TWO VERY DIFFERENT DEMOCRACIES

 

India and the United States of America are both democracies, the former being the largest and the latter the oldest, but they are vastly different from each other. We have a Westminster style Parliamentary system of government while the US has a Presidential system. Our people elect the members of the parliament and they in turn elect the Prime Minister, whereas in the US, the people elect the President and he selects his team of ministers after approval of a select committee of elected representatives. 

 

In India if a candidate like Smt. Indira Gandhi or Sri Narendra Modi is not on the ballot then the contest is between multiple parties or multiple coalition of parties. However, when a larger than life person is on the ballot the politics and the political discourse becomes more presidential and the vote is either for or against that person.

 

Americans still punch holes in their ballot papers to register their choice while we push buttons of the Electronic Voting Machine. Our system is more scientific, more advanced, and less prone to error. Historically the US has suffered electile dysfunction more than once, the Florida counts of George Bush and Al Gore Presidential election being the most noteworthy

 

Many differences

The US Presidential election is not really one election, but 51 separate elections, one for each of the states and the capital district. Each of these elections have their own rules - in some states the election is done entirely by mail and only in some states voters are required to show a photo identity to cast their ballot. India has three times the size of the electorate but all of them have a photo identity card. This makes our elections more organized. Our postal ballots are only for special categories like serving military personnel and diplomats posted overseas.

 

 

Another big difference is that our election is first past the post system. So, if there are multiple parties fighting it out and the most successful has even 33% votes, or in other words, 67% do not vote for him/her, he/she will still be declared the winner. The US system is 'winner takes all' system in which the candidate who gets the most votes in a state gets all the state's delegates in the Electoral College. This is that antiquated body which ultimately decides who becomes the US President. 

 

This concept is not only alien to us but unthinkable. Imagine if BJP wining 41 out of 80 seats in UP and opposition wining 39, all 80 seats of UP going to BJP! How can this be democratic? Our system respects the sanctity of every vote and the will of every electorate. If a tribal leader, not affiliated to any political party, is popular enough to win a parliamentary election, even he can take his rightful place in Indian parliament. One simply has to be an elected representative of majority of the voting constituency.

 

 

Different campaign strategy

This winner takes all process in the US means that the presidential candidates need not campaign in states which are traditionally and solidly behind their party, like New York and California for the Democratic candidate and Texas for the Republican candidate. Not only this, the opposition candidate too feels why waste time, money and energy in these states, they are not going to vote for our party anyway! So both the presidential candidates end up campaigning extensively in what is called 'swing states', those who keep changing their choices from election to election. All the time, money and effort are spent by both parties in wooing these states and these are the states, seven in number, which decide the winner of the presidential election.

 

This neglect of loyal state and avoidance of states loyal to the opposition is unthinkable in Indian politics. Our prime ministerial aspirants campaign in every state and try to reach virtually every constituency, irrespective of their past voting history because even if they can wrestle out 1 or 2 seats from an unlikely state, in the final countdown it is a huge bonus. Propagation of a party's ideology in a traditionally unfavourable state matters because the party may not win any seat but their voting percentage gradually increase with every election and in one election it eventually results in a surprise victory in an unlikely state! 

 

In the just concluded US elections in Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, which is a swing state, the two parties spent around $150 million on television advertisement in September and October. However, just across the river in New Jersey, which is a solidly Democratic state with far bigger population, no party bothered to campaign seriously and spent virtually negligible amount. 

 

Back home every state is closely fought irrespective of which party is in power in the state. Our electorate is wise enough to differentiate between issues of the state and issues of the nation and even when elections to the centre and the states are held together, they are known to vote differently depending on the issues.

 

Swing states

Swing states change from time to time. In early 2000s Ohio and Florida were swing states but today they are solidly Republican.  We also regularly see these swings; Gujarat was a Congress state 25 years ago, but now it is a BJP bastion. West Bengal was a communist state but now is governed by TMC. Rajasthan, M.P, H.P and Bihar keep swinging often.

 

In the US Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin were once the industrial heartland of the country manufacturing steel and cars. Globalization has hit them hard and now these factories are closed. So, this is called the Rust Belt and the once prosperous communities are angry and disillusioned. The Indian equivalence of rust belt is West Bengal and Jharkhand. Rich in natural resources, the factories and mines are long gone with similar anger and disillusionment among the masses.

 

Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona and Nevada are the other four swing states, which comprise the Sun Belt states of the US. They were traditional blue collared Republican but good weather, low taxes and low cost of living have attracted migration from prosperous neighbouring states and these migrants are white collared Democrats and so these states have a potential to swing. A different type of migration occurs in India where people from poorer states with fewer opportunities migrate to prosperous states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Delhi, thus gradually changing their voting pattern. This is healthy migration where the states with job opportunities attract young people who can work there and contribute to both their state's economy and that of the migrant’s home state, when they send money back home. Remittances form a large chunk of the economy of thr poor states to which these migrants originally belong.   

 

However, there is an unhelpful and unhealthy migration too very prevalent both in the US and in India and that is of illegal immigrants. In the US they are usually Hispanic, Asian and African and in India they are Rohingiya Muslims from Myanmar via Bangladesh. The liberal parties encourage this illegal migration as these migrants become their natural vote-bank. This sinister plan of providing legal documents of nationality to illegal immigrants is gradually changing the demography of our states situated along our international borders, and this is a very dangerous trend.

 

Democracies are messy and elections make them messier, but still this remains the best system of governance. Both in the US or in India, elections are a true celebration of democracy. But whereas in the US these celebrations are held once in 2 years, in India we have a State or a National election every few months. This disturbs governance of the country far too frequently and decision making comes to a standstill. This is unhelpful for good governance and makes the governance staccato. The Indian government is trying to amend the constitution and sees if we can hold all state and central government elections together once in 5 years or twice in 5 years. Changes in a democracy occur slowly, but we are hopeful.