The dangers of proportional representation in India
Sanjeev Sabhlok
Draft,20 September 2012
Become a Freedom Partner / Unleash India! / Join me on FacebookFreedom Team of India /
Breaking Free of Nehru / Join
the Facebook Group
for this book
to keep in touch with the progress of this manuscript
Please do not comment! And do not cite
This is a VERY preliminary draft. It is not yet ready for comment, but I’m putting it out, nevertheless, as I keep working on it as time permits.
Thanks for your patience.
Sanjeev
Contents
1.Life and liberty, and the purpose of democracy......
1.1Why this preliminary discussion is important......
1.2The two ultimate values......
1.3A government for the defence of our life and liberty......
1.4The most important feature of a republic: its constitution......
1.5Once we have a strong constitution we don’t need too many decisions......
1.5.1Ideal government: a Jinn......
1.6But there is no ideal government......
1.7Equality of voice in selection of government......
1.8Hence we need democracy......
1.9Democracy is a means for securing justice, not an end in itself......
1.10But no democracy automatically protects liberty......
1.11Tyranny of democracy: why utilitarianism is wrong and the USA Bill of Rights is right......
1.12The tyranny of democracy, and how we can protect liberty
1.13The tyranny of democracy: Massive debts for future generations
1.14Why do we care to subject ourselves to democracy (majority rule)?
1.15Electoral systems don’t protect liberty. The constitution, and the kind of people who goven, do
1.16All democracies tend to lead to socialist outcomes......
1.17Arrow’s impossibility theorem: The difficult of getting agreement......
2.So now we are ready to consider electoral systems......
2.1So what is the role of the legislature, and of government?......
2.2The purpose of electoral systems......
2.3What kind of people want to become representives?......
2.4Objectives of our electoral system......
2.5Speed in decision making is of the essence......
2.6A representative must represent the constituency......
2.7FPTP also leads to socialist tendencies, but PR’s tendencies are overwhelming......
2.8The gravest danger of PR: the Balkanisation of India......
3.Second order arguments aganst PR......
3.1PR leads to socialist tendencies
3.2PR representatives avoid meeting their constituents
3.3PR systems tend to lead to more political parties
3.4Instablity
3.5Strategic voting contrary to one's own preferences
3.6PR systems harden identities and can foster separatism
3.7There is no easy choice
3.8Disadvantages pointed out by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
4.Why India should keep the first past the post system......
4.1Cameron’s defence of FPTP in UK......
4.2Reforming our electoral system is better than replacing it......
4.3Stick with FIRST PAST THE POST, India!
4.4PR lowers barriers to entry into politics, and can help FTI
5.References......
The dangers of proportional representation in IndiaDraft, 20 September 2012 / 1
1.Life and liberty, and the purpose of democracy
The rebuttal of PR as a sensible electoral system needs to start at the very beginning: why do we have a government in the first place, and why do we care to have a democratic form of government?
1.1Why this preliminary discussion is important
This preliminary discussion is crucial for it shows wow one’s view about the state affects views about electoral systems.
I've prepared a simple diagram to illustrate how one's views about the state affects the kind of
I've prepared a simple diagram to illustrate how one's views about the state affects the kind of government we want, as well as the electoral system (in case we prefer democracy to monarchy).
[Click for larger image. The associated PPT)
You might be surprised to note that I have put Gandhi along with Hobbes and Chanakya, on the right extreme.
That is because he wanted self-governing villages. Hobbes's strong state defends us from each other (and invaders), but otherwise leaves us alone.
So also Gandhi's Ram Rajya needs a a strong king to defend borders, leaving the villages alone. A Ram is needed, a king who understands the Mahabharata's message. In Ramayana Ram is not a socialist maniac, and does not intervene unnecessarily; just assures justice.
Ram ran a tight ship; a minimalist state. He fought evil and was known as a man of great integrity. That is ALL that a king must do.
Democracy was NEVER Gandhi's ideal, Ram Rajya was.
Democracy was, instead, Nehru's ideal. Nehru came to it from well to the left of John Stuart Mill – through a Fabian socialist model. To him democracy was a tool for legitimising all-encompassing, maximalist state. The state would achieve commanding heights. In his democratic society, liberty would be lost entirely. We would become minions of the state.
Gandhi and Nehru were poles apart!
1.2The two ultimate values
There twoultimate values (elaborated in detail in chapter 2 of DOF) are life and liberty. Every social action or design must advance these two values, else we will be setting up society for failure.
1.3A government for the defence of our life and liberty
To protect these fundamental values, we create a social contract which includes a government.
1.4The most important feature of a republic: its constitution
As this cartoon illustrates:
(Source: Facebook. Perhaps the Independent Institute)
1.5Once we have a strong constitution we don’t need too many decisions
It is a myth that governments are important. Once a strong constitution is in place (and justice system), we can pretty much let any government operate. If the rules are sufficiently strong, no government can harm us.
