PART VI 

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 

It is not for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets. (Abraham Lincoln.) 

Those who profess to favour freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. (Frederick Douglass.) 

The people of England regard itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing. The use it makes of the short moments of liberty it enjoys shows that it deserves to lose them. 

(J.J. Rousseau.) 

We have to serve the truth as candidates for public office and not mislead, misguide, misdirect the people merely to provoke emotional responses and win votes that way. 

(Adlai E. Stevenson.) 

Chapter 32 

Elections 

Election or indirect participation. 

Modern States are large country-States with vast territories and great populations. It is physically impossible for the people in such States to i 

assemble at one place for political purposes. They can take part in the business of the State only indirectly, that is, through their representatives 

whom they elect to make laws and oolicies and to decide other affaires oli 

the State. Hence modern democracy is an indirect democracy, with representatives elected by the people who have the right to vote, called suffrage. This indirect mode of participation is known as election, which vm 

may define as a form of procedure, laid down by the electoral laws,1 

whereby some members of the public are hosen by the people to hokil 

legislative or executive offices of authority in the State. In short, it is the! 

way the ruled choose their rulers, i.e. their government. The purposes of elections. 

Elections are the means of legitimating the assignment of a person 1 

to an office of authority in the State. John Austin once said that electoral procedure is like the procedure in a marriage ceremony: ”Do you take this man (or woman) to be your lawfully wedded husband (or wife)?” ”I do”. So 

a voter asks the candidate: ”Do you accept my demands as your own’?” ”Il 

do”, says the candidate. The point at which a candidate is elected is really not the moment of choice or decision by the voter: it was, in fact, mucit earlier, for a free voter decided much earlier to vote for a candidate of his 

preference. Really election is the point at which a voter’s preference. 

I 

becomes a public act, -a social and political commitment to the kind of laws or policies he prefers. It is a choice between two views or opinions about 

laws, policies and decisions of the government.’ The qualification for votir is not wisdom or good Sense but enough independence of mind to be able I 

State one’s preferences or grievances”. This is one side of the electo 

process. The other is the authority or power of the government which 

elected candidates would exercise, without which the individual prefere or grievance would be ineffective. ”Unless there is power behind 

expression of grievances (of the people), the grievances are apt to 

neglected”. Thus elections are the connecting links between the demands 

the people and the decisions of the government. They are the first stage i 

the ”conversion process” of a political system. But this is true only in i 
ELECTIONS 

477 

democracy. In a dictatorship, on the contrary, elections can be employed not for the expression of public opinion but for its suppression and for imposing the opinions and decisions of the dictator. 

SUFFRAGE Suffrage or Franchise. 

The right to vote is called the suffrage or franchise. It is one of the most important political rights of the citizens in a democratic State, inasmuch as it is the very foundation and essence of the representative democracy. By  the exercise of this right the citizens not only elect their representatives but also express their opinion on the policy of the government. 

When a citizen exercises his rights to vote, he becomes a voter or elector. The actual choice or exercise of the right to vote is called voting. The act of voting is called polling. When the citizens as a whole exercise their right to vote to elect their representatives, it is called an election. All the citizens who at a particular time have the right to vote or franchise are collectively called the electorate. The size of the electorate depends upon the law of franchise or representation, which differs from country to country. Two theories of Franchise. 

What is the nature of the franchise? Why should a citizen be given the right to vote? Two general theories answer these questions differently about the nature of the franchise or suffrage as under: (1)        Individualistic Theory of Franchise. 

According to this theory, franchise or the right to vote is the natural and inherent right of the individual. This theory was based on three doctrines which were prevalent during the 18th century: the doctrines of natural rights, equality of Man and popular sovereignty or General Will. Carried to its logical conclusion this theory implies universal suffrage. All citizens have the inalienable and sacred right to participate in the formulation of the law. ”None can be deprived of this right upon any pretext or in any government.” Thus law, as the expression of popular sovereignty, as justified only when all citizens have the right to elect their representatives who make laws, the doctrine of the political equality also required that every citizen should have the right to vote. Law and government affected all, and should be influenced by all: ”What toucheth all should be decided by all.” In present times, Laski has given another 

jastification for universal suffrage. History has demonstrated; says Laski 

that those persons or classes who are excluded from a share in political 

’power are also excluded from its benefits and advantages and their interests 

c neglected when the policy of the State is formulated. Without franchise 
478 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

there could be no freedom. Unrepresented interests are likely to be neglected by the government. (2)       Collectivistic Theory. 

