What Gandhiji said about elections
By K. R. N. Swamy

THE famous French savant Romain Rolland remarked in the 1920s, "Gandhi’s coming to Indian politics marks the beginning of a period characterised by new methods, new values and new attitudes towards life. Until then western values dominated Indian politics". But more than 50 years after Indian Independence, in September 1997, the world watched with horror and shock on the television, the gang warfare let loose in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly Hall by Indian parliamentarians. In view of the scheduled Indian General Election in September ‘99, it is pertinent to think of the Mahatma’s views on democracy and its various apparatus like adult franchise, voting age, parliamentary system of government and ministerial remunerations.

The following were the defects he noticed in the western form of parliamentary government. The first handicap was the fickleness of the voters, who may not ensure that they are sending to the Parliament, persons of character and would instead send persons who will only reflect their views. Secondly, he felt that the so called party discipline so strictly endorsed in the legislatures did not contribute to correct decisions based on moral values. The third bane was the newspapers, which had almost become a Bible for voters and twisted the truth as required by the candidate in whose employ the newspaper was. These factors, he felt, prevented the parliamentary system from proving beneficial to any country, least of all to India.

At the same time he realised that rule of a representative institution like the Parliament was unavoidable at an intermediate stage. Much of the evil, the Mahatma felt, could be avoided if the sole emphasis was only on moral leadership. He felt that a candidate for election should be motivated only by the love of social service and should not derive any benefit out of elected office. Even when such payment had to be made he felt that the salary should not be disproportionate to the national income. He had once commented, "If a man is satisfied in ordinary life with an income of Rs 25 per month he has no right to expect Rs 250 on becoming a minister or holding any other office under the government!".

Franchise, he felt, should not be based on sex or property and should be available to all citizens. For India, plagued as it is with different communities, he did not object to proportional representation. In 1931, he observed, "wherever possible, electorate circles shall be so determined as to enable every community to secure its proportionate share in the legislature". Further, for Indian conditions, the Mahatma felt that literacy alone cannot improve the effectiveness of voters. He said: "With my long-standing experience, the ryots (common man) need not be literate to appreciate their rights and duties" Instead of literacy, he felt that manual labour as a qualification of any voter was essential for Indian conditions, as according to him, manual labour voluntarily underaken was a training in moral discipline.

When it came to the age limit for voters, he proposed that any adult between 18 and 50 should have voting rights. Senior citizens like himself should have no voice in the running of the country. The Mahatma’s age limit for voters was based upon the Hindu way of life, which divided all human existence into four ashrams or stages of life, each with a span of 25 years. Since the Mahatma was thinking of political authority as a social duty, there was no problem in a man abandoning all political offices, side by side with family attachments.

As regards the mode of elections, he was in favour of indirect election to the state legislatures and national parliament, instead of the mass adult franchise as now. In his ideal India, the villages (5,00,000 of these basic units) would each elect its representative and these representatives would form the electoral college, choosing members of state legislatures and its federal Parliament. Explaining his system, he affirmed that this method of voting for an electoral college with small constituencies made it possible to reduce the election expenses and to ensure that all the voters would know the moral status of their representatives, invariably a local man. In his scheme of things, this decentralisation of political power to its ultimate unit was very essential. As the head of the village the sarpanch would constitute the elected representative of the village for the national electoral college.

As regards the qualities essential for a candidate, the Mahatma was very explicit. In his words, "A man of character will make himself worthy of any position given to him. I consider it impossible for a man without character to do any higher national service". He was also definite about the duties of an electorate and even advised them not to vote, if they found that the candidate was not a man of character." He felt that intelligent abstention had its own effect. Electors having failed to find a proper candidate would take steps to find a suitable man and elect him and in so doing they would raise their own stature.

He advised the voters to give their vote to the best man no matter to what party he belonged. He also held that the elected representative could not be bound down absolutely by the conditions imposed by the electorate and should be able to represent the general political view of the constituency.

As regards the unavoidable results of elections, mainly the majority and minority, the Mahatma felt that this should not present any problems. He declared that it was the duty of the majority to make the minority understand the problem by persuasion. "At the same time he thought it the duty of the minority to accept the majority decision, if it did not upset moral values. When there is no principle involved and there is a programme to be carried out, the minority will have to follow the majority".