1.5.1Ideal government: a Jinn
Statists and collectivists have a common characteristic. To them government and democracy are goals in themselves, things society must have for the sake of government and democracy.
The classical liberal believes that BOTH government and democracy are TOOLS, instruments to just one goal: our life and liberty.
If one could assure life and liberty by hiring Martians, so be it. We should do so. The goal of liberty is paramount. Nothing can come between that goal and us. Our instruments are not objects of worship. They don't count. Only the outcome: liberty, matters.
Statists, on the other hand, believe that we exist for the sake of the state, hence the nation/ government is the raison d'être of our existence. Such sentiment underpins statements like: "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country".
This kind of sentiment is a dead give away of the person's statist theory of state. In such a theory we are merely cogs of the state. The king is our "god". The extreme form of statism is displayed by communists/socialists like the Nazis. Hindutva theoreticians also fall in this group. According to them the Muslims must accept a second class status, for this land (I'm referring to India) "belongs" to the Hindus. The statist glorifies the state. A government is a big deal - to such thinkers.
"Soft" collectivists (unlike hard statists such as Nazis) can have a strange fascination with democracy for the sake of democracy. To them the society is supreme. Everyone must have a say in what happens (they are blissfully aware of the baleful implications of Arrow's impossibility theorem, that even three people can't EVER agree to any consistent ordering, leave along a billion). Direct democracy is their preferred mode of "public" decision making. We need democracy that is "representative". The environmental fanatics, right wing crazies, leftists, classical liberals, and libertarians must ALL get a voice at the "decision making" table of this great "society". Irreconcilable views MUST be "honored" and "reconciliation" attempted. Proportional representation is the next best to direct democracy, for such thinkers.
But what exactly is government, and why do we need democracy?
The ONLY reason we need government is to defend us from invasion/ internal crime, to ensure justice, and to provide things like roads which are hard for us (in our private capacities) to organise. PERIOD.
A government is a Big Servant. Its ambit is limited through the Constitution, and its discretion limited to dealing with matters of urgency (such as war). All else is constrained by due process, e.g. the judicial system. Our Big Servant is like the Jinn in Aladdin's stories. Its job is to OBEY US, not to tell us what to do.
If we could find a Jinn that PERFECTLY protects us and ensures our liberty, and provides public goods at a cheap cost, we would NEVER need democracy. We would simply let the Jinn do its job.
When we consider this obvious (!) approach – that the role of a government is PURELY to defend our life and liberty – then everything falls into place.
For instance, what should this Jinn charge for its services? Well, it is a monopoly provider of these services, so it must charge as a monopolist should.
And what is the ONLY method by which a monopolist will charge a price that the perfectly competitive market would supply? First degree price discrimination (ie. everyone charged separately, based on ability to pay). So that's what should form the underlying principle of the taxation system. That principle is hard to implement, but it should remain at the back of our mind.
What about democracy? Given that the Jinn is NOT a decision making body (nor should it be!); merely an implementing body, what is the importance of democracy to us? Why do we care about democracy at all?
In fact, that's a very good question. Democracy got a very bad rap for thousands of years. And for good reason. Socrates is cited as one of its victims. And indeed, there is little to distinguish democracy from mob rule. RATIONAL people (our ancestors were not irrational!) CHOSE to have a king to protect them and their liberties. That was not as stupid an idea as it may sometimes appear to us today.
The greatest work in this regard is that of Hobbes who showed how an absolute king is best placed to defend our liberties. He was basically referring to a Jinn.
But Jinns aren't practical.
We need to a method to get a good king. That is clearly a problem. For there are good kings and bad kings. There are good dictators and bad dictators. There is no "one size fits all".
And the key problem with kings is that good kings often have BAD children. It is very hard to get good kings.
So the idea of democracy was revived after being condemned for thousands of years. Not by the Marxists, but by classical liberals. John Locke should be credited with reviving democracy as a major political idea. But of course, it was not his idea. It had a history in the Magna Carta. And the experience of Cromwell's revolution that failed.
But the democracy that was revived was very limited: for the EXPLICIT purpose of getting a good government, a good Jinn. It was not an exercise in "representation". And there were good reasons why it was not elevated to the pedestal that it often is elevated to, today. It was widely recognised that democracy is not a end in itself. It is not a public good. It means NOTHING, really. It is just a tool to get good government, a good Jinn, and to ensure that we are not stuck with a bad government.
Because every few years we can change the government that performs badly.
When we elect a government we elect a Big Servant, a Jinn. We then constrain this servant and ensure it doesn't go outside its bounds. Then, if it doesn't perform well, we throw it out and get a new Servant. That's the role of democracy. To help us CHANGE our government without violence. Not for us to get a seat at the "decision making table" of the Jinn, the government.
That, in brief, is the reason why democracy exists. To blow up democracy beyond this minimalist role as an INSTRUMENT of our liberty, is PURELY STATIST. Such veneration of democracy is inconsistent with our main goal: liberty.