The doctrine of natural rights is not acceptable in modern times. It is now said that franchise is not a natural right of the individual. If it is so, then we cannot refuse this right to such persons who cannot obviously exercise it, as, for example, the minors or the wicked. Reason and morality require that they should not be given the right to vote. Hence the right to vote is not attached to the individual by nature but is a privilege, a franchise or a social function, conferred on him by the State for the fulfilment of its aims and ideals. It cannot be granted to all citizens but to those whom the State considers fit for its proper exercise. Hence the Collectivistic theory favours a restricted franchise or suffrage certain sections or classes can be excluded from the right to vote on grounds determined by the law of the State as illiteracy, ignorance, etc. This theory has the support of several modern writers, such as Bluntschli, Lecky, John Stuart Mill and Sir Henry Maine. The Fasciss and Nazis upheld it on ground of racialism and nationalism, while the Communists on grounds of proletarian citizenship. 

In practice, however, modern democratic States admit the need for universal adult franchise. Yet they do not go to the extremes of these two theories. The right to vote is now recognised not as a natural right but as a privilege. It is conferred by the State not on all citizens without discrimination but only on those who fulfil certain conditions which, however, differ from country to country. It must be remembered that franchise is at once an individual right and a social function. In this sense it differs from the personal rights of the individual. Hence its exercise must be justified on social grounds and restrictions. The result is as Garner says, that the electorate in every democratic State today ”includes a fractional part of the population, varying from three fifths to one-half of the total population.’ Restrictions on franchise are of various kinds such as age, sex, property. education, mental and moral fitness, etc. Age Restriction. 

Every State requires that an individual acquires the right to vote when he attains a certain age. Minors and young people are not given the right to vote because they are too young and immature to understand the purpose  of voting and election. It is undoubtedly a necessary condition. But there is no uniformity as to the age of maturity or adulthood when the individual becomes a voter. It is eighteen years in the U.S.S.R, U.S.A, U.K & other countries, which is the lowest in the world; 21 years in Pakistan_ and 25 years in Holland. However, it is better to fix 18 years of age as the age of a voter. 
ELECTIONS 

479 

Mental and moral Fitness. 

An individual must be mentally and morally fit to be a voter. Every State excludes lunatics, idiots and criminals from electorate, because they do not possess necessary moral and mental qualifications. Those who are convicted of crimes may be temporarily or permanently deprived of this right, because they show lack of civic sense. Sometimes bribery at elections also disqualifies a person permanently. 

Sex. 

For long past women were not granted the right to vote. Politics was regarded as man’s job only. The demand for universal suffrage was understood as a demand for male suffrage exclusively. One reason why women were disfranchised was the view that those persons only could be voters who fought for the State: warriors alone were voters. In early stage the military classes were alone the citizens, while the non-military classes were subjects or slaves, possessing no civic rights. For this reason also women were excluded from the right  to vote. It is only in very recent times that they have been enfranchised in almost all the civilized States of the world. For instance, the women in the U.S.A. got the right to vote in 1920, in England in 1929,’after nearly  half a century of the agitation by the Suffragettes, or the advocates of women suffrage. Soviet Russia granted franchise to women when it came into being in 1917 after the Russian Revolution. Switzerland enfranchised Swiss women in 1971 after a referendum. In Pakistan, women were enfranchised soon after the Independence. The only country which denies this right to women to-day is Saudi Arabia. Sex restriction, however,  is quite unjustifiable. Argument against Female Franchise. 

Several   arguments have   been   advanced   against female enfranchisement by some writers and thinkers in the past and present, as follows: 1.       Feminine nature is unfit for politics. 

