Quoted
from MacKenzie, K. R., The English Parliament, op.cit., p. 98).
12. Friedrich, Carl, J., op. cit., p. 263.
13, The International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, op.cit.,
p. 469.
14. Ibid.
15. Friedrich, Carl J., op.cit., pp. 277-283.

16. See, Laski, H. J., Parliamentary Government in England,
George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1963, pp. 142-143 and Jennings,
Ivor W., Cabinet Government, University Press, Cambridge, 1957,
p. 17.
17. Finer, Herman, The Theory and Practice of Modern Govern -

ment , Methuen & Co. Ltd., London, 1961, pp. 256-57.
18. Rao, K. V. and Garg B. L., in a Working Paper of a
Seminar on 'Electoral Reforms' held in the Dept. of Political
Science, University of Sambalpur, Orissa, May 5-7, 1978 pp. 1-2.
19. Strong, C. F., Modern Political Constitutions, The ELBS,
London, 1973, p. 165.
20. Allocation of electoral power or voting power is based,

in common practice, on 'Universal-adult franchise.' But it may
be a restricted franchise also as it was prevalent in the great
democracy of Britain besides several others in the first half of
this century.
21. Rao, K. V. and Garg, B. L., op. cit., p. 17.
22. Strong, CF., op. cit., p. 165.
23. Ibid., p. 167.
24. This number has been approximated on the basis of
1991 Census reports.
25. This assumption has been primarily made from the

experiences of general elections for the Lok Sabha. In these
elections polling could have hardly crossed the 60% limit in
1977 (60.5%) and in 1984 (64.1%) when the entire population
was stirred by anti-emergency movement in the north India and
the 'sympathy wave' in the whole India respectively. Similar,

trends may be traced in the cases of several assembly elections.
26. For instance, in the general elections of 1991 for the
Lok-Sabha, it is understood that the Muslim minority community
in Uttar Pradesh voted enblock to Janata Dal against the BJP-fear,
but it is represented only by 22 Janata Dal MPs in 22 different
constitutencies. In the same elections the upper castes have been
understood supporting the BJP and Congress enblock against 'the
backward factor' in the North Indian States of U.P., M.P.,
Bihar, etc. But while they are well represented by 50 BJP mem-
bers (out of 85) in U.P., they are rarely represented by only 6
(5+1) BJP and Congress members in Bihar.
27. This is reported that the Congress-I (besides others)

nominated candidates or distributed tickets in Lok-Sabha elec-
tions (1984, 1989 and 1991) through strict scrutiny of candidates
in committees meant for these purposes (Vide, Verma & Verma,
The Bullets and the Ballots , Samuchit, Bareilly, 1986, p. 39 and see
newspapers items during April-May 1991.)
28. See, Finer, Herman, op. cit., pp. 256-57.
29. Rao, K. V., Garg, B. L., op. cit., p. 15
30. Ibid., pp. 16-17.
31. Friedrich, Carl J., op. cit., pp. 278-81.
32. Vide, Bagehot, Walter, referred in Ibid., p. 280.
33. Ibid., p. 279.
34. Strong, G. F., op. cit,, p. 173.
35. Ibid., p. 174.
36. Friedrich, Carl J., op. cit., p. 291.
37. Strong, C. F., op. cit., pp. 173-74.
38. Vide, Rae, D., The Political Consequences oj Electoral Laws.
39. Friedrich, Carl J., op. cit., p. 292.
40. Vide, The Tarkunde Committee Report, appointed on
behalf of the Citizens for Democracy, in 1974.
41. Rao, K. V. and Garg, B. L., op. cit., p. 16.

Indian Political Science Association The Indian Journal of Political Science

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Indian Political Science Association The Indian Journal of Political Science

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Indian Political Science Association

REPRESENTATION IN MODERN DEMOCRACIES: THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The idea of political representation is not new; - it is

It all began through some incidental developments in modern

devices were bound to be employed. In England such a situation

Some Theoretical Aspects of Representation

Every modern State in which the will of the people prevails

To define representation, 'it is a process through which the

And herewith, the question of 'how to enable a large number

(1) What and whom does a representative represent?

The above questions have been variously answered by scho-

The representative is elected on the ground of a general

The representative is not under normal conditions, an agent

Thus, Mclver puts emphasis on common causes instead of

Great philosopher and English parliamentarian of the 18th

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different

poses, not local prejudices ought to guide but general

Almost the same views emphasising national interests over the

After a gentleman is chosen, he is the representative, or if

Thus, both Burke and Young do emphasize equally on personal

governmental affairs. But in the parliamentary system wh

The act of voting seems to be expressing what the elector

With the development of democratic polity and representa-

and convictions that were emphasized by Burke and Young in

Thus, many things have been told in support of the party's

Citizens in modern democratic governments are commonly

The theoretical questions regarding 'who* and cwhať of

Democracies all over the world adopt electoral methods

rity' to Proportion Representation or PR systems in gener

Electoral system is an entity by itself and also a part of

Anyway we cannot abide by such meaningless systems which

The present part is concerned with examining popular electo-

First- Past- the-Post System

(i Single Member Constituency - Simple Majority System)

Old democracies of Great Britain, USA, a new one in India

certain number of electors - each elector empowered commonly

To examine the practice of the 'first-past-the-posť system,

'First-past-the-posť system results hopelessly in dispropor-

G. F. Strong appears correct in his conclusion in both the

Results of General Elections for the House of Commons in

General Elections- 1945 General Elections-1964;

1. Labour 12 millions 392 12 millions 317

2. Conserva- 8.5 „ 189 12 „ 303

Figures in the above table(l) show that

Obviously, it was a disproportional rep

expressed their views, ideas, and their choices in favour of som

This very fundamental problem of disproportional represen-

In both the cases of the Great Britain and India following

(a) The number of votes polled and the number of seats

(b) A very good part with sizeable number of the votes

(c) Majority representation with the support of minority

(d) ťThe-first-past-the post' or 'single member-simple majo-

the representative houses in its complete form even if a

Moreover, there is nothing like only one view at the national

Numerical support and its mathematical exactness is not the

By 'minority', here in this context, we mean political

It may be assumed that more than 60% of the Indian

and a-political concerns, especially in vast rural areas. Thus

Conclusively, 'first-past- the-posť system has resulted in

3. Unidentified Interests are Represented :

Electorate, under the present system, are atomised indivi-

In the modern complicated society interests, views, ideas

principle of the 'first-past-the-posť system will also remain