Democratic ethics and electoral practices: Indian contradictions

At the time of independence, we chose to have parliamentary form of democracy. Through all the adversities and complexities it has survived and evolved into a ‘competent’ democracy. As per the definition of democracy given by Abraham Lincoln “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”, which means if democracy is meant to be government of the people-it was to be ‘elected’; but does the spirit of democracy permit a right to reject within the purview of right to elect? The idea is subject to discussion. If our answer is in affirmative then it comes with a big question mark that why we need it at this stage of our political development. Even after 65 years of successful tests of public will, producing governments by consent, when we start talking about a ‘right to reject’ to ensure that we only have competent people as political contenders from whom we must choose, doesn't that negate the ‘success’ of democracy itself? It suggests a failure of representative government, which functions through political parties and is based on popular mandate. If we need to have a say about the kind of people fielded in an electoral battle, be it in the long term or in contemporary relevance, much of the reforms have to proceed through political parties and not through the Election Commission. This is because the power of the Election Commission ceases as soon as the elections are over but the political parties, once elected, hold and exercise state power. In an era when electoral politics has evolved to assume a form of coalition government, it suggests a failure of majority mandate. Besides, with the lack of inner party democracy and public participation, party mechanism presents elements of growing nepotism. Accordingly, the paper would be arguing that political reform must precede and form the basis of electoral reform.