The chief argument against female enfranchisement has been that female nature is such which renders women unfit for political life and decision. Politics is man’s job; just as maternity is woman’s. The Egyptian llama of the al-Azhar University of Cairo issued a Fatwa in 1952, 

declaring that women must not be given the right to vote or sit in the legislature because, firstly, their nature is swayed by emotions which makes them ”of unstable judgment; secondly, voting will require their presence in public which is unbecoming of womanly behaviour. They must stay at Some. Thirdly, female franchise is un-Islamic. But the arguments of the Liema are fallacious. Women in early Islam participated in political 

discussions and decisions. 
480 

2. 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

Politics would unsex women. 

It is also said that not only female nature but also womanly functions and role in life require that they should not participate in politics, if they are to preserve their feminine qualities and habits. They earn respect and honour from men only when they are delicate, retiring in habits, and devoted to their domestic duties. If they begin to participate in politics on equal terms with men, they would involve themselves in the mud and mire of political controversies and would be treated as roughly as men treat one another in political disputes and quarrels. Moreover, the exactions of political life are inconsistent with the duties of child-bearing and the rearing of families. Thus politics would completely unsex women. 3.         It would create discord in family life. 

The opponents of female franchise paint a dark and dismal picture of family discord and quarrels if women are given the right to vote. It is said that if a woman voter agrees with her husband and votes as he wants her, then her vote is useless, for it is mere duplication of his vote. But if she disagrees with him, then peace and happiness of the family would be destroyed for the wife and husband would quarrel over voting. 4.         Women are incapable of bearing arms. 

A citizen must fight for the country or State; women cannot be given civic rights as they can do nothing to defend the State. Arguments for Female Enfranchisement. 

Several writers, e.g.; Mill, Hare, Sidewick, etc; have championed women’s right to vote. Their arguments are as follows: 1.         Democracy remains an imperfect ideal without female 

enfranchisement. Just as democracy does not differentiate between men on basis of race or blood, so it should not differentiate between men and women on the basis of sex. Politics cannot be a monopoly  of men, for law and government affect women, their life and happiness as much as they affect men. The ideals of democracy, such as liberty and equality, are meaningless so long as women are not also free and equal with men in political life and activities. ”If’, observed Judge Story, ”it be said that all men have a naturai. equal, and inalienable right to vote because they are born free and equaL these considerations are equally applicable to females, as free, intelligent. 

moral beings entitled to equal rights and interests and protection and having vital stake in all regulations and laws of society.” 2.         Sex is no disqualification. 

The right of voting is a political right of the individual based at 

moral and rational grounds rather than on physical considerations. It belongs to both men and women. Women cannot be denied franchise on the 

basis of sex, for it is a physical factor which does not affect polities. 
ELECTIONS 

481 

3.         The arguments of family quarrels and military incapacity of 

women refuted. The argument that the enfranchisement of women would increase family quarrels is quite baseless. On the contrary, it would sharpen the intellects and increase their understanding of the problems confronting their country. It will also increase family harmony, for ”it would also be no small thing that the husband would necessarily discuss the matter with his wife and that the vote would not be his exclusive affair but a joint concern.” It will also enlarge the horizon of activities of women who are otherwise confined to family circle and domestic duties. The military incapacity of women is also not as great as it is usually thought. Women now serve as soldiers, nurses, etc. Moreover, a lesson which human progress teaches is that mankind develops only by overcoming its natural weaknesses. Even if the women may not like to participate in voting due to their physical disabilities, it is better to afford them an opportunity to do so. ”It is a benefit to human beings to take off their fetters, even if they do not desire to walk.” 4.       Weakness of the female sex necessitates her participation in 

politics for the sake of better protection. Citizens are given the right to vote for they have to protect certain rights. Women, being physically weaker, are more dependent on law and government, State and society, for protection of their rights and interests, which men have failed to protect, as past experience has demonstrated. Usually the laws made by men favour them alone. This is partly because men are selfish, and chauvinistic, but mainly because they are unable to understand some of the peculiar needs and problems of women. All laws and policies affect both men and women equally. But there are some which affect women more, such as the laws regarding family life, marriage, maternity, children, etc. Hence women must have a share in the making of all such laws and policies. This is possible only when they have the right to vote and the right to be elected to the legislature. This alone will prevent the adoption of such laws and policies which are hostile to or discriminatory 

