Blog

Author: sachin nandha, trustee and director In the vibrant tapestry of India’s democracy, elections are the most vivid threads, woven with the hopes, aspirations, and voices of over a billion people. Yet, beneath the colorful surface lies a complex and often troubling reality. As we journey through the electoral landscape of India, we uncover the stark truths about the money spent on elections, the manipulation of religious and caste identities, the dismal engagement of women, and the overwhelming power concentrated in the hands of a few. The Price of Power: Money in Elections India’s elections are among the most expensive in the world. In the 2019 general elections, political parties spent an astounding $8.5 billion (₹60,000 crore), a figure that surpasses the GDP of several small countries. This expenditure dwarfs the amounts spent in other democracies. For comparison, the 2019 general election in the UK saw political parties spend approximately £113 million ($150 million). In Japan, the expenditure for the 2017 general election was around ¥67.1 billion ($650 million). These figures highlight the enormous financial scale of Indian elections, raising crucial questions about the integrity and inclusivity of the democratic process. In rural villages, the situation is even more alarming. Reports indicate that voters are often paid anywhere from ₹500 to ₹2000 (£5 to £20) for their votes, a practice that blatantly undermines the principles of democracy. This monetisation of votes not only corrupts the electoral process but also perpetuates a cycle of poverty and dependency. As a farmer from Uttar Pradesh candidly put it, “During elections, politicians come with money. But after they win, they disappear.” A controversy raged over how political parties raised the enormous amounts of money to fight the general elections in 2024. Dividing the Vote : Religion and Caste Religion and caste have long been potent forces in Indian politics. Politicians craftily exploit these identities to create loyal voter blocks. The use of religion in politics is not a new phenomenon, but its recent intensification is worrisome. Political parties often align themselves with religious groups, promising to protect their interests in exchange for votes. This not only polarises society but also distracts from pressing issues like education, healthcare, and employment. For instance, during the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) tenure under Sonia Gandhi’s leadership, there were several instances where religion was used to consolidate votes. The promotion of certain welfare schemes targeted specifically at minority communities was perceived by many as an attempt to secure a solid vote bank. Programs like the Sachar Committee Report and the 15-Point Program for minorities were seen as steps to win over Muslim voters, even as critics argued that these initiatives could exacerbate communal divides. Similarly, caste continues to be a critical factor in Indian elections. Despite legal safeguards, caste-based discrimination and violence persist. Politicians exploit these divisions, promising benefits to certain castes in return for their support. During the same UPA tenure, the Congress party often employed caste dynamics to its advantage. For example, in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the party made concerted efforts to appeal to Dalits and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) by promising reservations and other benefits, further entrenching caste loyalties. This cynical manipulation perpetuates caste hierarchies and hinders social progress. As a Dalit activist from Tamil Nadu remarked, “Caste is the curse of Indian politics. It’s the invisible hand that controls our votes.” The Gender Gap: Lack of Women Engagement Women, who constitute nearly half of India’s population, remain significantly underrepresented in politics. In the 2019 elections, only 14.3% of the candidates were women. This gender gap is starkly evident in the Lok Sabha, where women hold just 78 of the 543 seats. Why Are There So Few Women in Parliament? The reasons for the low representation of women in Indian politics are multifaceted. Societal norms and cultural barriers often discourage women from entering politics. Family responsibilities, societal expectations, and a lack of financial resources further hinder their political participation. According to a study by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), women candidates face significant challenges, including gender bias, threat of violence, and inadequate party support. Consequently, women’s issues, from maternal health to gender-based violence, often receive inadequate attention and are frequently side-lined in the political discourse. Violence against women remains a severe issue. