Elections in Democracy, June 18, 2014.

Foundation for Better Government

June 18, 2014

Elections in Democracy

By T.S. Khanna, June 18,2014

The purpose of elections in democracy was (a) to create competition for progressive political ideas and enable the voters to elect the best candidates, and, (b) to provide legitimacy to the public officials placed in power.

However the reality is different:

1. The prevailing practices do not compete in ideas or plans for improving the lot of the people.  Potential candidates most suited for public positions shy away from elections.  Knowledgeable persons with sound character, integrity, and self-respect prefer not to participate in elections.

Such prevailing practices have emerged for several reasons; (a) Voters do not have the aptitude, interest, or the time to study and understand the political issues and make judgment on competing ideas, if offered, (b) Facilitated by freedom of speech, voters are professionally manipulated by exploiting their ignorance and gullibility through skillful art of demagoguery, (c) Thick-skinned candidates are maligned by the opponents by false propaganda and mudslinging during elections, (d) The candidates’ qualifications and true potential for public service is seldom emphasized.  The candidates are judged by the voters only for their speaking ability/oratory.  The fluency in language and metaphorical cadences tend to intoxicate the gullible voters in favor of the better orator, regardless of the quality of the content of the speech, and, (e)In every society, the intelligent and the enlightened who can advance the interests of the society are much fewer than the rest.  With equal voting right for everyone, the enlightened few, with the greatest potential for public service, stand little chance of being installed in public positions through elections.  Thus the current practices in elections prevent the most suited persons from public positions.

This is a great loss of resources in democracy.

2. Corruption in democratic systems is rooted in elections.  Elected public officials serve only the interests of those who support them in election.  After a few elections, the support groups of opposing candidates crystallize and the rest of the constituents are ignored.  It becomes the government of all the people, by some of the people, for some of the people.
3. At election time, diverse interests are emphatically identified and vocalized.  The effect lasts much beyond the elections.  At every successive election, political cleavages among diverse interests keep sharpening, deepening, and hardening, splitting the society and weakening the nation.
4. In the absence of well defined parameters for national interests or national goals, during elections, opposing political parties define and fanatically pursue their respective interests at the cost of national interests.
5. For the sake of party loyalty, a large number of voters do not exercise independent judgment at elections.  This runs counter to the democratic spirit that assigns every voter the responsibility to act “part ruler”.
6. At every election, a new set of false promises and false hopes are given to people to manipulating them into voting in a new set of incompetent and corrupt public officials (barring some exceptions).  There is no accountability for the false promises made at elections.  Elected officials escape the blame by placing it on the opponents.  People chase the mirage of hope after every election and get disillusioned by the next election. 

The repeated cycles of hope and disillusionment start shaking the public faith in government, weakening the legitimacy and stability of government.  A vast majority of people prefer to have food for family, security, and home rather than their vote in the ballot box that works against them.

7. A huge public expense is incurred at every election causing and hardening divide among diverse groups.  The same public funds if diverted to some constructive projects could generate considerable national wealth for public benefit.

The preceding discussion indicates that the elections do not promote competitive political ideas by merit, and they are also losing their value of providing legitimacy and stability to government.  

If democratic government is to thrive, it must focus on developing governmental organization that may be free of corruption, efficient and accurate in responses to new challenges with well defined tangible goals.  No organization can be better than the staff that works for it.  From the preceding discussion, it is clear that the current system of picking and installing persons in public positions through elections prevents the most suitable persons from entering into the public positions.

It is recommended that democratic governments may consider replacing elections by a selection method that may guarantee the installation of the best available persons in government to choose and achieve its goals.  The selection method would essentially include (a) establishing and adopting requisites for each public position, along with Do’s and Don’ts of the position, (b) encouraging all persons who meet or exceed the requisites to apply for the position, (c) place their names in a rotor and select the final name by drawing luck of the lot.