azainst women’s interests and rights. 5.    Female enfranchisement will exercise moral influence on 

political life. The admission of women into politics would have a purifying, 

’ennobling and refining influence on it. It will tend to improve the tone of 

ablic life and will be conducive to better government. It will introduce 

ency, righteousness and purity in politics. Moreover, State will devote 

energy and attention to several activities and services which it has glected in the past, such as child labour, public health, education, pure 

legislation, employment of women for heavy duties in factories and 
482 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

farms and other social services. Women are more interested in social legislation than men. 6.         Good citizenship is as necessary for women as men. 

Women are given many civil rights and perform many civil duties. In present times, women are to compete with men in several walks of life. It is, therefore, inconsistent and irrational that they should be denied political right of franchise. When they enjoy other rights, perform civil duties and have to struggle for existence on equal footing with men. Divorced women, widows, and unmarried women are often the bread-winners of their families. Many women earn their livelihood as teachers, nurses, officeworkers, and as labourers on farms and factories. If they can do all such jobs, why should they not be given all opportunities for good citizenship? Women must, therefore, have the right to vote and participate in political discussions. Their civic sense is as sharp as that of men. 7.       Women are the custodians of culture and civilisation and the future of every State depends upon their active and equal participation in the affairs of the government. Property. 

In the nineteenth century, possession of property was considered as an essential qualification for franchise. Various reasons were given why property-owners alone could be the voters. Firstly, men of property were men of education who could thereby understand the meaning and purpose of voting and election and could express their opinions on national issues 

Secondly, men of property had a stake in the country and would give considered opinion on problems and dangers confronting it. Thirdly, it was feared that if the propertyless classes were given the right to vote, the, 

would elect such representatives as would abolish private proper:2, 

1 altogether and thus bring economic ruin to the country. Fourthly, the 

legislature which imposes taxes should consist of those who pay taxes, that 

is, the representatives of the propertied classes. In the present tirnes.1 

however, the attitude towards property qualification has complete41 

changed. Political equality demands that all classes, whether propertied orl 

property-less, should be treated alike in respect of franchise. They m.J 

have an equal right to vote. Moreover, it is now felt that to exclude sorael 

men from a share in political power is to exclude them from its benefits ; 

boons. Past experience has demonstrated that the propertied classes misu 

their monopoly of political power and corrupted the government. 

made it a plutocracy or oligarchy. Furthermore, modern opinion regards 

State as existing for the wellbeing and happiness of all citizens; irresr 

of their property or social position. Lastly, it is a well-established fact 

propertied classes exercise great influence on the government both ov 

and covertly. It is, therefore, not necessary to give them special prote 

by means of enfranchisement. Hence in all modern democratic St 
ELECTIONS 

483 

property qualification has been abolished and all adult citizens are given the right to vote regardless of their property or income. Education. 

In the 191h century, ignorance and lack of education were regarded as good grounds for disqualifying a person as a voter. This restriction was justified on different grounds by various writers. Bluntschli said, ’’To vest the power of choosing those who are to rule the State in the hands of the incapable and unworthy classes would mean State suicide.” J.S. Mill asserted that ”I regard it as wholly inadvisable that any person should participate in the suffrage without being able to read and write.” He, therefore, remarked that ”universal teaching must precede universal enfranchisement.” Like property qualification, opinion about educational qualification has also changed in present times. Firstly, it is said that the problem of modern democracy is not to disfranchise the illiterate masses  but to educate them. ’Educate our political masters’ is a slogan necessary for healthy and vigorous democratic States to disfranchise the masses on grounds of illiteracy would make the State both undemocratic and unjust. Further, it is really difficult to define and fix educational qualification for voters. Is mere literacy enough to qualify a voter? Or should higher tests be fixed for enfranchisement? Even an educated person in philosophy or mathematics or sciences may not be properly qualified for exercising his franchise. Education is indeed necessary for proper fulfilment of civic functions, but much depends on the kind and nature of education. Education in social and economic matters is far more useful for voters than in natural sciences. Hence educational test is a difficult criterion for enfranchisement. —There is no doubt.” writes Finer, ”that tests based on knowledge now available and indispensable to rational voting would exclude some 95% of all adults from franchise.” Lastly, the spread of universal, compulsory 