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), 371,503 cases of crimes against women were reported in 2020, an increase from previous years. This includes cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, and dowry-related violence. Shockingly, 87 rape cases are reported daily in India, highlighting the grim reality that women face across the country. Art to empower women. But India has a long way to go on gender related equality. The lack of education and awareness around women’s health is another significant issue. In rural India, maternal mortality rates remain alarmingly high. According to a report by the Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) is 113 per 100,000 live births as of 2017-2019, with higher rates in rural areas. Women in rural regions often lack access to quality healthcare and education, exacerbating health issues and mortality rates. Education for girls also lags behind, with UNESCO reporting that 40% of adolescent girls aged 15-18 years are not attending school in India. This lack of meaningful education severely limits opportunities for women and perpetuates cycles of poverty and dependency. Power and Representation: The MP’s Dilemma In India, Members of Parliament (MPs) wield significant power. With constituencies averaging 2 million people, an MP’s role is both critical and challenging. This vast number makes genuine representation difficult, often resulting in a disconnect between MPs and their constituents. A citizen’s access to Justice Justice in India is expensive, time-consuming, and often inaccessible to the common man. Enforcing contracts or criminal law can be slow and cumbersome, with cases often dragging on for years. The World Bank’s “Doing Business” report ranks India 163rd out of 190 countries in contract enforcement, highlighting the inefficiency of the judicial system. The

Author: Pravar Petkar, Head of Strengthening Democracy Desk The 2024 General Election in the UK has brought an end to 14 years of Conservative government, ushering in a Labour regime with a landslide election victory. Of the 650 seats in the UK Parliament, the Labour Party has won 412, with the Conservatives on 121, and the Liberal Democrats on 71, on a turnout of 60%.[i] This represents the largest majority in the UK Parliament since the New Labour victory in 1997. However, the result has troubling implications both for the UK’s First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) electoral system and the prospects for reform, and will also shape the legitimacy of the new government’s major policy and constitutional reform proposals. FPTP and the 2024 General Election Results Under FPTP in the UK, Members of Parliament are elected in 650 single-member constituencies across the country. These are winner-takes-all contests: the candidate with the most votes will win the seat, even if they fall short of an overall majority. In the 2024 General Election, this has produced the following results: Party Seats Seat Share Votes Vote Share Votes per Seat Labour 412 63.4% 9,804,655 33.7% 23,798 Conservatives 121 18.6% 6,827,311 23.7% 56,424 Liberal Democrats 72 11.1% 3,519,199 12.2% 48,878 Scottish National Party (SNP) 9 1.4% 724,758 2.5% 80,529 Sinn Fein 7 1.1% 210,891 0.7% 30,127 Independent 6 0.9% 564,243 2.0% 94,041 Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) 5 0.8% 172,058 0.6% 34,412 Reform UK 5 0.8% 4,117,221 14.3% 823,444 Green Parties 4 0.6% 1,943,265 6.7% 485,816 Plaid Cymru 4 0.6% 194,811 0.7% 48,703 Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) 2 0.3% 86,861 0.3% 43,431 Alliance Party 1 0.2% 117,191 0.4% 117,191 Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) 1 0.2% 94,779 0.3% 94,779 Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) 1 0.2% 48,685 0.2% 48,685 Table 1: UK General Election Results 2024 The table above indicates some startling results. The total number of votes won by Labour is smaller than in the 2019 General Election by around half a million,[ii] yet this translated in 2024 to more than double the number of seats. Reform UK won the third-highest number of popular votes yet rank only joint seventh-highest (including the grouping of Independent MPs) in terms of seat share. Indeed, its vote share across the UK was higher than that of the Liberal Democrats, which won more than 14 times the number of seats. To gain any one seat, the Green Party needed over 20 times as many votes as Labour did for their respective seats, and Reform UK required almost 35 times as many votes. This indicates significant disparities in respect of the practical impact of individual votes under the current FPTP system in the UK. The data above verifies the pre-election predictions that this contest would produce one of the most disproportionate Parliaments in the history of the UK. FPTP has proven itself unsuitable to translating citizens’ preferences into legislative representation in what has become a genuine multi-party landscape. This reduces the extent to which the UK’s representative democratic system can be considered genuine popular self-government, the principle at the heart of modern democracy. Against this background, the case for reform is overwhelming. Alternatives to FPTP Amongst the alternatives, two forms of proportional representation emerge as potential candidates. The first is the nationwide system of proportional representation (PR) used in countries such as the Netherlands and Israel. Under this form of PR, the entire country acts as a ‘nationwide’ constituency, with seats in the legislature allocated in proportion to the number of votes cast for each party using either the d’Hondt or Saint-Lague formulas. Some such systems have a minimum overall threshold of votes which parties must reach to win a seat. This is designed to protect against the fragmentation of legislatures that would otherwise result from the representation of several small parties.