No easy votes

Weighing in on the current debate on allowing voters the right to recall their representatives,the chief election commissioner has flagged off the destabilisation this could bring to the system. As the person in charge of overseeing free and fair elections in the country,he understandably focused on the wherewithal required to sustain such easy recourse to votes to recall legislators and elect their replacements that some civil society activists seek. And,certainly,the bandobast this would need does render it virtually impractical.

However,it is not just the strain that the recall option would impose on the election infrastructure that makes these facets of direct democracy undesirable. The argument against recall is,in essence,that it violates the ethos of a liberal democracy. When voters elect a representative — be it to the state assembly or the national parliament – they transfer to her the responsibility to be an equal member of the legislature seeking the greater common good. As has been argued,the recall suggestion presumes that she is less a member of the House than a delegate of her constituency,with the remit to narrowly pursue the agenda of her voters.

The objective to make MPs and MLAs accountable is an enlightened one — and in many democracies this pursuit has involved trimming immunities available as parliamentary privileges. That project needs to be urgently taken up in this country. However,it is difficult to see how recall would keep legislators accountable,if the demand amounts to nothing more than seeking a chance to change one’s mind or blackmailing a legislator. A vote is a valuable thing,cast after careful consideration of what the options mean. To make it so easily reversible would simply devalue it.