education in present times has removed the need for imposing educational 

qualifications. In countries like the U.S.A. Educational qualification was required, but this was merely a political trick to exclude the dangerous and the coloured men from a share in elections and political power, because they were usually uneducated. In Pakistan, illiteracy is no longer a 

Isqualification, as it was before Independence. 

’Residential qualification. 

It is an old controversy that a person should be a resident of the 

Elora! district before he can be qualified as a voter or stand as a candidate 

the election. This condition is imposed to prevent fraud and to enable the 

ters and candidates to understand the needs of their locality. In some 

antries, like the U.S.A. and England, very strict residential restrictions are 

sed on voters which are quite unjustifiable. Strict residential 

lification produces several evils, like provincialism or parochialism. It 

484 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

promotes sectional outlook at the expense of national interests. Moreover, men of ability are prevented from standing from places of their choice. They have to resort to fraudulent methods to seek election in other places. The only residential restriction that can be justified is that the voter must have resided in the locality six months before the electoral register is prepared. Importance and Power of Electorate. 

In modern times, the electorate has acquired great importance and power. The voters elect the members of the legislature. In some States, they also elect the head of State, e.g., the president and even judges. In Switzerland and certain other countries they have the power to make laws by the Initiative and Referendum and can recall the legislative members. The electorate can thus exercise control over the government through elections and representatives. Moreover, the electorate influences the government through public opinion, which is really the opinion of the 

electorate. In brief, so great is the influence, power and importance of the 

electorate, that some writers have called the electorate as the fourth estate_ 

that is, the fourth organ of the State, equal in rank to the other three, the 

legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Universal Adult Suffrage. 

In view of its importance and power, it is necessary that the electorate should be as extensive as the adult population of the State. Whes 

all the adult citizens, irrespective of the difference of sex, property, social 

status, colour or creed, residence, education, etc., have the right to vote, it is 

called universal adult suffrage. It means there should be no restrictions 

franchise except such essential ones as adulthood, or age-limit, mental and 1 

moral fitness. Arguments against Universal Adult Suffrage. 

In some States franchise is restricted on such grounds as properr?, 

education, sex, race, colour, religion, etc. Various arguments are advand 

to justify this kind of restricted suffrage. Firstly, it is said that the ignoraml 

masses or uneducated people will make a dangerously bad use of 0-’,; 

votes, as they are opposed to progress. Sir Henry Maine, a strong critic oM 

universal suffrage, said that the enfranchisedMasses would oppose 

scientific, cultural and intellectual progress and achievements of mankl: 

Sir James Stephen said that if every one has one vote there woulc 

equality between wisdom and folly. It is also said that the governmer,: 

the ignorant masses would put an end to liberty, order and civilisatior_ 

will be a vast spoliation.’ Secondly; women should not be given the rigiui 

52 

II was Bismarck who claimed that he could put the most reactionary government in power with the help of the mass vole (i.e.; adult franchise). He was evidently relying. 

the inability of the masses to distinguish between the true and the false, their readn 

serve a strong master and their gullibility and emotionalism. Many a dictatorial i 

helped lo power by plebiscite or referendum. 
ELECTIONS 

485 

vote because of their alleged weaknesses and shortcomings. Thirdly, propertyless classes should not be enfranchised for they have no stake in the country and pay no taxes. Fourthly, suffrage is not a natural right but a privilege conferred by the State only on those who are fit to use it in the interests of the State. Lastly, universal suffrage would increase the financial and administrative burdens of the State. 

Arguments in favour of Universal Adult Suffrage. 