[iii] However, a ‘nationwide’ constituency is not an appropriate hypothetical framework for any UK-wide election. Where the PR constituency is ‘nationwide’, all the political parties on the ballot paper must be nationwide political parties. This is because neither the d’Hondt nor the Saint-Lague systems for allocating seats are designed to differentiate between regional and national parties; this must instead be done when designing the constituencies for a PR system. The UK has several regional parties: the Scottish National Party only contests seats in Scotland, Plaid Cymru only contests seats in Wales, and Northern Ireland has its own political parties not found elsewhere in the UK (including Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party). Were the UK analysed as a ‘nationwide’ constituency using the d’Hondt formula and the number of votes actually cast for each party in the 2024 election, the following results might hypothetically be produced:[iv] Party Votes Vote Share Seats Seat Share Labour 9,804,655 33.7% 229 35.2% Conservatives 6,827,311 23.7% 159 24.5% Reform UK 4,117,221 14.3% 96 14.8% Liberal Democrats 3,519,199 12.2% 82 12.6% Green Parties 1,943,265 6.8% 45 6.9% SNP 724,758 2.5% 16 2.5% Sinn Fein 210,891 0.7% 4 0.6% Workers Party 210,194 0.7% 4 0.6% Plaid Cymru 194,811 0.7% 4 0.6% DUP 172,058 0.6% 4 0.6% Alliance Party 117,191 0.4% 2 0.3% UUP 94,779 0.3% 2 0.3% SDLP 86,861 0.3% 2 0.3% TUV 48,685 0.2% 1 0.2% Table 2: UK General Election Results 2024 – on ‘nationwide’ party list PR system With 326 seats required for an overall majority, a coalition would be required, with the most likely option being one between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Parties (356 seats) producing a narrow majority. This would amount to 54.7% of the total seats in the UK Parliament on 52.7% of the popular vote, thus producing a considerably more proportionate outcome. Because the ‘nationwide’ constituency requires, in practice, a certain threshold of votes in order to secure a single seat, it is unlikely that any Independent candidates would be elected. However, it is unwise to draw major conclusions from this analysis, because it treats the SNP, Plaid Cymru and all the Northern Irish parties as if they were national parties. Given this, a preferable hypothetical model

Author: Pravar Petkar, Head of Strengthening Democracy Desk The world’s largest democratic exercise has now concluded. The BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate and incumbent PM Narendra Modi is set for a third term in office. Yet the dynamics now are very different to those in 2014 and 2019: gone is the BJP’s overall majority; Modi instead must govern in a coalition with the BJP’s partners in the National Democratic Alliance, which collectively won 293 out of the 543 seats in India’s Lok Sabha (Lower House). The result shows India’s democracy is alive and kicking: to borrow Mark Twain’s phrase, reports of its death are greatly exaggerated. No democracy worth its salt can fail to have free and fair elections, with a peaceful transfer of power and the possibility that incumbents might be voted out. The results of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections show a democracy in action. From 2019, the BJP lost 63 seats (falling from 303 to 240), with the NDA as a whole dropping 60 seats. Conversely, the Indian National Congress (INC) almost doubled its vote share from 2019, rising from 52 seats to 99. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) of which the INC was part held only 91 seats in 2019, but the newly formed INDI Alliance (Indian National Development Inclusive Alliance), established before the campaign began, secured 234 seats in total. This represents a significant anti-incumbent swing, with around 642 million of the 970 million registered voters having turned out to vote (approximately 66%). This puts some perspective on allegations by the INC before the announcement of the results that the counting process was rigged in favour of the BJP. There is also little concrete evidence that Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) were manipulated, with the Supreme Court of India affirming the integrity of the process in April 2024. In fact, the celebration of the results by all the major parties only lends further credibility to India’s electoral arrangements. The results suggest that Indian democracy is shaped by a complex series of factors