The Indian General Elections 2009 are in full swing. Political parties have fielded their best strategists to embrace as many political parties as possible to formulate the strongest of the coalitions. Amidst the frenzy of pre-poll alliances, ideologies of Political parties are seen to be lacking. And if you don't have the numbers to form the Government on the 16th of May, 2009, deal makers can start hunting again to forge post-poll alliances. The question is how much of electoral choice gets represented in the final government?
Maurice Duverger, the French sociologist made three distinct observations about the relationship between the electoral system & the ensuing characterisation of that system. He stated that
1. a majority vote on one ballot is conducive to a two-party system.
2. proportional representation is conducive to a multiparty system.
3. a majority vote on two ballots is conducive to a multiparty system, inclined toward forming coalitions.
The essence of Duverger's laws barring the second statement above aimed at explaining the phenomenon of under-representation in a democracy with a plurality voting system. This under-representation can be understood through a simple example. Consider three political parties A, B & C where A's & B's ideology match while C differs in ideology. Assuming the total percentage of votes garnered by A & B is 30% each of the total votes while C garners the remaining 40%. In the "simple-plurality" or "the first past the post" voting system, the winner in this case would be C. Here, even if the electorate choice is A's & B's ideology, due to a division of votes between the two, the party C whose ideology is less preferred goes on to form the government thus leading to a gross under-representation of the electorate. If this occurs in a democracy with a single balloting, then in the subsequent elections the smaller of the two parties, A or B, would either merge into the bigger party or just wither away leaving two major parties to contest the elections. (This is the first law) If the democracy has a two-balloting system, then during the second phase of balloting, the two parties A & B would be inclined to form a coalition. (This is the third law)
Now, with Duverger's observations having been proved time & again through the functioning of democracies around the World, the trend of Coalition politics in India requires probably an amendment to Duverger's observations. While Duverger's observations mention coalitions & alliances, it concentrates more on the pre-poll rather than post-poll alliances. While Duverger's concern was under-representation, an Indian voter today should be more concerned about post-poll alliances & "mis-representation".
The Indian political scene is in a state of disarray with the formation of multiple coalitions & the prospects of a hung parliament looming large. While a few years back it was argued that Indian democracy was once again proving Duverger's first law right, with its single balloting & moving toward a two-bloc system (not necessarily a two-party system) through two major coalitions the UPA & the NDA, these observations can be quashed with multiple coalitions already announced before the 2009 elections. While these pre-poll alliances can be justified, how does one justify a post-poll alliance? When a Political party goes out on a campaign seeking votes based on a certain agenda, isn't it imperative that they stick to that agenda if they are voted to power. Do post-poll alliances ensure that the agenda & promises made to the electorate is retained? How does a voter who goes to the election to vote for a coalition (not necessarily a political party in the current scene) assure himself that this coalition would stay with neither addition nor disintegration after the elections? Today, if one goes out and votes for the BJD or the projected RJD, LJP, SP alliance or the new alliances in the South between AIADMK-PMK, none of which are in a position to form a Government in New Delhi on their own; how does one decide where they would go post elections? Obviously, these parties & coalitions have to align themselves to either the Party or Coalition in power or towards the Opposition. The Power of the electorate ends with the Voting while the System provides the political parties the leverage to align themselves wherever they wish to. Isn't it "un-democratic" to expect the electorate to vote with no information provided on the party's final stance in Parliament?
If a voter votes for a Party or Coalition with a certain ideology propagated pre-poll, there is no guarantee that the ideology is retained post-poll. This can lead to nothing but huge "Mis-representation" of electoral choice in the final Government. Bring about an amendment to the Constitution which makes this dirty opportunism unlawful. Catch a Coalition, Party or an Individual in the Political scene standing up for that.