Several arguments are also advanced in its favour. Firstly, universal franchise is democratic. It is based on the sovereignty of the people. If the people are sovereign, they should have a share in the government. Secondly, laws are obeyed readily when they are made with the consent and approval of  all, as expressed through their representatives. Similarly, the policies of the government should be based on the wishes and interests of all citizens: That which toucheth all should be decided by all.” It is only possible if all citizens have the right to vote and elect their representatives and convey their opinions and wishes to the seat of policymaking authority. Moreover, it is rightly said that ’only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches. ”Accordingly”, as Lindsay wrote, ”only he, the ordinary man, can tell whether the shoe pinches and where; and without that knowledge the wisest Statesman cannot make good laws.”53 Thirdly, universal adult suffrage is based on  the principle of ’one man one vote’. This principle ensures political equality, as no citizen is excluded from the right to vote. Moreover, it is unjust to exclude certain classes or sections of the nation from a share in political power and government. Universal franchise prevents such an injustice. It protects the interests of all. Lastly, it gives strength and stability to the State, because it places political power in the hands of all adult citizens who are intelligent, sane and able-bodied. In short, universal adult franchise is the very basis of the modern democratic State. 

DIFFERENT METHODS OF VOTING Purposes of voting. 

Political issues can be settled by expressing opinion either xacefully or with violence. Voting has been described as a means of deciding political disputes and questions without violence. It is better to zount heads than to break them. But if voting is to achieve this purpose, it must be free and independent. It means that the voter should be free from all sorts of fears or pressures at the time of voting. Two methods of voting have Teen devised to ensure free and independent voting; public voting and secret voting or vote by ballot. 

A.D. Lindsay. The Modern Democratic State, p.270. 
486 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

Public v. Secret Voting. 

Freedom from intimidation and pressure at the time of voting is essential if voter is to express his choice freely and independently. It means that voting should be secret. But secret voting„ is recently put into use. In the past centuries, the voter expressed his choice openly and orally in the public. It is called Open Vote or Public Voting. In Secret Voting, the voter casts his vote secretly by means of a ballot-paper and in a polling-booth which is screened off from public gaze. As he comes to cast his vote, the voter is given a ballot paper. He goes in the polling booth and marks the ballot paper according to his choice candidate. He then folds the paper and puts it into a ballot box. When all voters have voted among two or more the box is opened and votes counted. Merits and Demerits of Public and Secret Voting. 

Theoretically, public voting is advocated on several grounds. Voting is a public responsibility and, therefore, its exercise should also be public. ”The duty of voting,” said J.S. Mill, like any other public duty, should be performed under the eye and criticism of the public.” Montesquieu defended public voting on 4he ground that it would enable the ignorant voters to be guided and instructed by intelligent ones in their choice. The German author, Treitschke, condemned secret voting as unreasonable and immoral. The voter shirks his public duty to express his choice openly, while the slinks up to the ballot-box and slips his paper in. It is, he remarks, a shabbiest trick done in the name of freedom. Nevertheless. practical experience has shown that public voting leads to many abuses. It exposes voters to all sorts of intimidations and pressures by the government_ political parties, employers, the landlords and other interested people. Secret voting, on the other hand, protects them from molestation and coercion. In some cases the people may be so much intimidated that the) cannot really be designated as voters at all. Hence in all countries today. public voting has been replaced by secret voting. England and the U.S.A. gave up public voting and introduced vote by ballot in 18/0, Denmark in 1901, Prusai in 1920, the U.S.S.R. in 1933, and so on. Plural Voting. 

Universal suffrage is criticised by many on the grounds that it does not discriminate between wisdom and folly, intelligence and ignoranct education and illiteracy, property and poverty. Mill remarked that the principle of ”one man, one vote” was wrong as it allowed ”ignorance to be 

entitled to as much political power as knowledge. In order to remedy the 

defects two methods are proposed and employed in some countries, viz,’ plural voting and weighted voting. In plural voting (also called differentilll 

voting) some persons are given more than one vote on such grounds , 

education or property or some other qualification? It is said that they shottir have more votes than those who are less qualified and have fewer interesz 
ELECTIONS 

487 

at stake. When a person has plural votes, he casts them as many times as his votes. 

Weighted Voting. 