that cannot be reduced to the politics of religion. Some commentators have suggested that the BJP’s loss of seats demonstrates that economic issues will always trump the politics of religion. Whilst the BJP campaign did draw on religion – including an address by PM Modi in Rajasthan in which he claimed that under the INC, Muslims would have “the first right” over people’s wealth – both parties highlighted India’s current issues of youth unemployment. That said, the INC manifesto was headlined by a proposal for a nationwide socio-economic and caste census, and the promise of increased affirmative action for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Class (OBC) groups. As they have in previous elections, caste politics may have shaped the outcomes in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state. For many, the question is whether the politics of religion have run aground on the rocks of democracy: the answer is not yet clear. For most, the outcome of these elections is rather unexpected. It had been assumed across the world in the lead-up that the BJP would secure another overall majority. Amit Shah, the Home Minister from 2019 to 2024, had even suggested that the NDA was aiming for 400 Lok Sabha seats, a record majority. It is difficult to square the BJP’s downturn with the view – expressed by the INC, members of the international media and academic commentators – that India had simply ceased to be a democracy between 2014 and 2024 because the BJP was in power. As Rahul Verma of the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi puts it, “the assertion that the erosion of democratic values is the creation of one party and its recent electoral success is an untenable oversimplification.” This is neither to obscure nor deny the religious nationalism of the 2019 BJP Government, or the way in which a one-party government has led to the centralisation of political authority in India. However, judgments about the health of any country’s democracy must be made based on structural and long-term factors, and as Verma suggests, by reference to standards attuned to each country’s unique institutional and cultural features. A flourishing and sustainable democracy does not cease to be so simply because a different party comes into power, nor does democracy suddenly become re-awakened when authoritarian, populist or anti-democratic parties are voted out. There are nevertheless two structural challenges to Indian democracy which are currently worthy of attention. First, recent commentary by the ICfS has noted issues in the appointment process for the Election Commission of India (ECI): after the Supreme Court of India had mandated the Leader of the Opposition’s involvement in appointments, the BJP Government legislated to replace the Leader of the Opposition with a Cabinet Minister instead. The natural conclusion is that a watchdog that ought to be independent has been politicised. This has raised questions around whether the ECI’s application of the Model Code of Conduct – including a finding that PM Modi’s Rajasthan speech violated the code – was truly objective, as violation notices were issued to both the INC and BJP as parties, rather than to individual candidates. Maintaining India’s long-term democratic health requires the new NDA Government to reverse these changes and safeguard the ECI’s independence. Second, questions persist over whether India’s regulatory framework for tackling AI-generated misinformation is up to scratch. The 2024 Lok Sabha election campaign saw deepfakes of Bollywood actors criticising PM Modi , as well as fabricated videos of two deceased politicians in Tamil Nadu addressing today’s voters. Recent Government-issued advisory notes emphasise the obligations upon social media platforms and AI companies to be transparent about AI-generated content and remove anything unlawful. However, the broader regulatory scheme exposes platforms to criminal liability for unlawful speech where content is flagged by Government-approved fact-checkers as ‘false’. This raises free speech concerns that go the heart of whether Indian citizens can make decisions at the ballot box based on a wide range of perspectives. With the BJP Government having

 ‘Power’, said Marcus Aurelius, ‘is something that can only be exercised within oneself, upon ones own mind – not outside events. Realise this, and you will find strength’. [Meditations, Book VI, Ch. 8] It is a question that we seldom ask these days – what really is power; where is it found; and how can it be really exercised? Power is a multifaceted concept that extends beyond mere authority or control. It is an intricate web of influence, perception, and ability to effect change. Defining power involves understanding its sources, mechanisms, and limitations. According to political theorist Robert A. Dahl, power is the ability of one actor to make another actor do something they would not otherwise do (Dahl, 1957). To What Extent Are People in Positions of Power Actually in Power? Prime ministers, ministers of state, and