The delimitation dilemma: Democratic status may see further slide in India

There are no easy solutions to the conundrum. The US system favours small Alaska over Texas. The former has a fraction of Texas's population, but both have the same number of Senators

India’s status as a democracy has deteriorated over the last 12 years, according to many independent political scientists. Political scientists call India a “Hybrid Regime,” which means it is neither a full democracy nor a complete autocracy.

 

India ranks low in three commonly cited global democracy indices. It is categorised as a “Flawed Democracy” in the Economist Democracy Index. It is “Partly Free,” according to the Freedom House ratings, and an “Electoral Autocracy” in the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. 

 

India’s democratic status may soon be further downgraded. This is due to a couple of recent developments in its electoral structure and processes. Newly independent India had opted for universal franchise, abandoning the colonial practice where few Indians had the vote, with eligibility set according to property ownership, income and literacy. Given heterogeneous demographics, and poor Human Development Indicators, such as low literacy and vast poverty, nobody knew how universal franchise would work. But it did.

 

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has now removed a large chunk of voters, with well over 10 per cent of names struck off the rolls in several states. There are accusations the SIR deletions have been selective, with disproportionately high numbers of minority voters being removed. The appeals process is long and painful and regaining the constitutional right to vote will be an arduous process for tens of millions. Thus, one could argue, India no longer has universal franchise.  Since the current round of Assembly elections will be conducted with these truncated electorates, it will be hard to call them free and fair.

 

The other change is delimitation. This is being bulldozed through supposedly on the basis of the 2011 Census. The 2021 Census was not held due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The purpose of delimitation is to adjust representation as population changes. Most constituencies should have roughly equal numbers of voters (areas with low population densities like Ladakh get special dispensations). 

 

If delimitation is actually done based on the 2011 Census, it would reduce the political influence of the South. Taken together, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Kerala and Karnataka have 130 Lok Sabha seats, which is just under 24 per cent of the current Lower House. By the 2011 Census, the Southern states would get about 166 seats in a new Lower House of about 850 seats — their representation would drop under 20 per cent. After protests by Southern politicians, the home minister has said all states will get a 50 per cent bump, instead of using the 2011 Census data.  In that case, the Southern states will get 195 seats and retain their ratios of representation.

 

What is the point of doing this in a hurry, especially if it isn’t even done on the basis of population change? One issue could be gerrymandering — the redrawing of constituencies to favour specific parties.

 

For example, a Lok Sabha (LS) seat may include seven Assembly segments. Four of these segments may favour a given “ABC” party, which stands to win the seat. The adjoining LS seat may also have four Assembly segments that favour ABC party. So ABC stands to win both seats. But suppose delimitation redraws the seats and combines five of those Assembly segments in a single LS seat? Now, ABC wins eight of 14 Assembly segments but it wins only one seat. An Election Commission captured by a given party might do this in delimitation.

 

A second issue with delimitation on the basis of population is that it punishes states that have improved their Human Development Indicators. The South has lower fertility ratios, which correlates to lower infant mortality, higher literacy, and higher per capita. Hence, it stands to lose out to the Bimaru Northern states, which have larger populations. This seems unfair.

 

But there are no easy solutions to such conundrums — the United States system for instance, heavily favours tiny Alaska (with a population of 750,000) which has two Senators over Texas (32 million), which also has two Senators.

 

A ray of hope for democracy may come from Hungary. For 16 years, Viktor Orban ran an electoral autocracy. He captured and controlled every public institution and changed the constitution to favour his party. But the Opposition party, led by Peter Magyar, recently won in a landslide. Ordinary Hungarians turned out in record numbers to oust Mr Orban. Flawed democracies and electoral autocracies can change for the better. Of course, they can also change for the worse.