What about public consultation? Well, ALL government decisions must be made transparently and with adequate consultation. Thereafter a government must DECIDE. The Jinn must do its job.
If we don't like what a government does, we can throw it out after three/four (in Australia) or five (in India) years. But WE don't get to decide. The Jinn decides. The government is an abstract concept, a servant limited by the Constitution. It must remain constrained. It must not become an object of veneration.
1.6But there is no ideal government
Unfortunately, a Jinn does not exist. So we need a government that does not become a tyrant. The main feature of such a government should be the ability of citizens to overthrow the government should it become a tyrant. Second, we all must get a voice in selecting who forms government.
1.7Equality of voice in selection of government
The following extract from the draft manuscript DOF clarifies
Many early liberals advocated a restriction on the right to vote only to those who can (apparently) do so responsibly. ‘Locke in the Second Treatise on Government makes clear that suffrage depends on property: only parts of the public that pay taxes have a right to vote, in proportion to the assistance which they afford the public.’[1]
It is not to the classical liberals but to a ‘pragmatic’ branch of liberals: the utilitarians, that we owe universal suffrage. Bentham argued that it ‘is the only way of promoting “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”‘[2]. James Mill (1773-1836), the father of J.S. Mill also advocated widespread democracy. J.S. Mill agreed in relation to women but did not think that those who live off charity (parish relief) should be so entitled. Thus, ‘the receipt of parish relief should be a peremptory disqualification for the franchise. He who cannot by his labour suffice for his own support has no claim to the privilege of helping himself to the money of others.’[3]
Mill’s argument, however, is not tenable. We come together as a nation to protect our life and equal liberty. We agree that members of the society whose resources fall below a social minimum will be provided frugal relief until they or their children can stand on their feet. Such payments are not to be thought of as charity but payouts based on the premiums paid in advance through taxes. At the minimum the recipient may have paid taxes in the past, or his parents may have done so; or his children will do so in the future.
For equal freedom to be achieved, every normal adult (without significant mental disabilities) should have the right to vote. If the poor are not permitted to vote, they will lose the ability to oppose laws that discriminate against them or destroy their liberty. Fortunately, modern societies have by now have broadened the franchise to all adults (generally over 18).
1.8Hence we need democracy
In general, collective choice (for public goods provision) should be based on democratic decision making under constitutional constraints.
The following extract from the draft manuscript DOF clarifies:
The real issue before us is of [social] contract design, fully aware that our design will always be imperfect, its consequences informing further change.To minimise the likelihood of designing an ineffective contract, we must firmly ground it in an understanding of human nature – such as our moral sense and altruistic tendencies but also the human tendency to be opportunistic, and the risk of rebellion should equal opportunity not be fostered. It will also need to be aware of the natural inclination of politicians to throw largesse at voters, and build institutional checks and balances to minimise this tendency. Only when the assumptions underpinning the contract are compatible with actual human behaviour, can the contract work tolerably well. This is where liberal democracy succeeds and other models fail. Pure (not constitutional) monarchies assume that kings are perfect, while religious theocracies ask that people be perfect (even as priests might engage in questionable behaviour). Liberal democratic republics, on the other hand, do not exhort, but build checks and balances to avoid the excesses of human nature (Figure WW).The liberal democratic contract produces larger, healthier, and wealthier populations. Competition through market forces fosters innovation and gives them an economic advantage over others. Since success tends to crowd out failure, people across the world are increasingly indicating a preference for liberal democratic republics. This form of social contract has therefore been spreading faster than others, and may well replace these other forms.
The liberal democratic social contract enables the rules of accountability and methods of enforcement to be determined through consent. Democratic decision-making must be compatible with the principle of subsidiarity – with decisions taken by the level of government proximal to the geography or technology of the decision. Citizens are thus more likely to abide even by rules they may personally disagree with. Citizens also get some comfort from the fact that they retain the option of democratically altering the laws, should such a change be important to them. Such social contracts are more legitimate, hence durable.
1.9Democracy is a means for securing justice, not an end in itself
F.A. Hayek demolished all arguments the consider democracy to be a value. Democracy has NOTHING to do with justice, and little to do with liberty. These goals must be secured by democracy if it has to serve any purpose. I can do no better than to extract from his greatest book: The Constitution of Liberty.
EXTRACTS
1. Equality before the law leads to the demand that all men should also have the same share in making the law. This is the point where traditional liberalism and the democratic movement meet. Their main concerns are nevertheless different. Liberalism (in the European nineteenth-century meaning of the word, to which we shall adhere throughout this chapter) is concerned mainly with limiting the coercive powers of all government, whether democratic or not, whereas the dogmatic democrat knows only one limit to government—current majority opinion.2. The current undiscriminating use of the word "democratic" as a general term of praise is not without danger. It suggests that, because democracy is a good thing, it is always a gain for mankind if it is extended. This may sound self-evident, but it is nothing of the kind.