CEOs of large companies are often perceived as the epitome of power. However, their ability to exercise this power is frequently constrained by various factors. For instance, political leaders like Narendra Modi, or our own Prime minister Rishi Sunak, operate within a democratic framework where their decisions are subject to parliamentary approval, party politics, and public opinion. CEOs, despite their significant influence within their corporations, must answer to boards of directors, shareholders, and regulatory bodies. The limitations on their power are numerous. In democracies, politicians must navigate a labyrinth of bureaucracy, legal constraints, and public accountability. This often results in a dilution of their power as they are forced to compromise and negotiate. Similarly, CEOs face market competition, regulatory environments, and internal company dynamics that can hinder their ability to implement changes unilaterally. The Performance of Power in Politics In democratic systems, politicians often find themselves wearing a metaphorical mask, performing an alter ego that aligns with public expectations and media portrayals. This performance of power, rather than the actual wielding of it, becomes crucial for maintaining their position. The notion that politicians must “act” power rather than be powerful is vividly illustrated in their public personas and campaign strategies. Narendra Modi, for example, has cultivated a strongman image, portraying himself as a decisive leader capable of transformative change. Rishi Sunak, with his polished public appearances and careful articulation, embodies the image of a competent and reliable leader. Even Keir Starmer presents himself as a principled and steady alternative to the current government. These public personas are meticulously crafted to resonate with voters and maintain their support. However, the performance often takes a toll on their true selves. The constant need to project power and confidence can lead to a disconnection from their authentic personalities, resulting in a deranged or altered character. This is not merely an act of deception but a necessity imposed by the nature of political life. Power in this sense can be deeply corrosive to the character of any politician, and takes a Herculean effort, and large portions of luck to maintain integrity, honesty, and vulnerability. Power and the Media: The Role of Communication Often in British democracy, to effectively wield power, politicians must often bypass traditional bureaucratic structures and communicate directly with the public. This is typically achieved through the media, which acts as a filter and amplifier of their messages. Only by engaging with the public can politicians hope to turn the cogs of power and initiate change. Liz Truss provides a poignant example of this phenomenon. Rory Stewart, a fellow politician, recounts an incident where Truss, uninterested in genuine policy development, demanded a hastily concocted seven-point plan for national parks. This plan, quickly handed to the BBC for publication, served more as a performative act of power than a substantive policy initiative (Stewart, 2023). Truss’s actions illustrate how the desire for power can eclipse the commitment to actual governance. The Realities of Power The case of Liz Truss is emblematic of a broader trend where the allure of power can overshadow its responsible exercise. The performative aspect of power is often prioritized over its substantive application. Politicians like Truss crave the appearance of decisiveness and control, even if it means neglecting the follow-through necessary for real change. In contrast, Rory Stewart himself represents a different approach to power. His dedication to detailed policy work and genuine change highlights the potential for power to be exercised responsibly and effectively. However, such an approach is increasingly rare in a political landscape dominated by media performance and public perception. Stewart, to-date, has failed as a politician in the United Kingdom precisely because he refuses to engage in the performative aspects of being a politician. So what? The nature of power is a complex interplay of influence, perception, and action. Those in positions of authority, whether in politics or business, are often constrained by external factors that limit their ability to exercise power fully. In democratic systems, the need to perform power complicates the genuine exercise of it, leading to a disconnection between public personas and true capabilities. Ultimately, the effectiveness of power hinges on the ability to engage directly with the public, leapfrogging bureaucratic inertia and leveraging media influence. As the cases of Modi, Sunak, Truss, and Stewart demonstrate, power is not just about holding a position but about the delicate dance of perception, communication, and action. This nuanced understanding of power reveals both its potential and its pitfalls, underscoring the importance of authenticity and responsibility in its exercise.

