Indian population as of 2009 is 1,155,347,700
We have 543 elected representatives in our Loksabha. That comes to 21,27,712.
In 2011, it would have been even more bigger.
At the time of adopting our constitution in 1950 our population was 369,880,000. At that time, every Member of Parliament represented 6,81,178 persons. That is around 7 lakh Indians per a member of Parliament.
Even that number is quite high for any degree of representation. No representative, who represents 7 lakh people could in his entire life meet 7 lakh people, let alone in his short career as a MP. If he or she meets 100 people everyday, it would be 18 years to complete the entire constituency. And by that time, the population would have probably doubled. Which it has as we saw at the beginning of this article. Why did this happen? Or more pertinently how did our parliamentarians let this happen?
A member of parliament representing 22 lakh people is a mockery of our democracy. Any democracy, or any notion of democracy.
In most cases, the candidate standing for election, cannot even canvass the entire constituency asking for votes. That is why the need for icons- people who are already very well known to people by their daytime job or career which often happens to be a media personality. If not the local politician has to resort to the help of a media icon or Icons to make himself (well mostly it is a he, isn't it? ) even known to the people.
One will hear an excuse at this point from people who 'know' Indian politics so well, that they rarely bother to go vote in elections. Yes, the arm chair critics as well as many columnists in popular journals. They will readily proffer an excuse, that people in India rarely vote for their local representatives and instead vote for the 'party' of the representative or an ideology. Their explanation amounts to admitting that only a few leaders of the party call all the shots and the idea of representation is mostly a sham. They won't even begin to think of an alternative.
The very notion of representative democracy, which even at the outset, and at its best is only a limited democracy, is being made a mockery by such arguments or positions our elite commenators make. In essence it means that a constituency's needs are rarely heard by a representative nor represented by them at the parliament nor ever attended to or remedied. Instead a representative has some idea of the need of a constituency that they themselves have or from the interaction with a few people with whom they interact and that is at best what gets attended to. These are people who can be truly called vested interests.
Not the people, but some among them who know how to ingratiate themselves to sources of power.
No other modern demoracy has this impractical, nonsensical and lopsided electorate vs representative figure. Even communist China has 2987 members for its national people's congress. That counts to one representative for 5 lakh people. If you noticed, it comes close to the figure that a M.P of the first parliament of Independent India's represented.
Germany has population of 81,799,600. It has 622 representatives in Bundestag. It amounts to 1.3 lakh people per representative.
Why on earth we have this phenomenal 21 lakh people for a representative?
To be on par with at least the representation that is achieved by the Chinese National people's assembly, a darling of our entire leftists and 'progressive' columnists, we need 2346 members of parliament in the Loksabha.
To be on par with the German Bundestag kind of representation, we need 8785 members of parliament in our Loksabha.
Even if we want to have the same kind of representation that we had at the time of writing our constitution, 1950, we need to have 1696 members of Parliament in our Loksabha.
I think most of the ills of democracy stems from this lopsided people vs representative figure. We have very few number to operate, do deals and to arrive at a working majority for any political party. If we had 8785 members of parliament, we certainly would not have to go for a new election just because one member of parliament switched sides.
Checking corruption cases against an MP is a big thing. Because he represents 22 lakh people. And losing his single vote means deathkneal for the entire government in some historical cases.
With this kind of people vs representative numbers, it is only a dream to have a grass roots democracy. The people's voice can never come up from the grassroots. The candidates have to be certified by the big men of our existing system to get elected. This essentially kills the grass roots democracy. We need members of parliament who can actually meet the people, get their opinion and represent in the parliament.
Now with this figure, imagine if he can really listen to the people he claim to represent or at least talk to 10 percent of the people his own constituency. If at all he represent anything, it would be to his donors for his election.
If we have 2 lakh people for a constituency, the candidate would have at least 1 lakh voters. Meeting one lakh voters over a period of 2 months is a possible thing. If he or she meet 50 households everyday that would be 2000 voters each day, he can interact with at least 12000 voters in two months time(usual canvassing time for the elections). That would mean he met only 12 percent of the voters. But that would be a phenomenal improvement compared to .02 percent of the voters in 22 lakh voter constituency.