It is a particular form of plural voting. Weighted voting means that the vote person is weighted on account of education, property or some other qualification. Thus his votes are weighted as against the single vote of the ordinary voter. The example of the weighted voting was found in the Belgian Constitution before 1921, according to which every male citizen of 25 years of age, and  holding a public office or a lawyer had two votes. No one, however, could have more than three votes in all. Plural or weighted .oting in Belgium was, however, abolished in 1921, for this system favoured the peasants, the clergy, public officials and professional classes, is against the workers and the uneducated masses. Merits. 

The underlying principle of the plural or weighted voting is that the votes of the citizens, as Treitschke said, should not be counted but ’weighed,” according to their worth or value as determined by their zualifications or interests at stake in the State. The vote of an educated person has a higher value than that of an ignorant man, and therefore should 72e weighted against the latter. ”It recognises that some men are wiser and Tetter fitted to choose and that some men’s opinions count far more than hers in ascertaining the general will.” Demerits. 

Plural or weighted voting has now been condemned everywhere as ..nclemocratic and unjust, inasmuch as it discriminates between the rich and -.ne poor. It fills the legislature with the representatives of richer classes. It wrongly presumes that educated persons alone can be good citizens. The ief difficulty in this system is the absence of any standard of judgment. It -Tr..ours only one class of the educated people, that is, those from academic nstitutions. There is no criterion of superiority to say that the vote of a :rizen is better or wiser than that of another. The educational test becomes xbitrary. Lastly, it opens the door to party intrigues and corruption, and satisfies no one. Compulsory Voting. 

It is a matter of common observation that those who have the right 

tc vote do not sometimes exercise it. It is often observed that due to apathy 

indifference to political duty 15 to 50% of the qualified voters stay at 

lone on the Election Day. It reduces the elections to a farce and vitiates the 

ictpression of the general will. If franchise is a public trust, a privilege Imiferred on the citizens in the interest of the State and for the social good, 

Ittey must be obliged to perform this function by law. In other words, voting 

g•Duld be made compulsory and any citizen who fails to cast his vote, be 
488 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

punished by law. This is the case in Belgium, where a small fine is imposed for non-voting. But it has increased voting only to a slight degree. On the whole, compulsory voting has not found favour with most of the countries in the present-day world. Some advantages are claimed for it. It is said that compulsory voting compels a citizen to fulfil his public duty and that it lessens the powers of the party machine by placing the party in power on footing  of equality with the opposition party whose supporters are generally absent or negligent of their rights. But compulsory voting has been condemned by nearly all political writers.” There is no means of compelling a person to vote intelligently or to study the personalities and issues involved in an election.’’ A person should vote only when he is interested in election. Lastly, voting, like honesty, should come from the heart rather than imposed as punishment. 

SINGLE AND MULTIPLE MEMBER CONSTITUENCIES What is a constituency? 

It is physically impossible that millions of voters in a country could assemble at one place and cast their votes en msse, or know all candidates or go long distances to vote. Owing to these considerations, the whole territory of the State is divided into many electoral areas or districts, called the constituencies. A constituency is, therefore, such an electoral area whose voters cast their votes at one place and elects one or more candidates as their representatives. If a single representative is elected, it is called a single-member constituency, also called the District System. If several representatives are elected it is called a multiple member constituency, also called General Ticket System. In case of a single-member constituency system, the country is divided into as many electoral districts as there are the members of the legislature to be elected .Each voter has one vote, as he has to elect one member only. In the case of the multiple member constituency system, the electoral areas are comparatively much fewer in number but much bigger in size, as each of them elect several representatives. Each voter has as many votes as the members to be elected. At present most of the States have the single member or district system. Merits of the Single Member System. 1.         It enables the voters to remain in touch with the candidates and 

the representatives. The single member constituency is necessarily small in size anz. population. This fact enables the voters to know well the candidates and the representatives whom they elect. Large sized constituencies of the Genera. Ticket system do not possess this advantage. Hence the interest cf constituency are better looked after in the District System than in the General Ticket System At the same time a representative can nurse its constituency better if it is smaller than a large and populous. 
ELECTIONS 

489 

2.         It is more economical and simple. 

This system has the advantages of simplicity, convenience and economy. The voter can cast his single vote easily and intelligently in the small-sized constituency.  The administrative expenses are also less, and the counting of votes is more convenient than under the General Ticket System. 