With India’s elections ongoing, questions have been raised about the independence of the Election Commission of India, the body responsible for administering them. Concerns about the Commission’s independence are not new, though there are small signs of progress. This year, the heat of summer in India is accompanied by the heat of its Lok Sabha elections. This is the lower house of the Indian parliament.  Whilst political party manifestos and public statements have been a hot topic, attention has also turned to the Election Commission of India (ECI), which is responsible for conducting fair and free elections. Recent changes to its appointment procedures and the resignation of two Election Commissioners in 2024 have led some to question its impartiality. India is not just the largest democracy in the world, but it is one of the most complex as well, given the linguistic, religious, regional and community aspirations involved.  Amidst this complexity, the Election Commission of India—an institution created under the Indian Constitution—plays a central role in superintending, directing and controlling elections in India. In addition to elections for Lok Sabha, the ECI is also responsible for elections to the Rajya Sabha (India’s Upper House), state legislatures, local councils, and even the offices of the President and the Vice-President of India. The commission consists of the Chief Election Commissioner (‘CEC’), who is the Chairperson of the Commission and is supported by several Election Commissioners (‘ECs’). There are also Regional Commissioners (at the state level), district magistrates designated as District Election Officers and even Booth Level Officers, showing the ECI operates all the way down to the most local level. The Indian Constitution sets out the broad functions and composition of the ECI, as well as the procedure for removing the CEC. However, until 2023, there was no framework in place for appointing Commission members, leaving the President to exercise powers of appointment on the advice of the council of ministers led by the Prime Minister. Questions around the ECI’s impartiality are not new. Historically, Councils of Ministers in the Indian Government from all parties have tended to advise the President on appointments based on their own political interests. Since the Constitution did not require multiple Commissioners, the ECI had only a single member (the CEC) until 1989. However, in October 1989 – just 10 days before General Elections were announced – the President, on the advice of PM Rajiv Gandhi’s government – appointed two new Commissioners. Gandhi’s party, the Indian National Congress, appeared to have caught wind of its ousting from government, wanted ‘their people’ in the ECI and so took the chance to limit the powers of the then CEC. When a new coalition government was formed under V.P. Singh in 1990, the President rescinded the earlier appointments, leaving only the CEC standing. When this was challenged in the Supreme Court of India, the Court found that the absence of rules relating to a multi-member Commission meant that the President retained discretion over appointments, exercised on the Government’s advice. A multi-member Commission was reintroduced in 1993. Another court challenge followed, amidst claims from the petitioner that this was intended to limit the powers of the then CEC T.N. Sheshan, renowned for being fearsomely strict though even-handed across parties. The challenge was dismissed, and the multi-member setup has remained in place since then. Despite this, neither the Court nor Parliament have made any attempt to change the appointment process, leaving it to the whims of politics. In 2023, the Supreme Court of India laid down the appointment procedure for the CEC and ECs. Appointments were now to be made by the President on the advice of a selection committee that included the Prime Minister (PM), Leader of Opposition in the Parliament (LOP), and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) – at least until Parliament formally legislated on the matter. This judicial creativity— resembling the system for judicial appointments or the appointment of the director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – has received mixed reactions. Some hailed the courts as guardians of democracy, whilst others criticised them for judicial overreach. Following this, the Indian Parliament enacted legislation setting out a revised appointment procedure. The first appointments of the ECs under the new scheme were made in March 2024, after two former ECs resigned from their posts citing ‘personal reasons’. This marked the first time in the history of India’s democracy that the Opposition had been involved in selecting ECs. However, the revised procedure – which replaces the CJI with a Cabinet Minister – has been criticised for being tilted in the Government’s favour. The Supreme Court must examine the validity of the revised procedure, although this remains valid until it does so. Whilst India appears to have taken its first small steps towards a more independent election watchdog, there are concerns the UK is starting to move in the opposite direction. The same legislation that introduced Voter ID in 2022 gave the Government the power to determine the strategy and policy direction of the Electoral Commission. This government interference was criticised by the chair of the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Reform Society and not-for-profit group Unlock Democracy. Safeguarding the independence of elections in the UK requires a swift turn back from this mis-step. Whilst commentators the world over will rightly scrutinise the independence of elections in this, the ‘year of elections’, the Indian Supreme Court provides a note of reassurance, and perhaps caution, stating “that the Republic [of India] has prided itself in conducting free and fair elections for the past 70 years, the credit wherefor can largely be attributed to the ECI and the trust reposed in it by the public. While rational scepticism of the status quo is desirable in a healthy democracy, this Court cannot allow the entire process of the underway General Elections to be called into question and upended on mere apprehension and speculation.” Co-written by Pravar Petkar and Nitish Rai Parwani.