We need a grass roots democracy.
To achive that, we need a practical, more sensible people vs representative ratio. Let us try and achieve at least a ratio of one representative for 2 lakh people in Indian Parliament. That may be a somewhat better representative democracy.
A member of parliament representing 22 lakh people is a mockery of our democracy. Any democracy, or any notion of democracy.
In most cases, the candidate standing for election, cannot even canvass the entire constituency asking for votes. That is why the need for icons- people who are already very well known to people by their daytime job or career which often happens to be a media personality. If not the local politician has to resort to the help of a media icon or Icons to make himself (well mostly it is a he, isn't it? ) even known to the people.
One will hear an excuse at this point from people who 'know' Indian politics so well, that they rarely bother to go vote in elections. Yes, the arm chair critics as well as many columnists in popular journals. They will readily proffer an excuse, that people in India rarely vote for their local representatives and instead vote for the 'party' of the representative or an ideology. Their explanation amounts to admitting that only a few leaders of the party call all the shots and the idea of representation is mostly a sham. They won't even begin to think of an alternative.
The very notion of representative democracy, which even at the outset, and at its best is only a limited democracy, is being made a mockery by such arguments or positions our elite commenators make. In essence it means that a constituency's needs are rarely heard by a representative nor represented by them at the parliament nor ever attended to or remedied. Instead a representative has some idea of the need of a constituency that they themselves have or from the interaction with a few people with whom they interact and that is at best what gets attended to. These are people who can be truly called vested interests.
Not the people, but some among them who know how to ingratiate themselves to sources of power.
No other modern demoracy has this impractical, nonsensical and lopsided electorate vs representative figure. Even communist China has 2987 members for its national people's congress. That counts to one representative for 5 lakh people. If you noticed, it comes close to the figure that a M.P of the first parliament of Independent India's represented.
Germany has population of 81,799,600. It has 622 representatives in Bundestag. It amounts to 1.3 lakh people per representative.
Why on earth we have this phenomenal 21 lakh people for a representative?
To be on par with at least the representation that is achieved by the Chinese National people's assembly, a darling of our entire leftists and 'progressive' columnists, we need 2346 members of parliament in the Loksabha.
To be on par with the German Bundestag kind of representation, we need 8785 members of parliament in our Loksabha.
Even if we want to have the same kind of representation that we had at the time of writing our constitution, 1950, we need to have 1696 members of Parliament in our Loksabha.
I think most of the ills of democracy stems from this lopsided people vs representative figure. We have very few number to operate, do deals and to arrive at a working majority for any political party. If we had 8785 members of parliament, we certainly would not have to go for a new election just because one member of parliament switched sides.
Checking corruption cases against an MP is a big thing. Because he represents 22 lakh people. And losing his single vote means deathkneal for the entire government in some historical cases.
With this kind of people vs representative numbers, it is only a dream to have a grass roots democracy. The people's voice can never come up from the grassroots. The candidates have to be certified by the big men of our existing system to get elected. This essentially kills the grass roots democracy. We need members of parliament who can actually meet the people, get their opinion and represent in the parliament.
Now with this figure, imagine if he can really listen to the people he claim to represent or at least talk to 10 percent of the people his own constituency. If at all he represent anything, it would be to his donors for his election.
If we have 2 lakh people for a constituency, the candidate would have at least 1 lakh voters. Meeting one lakh voters over a period of 2 months is a possible thing. If he or she meet 50 households everyday that would be 2000 voters each day, he can interact with at least 12000 voters in two months time(usual canvassing time for the elections). That would mean he met only 12 percent of the voters. But that would be a phenomenal improvement compared to .02 percent of the voters in 22 lakh voter constituency.
We need a grass roots democracy.
To achive that, we need a practical, more sensible people vs representative ratio. Let us try and achieve at least a ratio of one representative for 2 lakh people in Indian Parliament. That may be a somewhat better representative democracy.
