Several proposals have been mooted in India to remove electoral malpractices and anomalies in recent years. The introduction of the EVMs has been the most notable development in electoral reforms since Independence. A model code of conduct has been in operation. A ceiling on election expenses has been imposed and political parties and candidates have to provide details of such expenses. To check the entry of candidates with criminal antecedents, a system of affidavits with details of criminal cases was introduced. The candidates are also obliged to give the details of their financial assets. These apart, in 2004, a proposal was made by the Election Commission of India to introduce to the ballot paper the option of “None of the Above” (NOTA), which has not been accepted.

RTR has also been mooted as a measure of electoral and parliamentary reform in the country. Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee has been the most ardent supporter of this measure, using every possible public forum since 2006 to express his support for it. Recently, he reiterated its need while delivering the EMS Namboodiripad Memorial lecture in Thiruvananthapuram on June 13. Former Chief Election Commissioner T.S. Krishnamurthy has included RTR as an electoral reforms measure in his PIL before the Supreme Court. However, its practicability and implementation need a critical review in the light of global experience and Indian realities.

RTR was endorsed by Lenin in November 1917 for the Soviet system. Switzerland is considered a pioneer in this field, but seldom uses this instrument. Eighteen US states have provisions for the recall of elected representatives. However, the provision has been used rather infrequently. Some Canadian provinces have provisions for the recall of representatives. Even a premier can be removed from office. In order to check defections, Guyana has given parties the right to recall any of their elected members. Sweden, New Zealand, Zambia and Germany are other countries that are considering the introduction of RTR to enforce political accountability and check political corruption.

All over the world, representative democracy assumes responsibility/ accountability as an elemental founding principle. Elected representatives get the right to represent people for a period, during which they are expected to be accountable to their electors and constituencies, as also to the constitution and political institutions. While in certain cases impeachment is the constitutional instrument, exercised indirectly, to check personal and political malfeasance, RTR is a direct exercise of popular sovereignty against political irresponsibility. Despite the fact that the exercise of the right to impeach involves the electoral process on a much smaller scale, it is not a very commonly exercised instrument. RTR involves a full election process in a constituency to de-elect an elected representative. The process also means that, within a period, an alternative representative will have to be elected, which doubles the cost in terms of time and money to the democratic process. Further, without electoral and political reforms, this would be an attempt to cleanse the system with an ineffective detergent.

Therefore, while we watch in appreciation the first experience of RTR in India’s deepening grassroots institutions and applaud the maturing of Indian democracy, we should be circumspect in its replication at the state legislature and parliamentary levels. Rushing to prescribe it as the wonder drug for India’s democratic ills and an ailing electoral system may cause more harm than good. First, partisanship in Indian politics is becoming too fractious and cantankerous for democratic comfort, which could reduce RTR to a flawed exercise. Second, with elections in India becoming a 24/7 affair, due to the addition of local bodies elections to the already delinked Lok Sabha and legislative assembly elections, RTR will not only add to the electoral volume but it will also operate with the prevailing electoral malpractices.

Finally, RTR is no solution to the political anomalies visible in representative institutions; it is only an instrument to plug occasional leakage in the democratic system. It must, however, be celebrated as “just a beginning”, and also as “a just beginning”.

The writer is Ford Foundation Professor, Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia drmehra@vsnl.com