3.         It has the advantages of responsibility and stability. 

The single-member constituency method ensures the responsibility of the votes when they choose their representative. It also intensifies his interest and responsibility towards his electors so that he may win reelection on the next occasion. At the same time, experience has shown that this system provides a more stable majority in the legislature, for a single political party usually wins majority of seats in it. On the other hand, under the multiple members system, several parties emerge in the elections because each of them can win some seats. This divides the legislature into several groups and parties and weakens the executive, for a stable coalition ministry cannot be formed. That is why the single-member system is favoured in the parliamentary form of government. 4.         It encourages local talent. 

The single member district system favours local interest and local talent. The constituency is small and therefore comparatively poorer candidates can contest with confidence and less expenses. They can hope to win local support from the people who know them well. Thus local talent is encouraged. Moreover, as the representative is in close contact with his constituents, he seeks to promote local interests. In the large-sized constituencies of the multiple member system, neither local interest nor iocal talent can be adequately recognised. 

Disadvantages of the Single Member System 1.     It unduly favours government candidates. 

In small constituencies the government can easily influence the toters in favour of its own candidates. This was demonstrated by French experience. 

It encourages localism in politics. 

Under this system, local interests are emphasized at the expense of 

the national interests. The voters as well as the representatives are more devoted to their local conditions and needs than to national affairs. Thus it 

encourages localism in politics. This fact is proved by Italian and French experience. 

3.         It narrows the range of choke of candidates. 

As this system is usually coupled with the residential qualification, 

ic narrows the range of choice of the candidates who must come from within 1.iite electoral area. The result is that sometimes inferior candidates only remain to contest the election. But Gilchrist rejects this argument. He says 
490 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

it is not easy for second rate 

that in the present age of universal education, 

men or women to be elected.” 

4.       It necessitates constant readjustment of electoral area. 

Population in small-sized constituencies changes frequently. It, therefore, necessitates frequent readjustments of the boundaries of the electoral areas. On the other hand, population increases or decreases in large-sized constituencies of the multiple member system are immaterial and need no redefinition of electoral boundaries. 5.       It encourages gerrymandering. 

Owing to the need for readjustment of the boundaries of electoral districts the single-member system encourages gerrymandering on the part of the ruling majority parties. It means that they define the boundaries of the electoral districts in such a way as to give the majority party more votes than it would otherwise win on its voting strength. This defect is particularly found in the U.S.A. where the practice of gerrymandering first began. 6.       It distorts the whole representation system by establishing 

minority governments. One of the chief defects of the single member system is that it returns such a party in majority which represents the minority of the whole electorate. It is often observed that the party which has secured majority of seats in the legislature is really supported by minority of voters in the nation. Thus this system distorts the real purpose of representation by setting up minority government. This fact is noticed in almost all democratic States. For instance, in India the Congress Party ruled the country, although it secured only 38% to 42% votes in (the General ’Elections of 1952 1957 and in recent years. 7.          It does not provide proper representation to the minorities. 

It gives only some representation to the minorities, but not proper representation to them in accordance with their voting strength. The minority parties secure more votes in the election as a whole but lesser seats in the legislature. The reason is this: as each constituency elects only one representative, the candidate who secure majority of votes in it may have really won less votes than those of all his defeated opponents taker: together. Hence the majority party in the legislature is really a minority party among the electorate. The minority parties also fail to get proper representation in the legislature in proportion to their voting strength in the election. Methods of Election. 

An election is the occasion or the means by which the qualified voters make a choice among two or more candidates for the seat in the legislature or for some public office. It is of two kinds, direct and indirect. 
ELECTIONS 

491 

Direct Election. 

The method of direct election is very simple. The voters cast their otes for or against the various candidates. The candidate who secures majority of the votes is declared successful and is returned as the :-epresentative from that constituency. This method has found favour in all democratic States, especially for the election of the popular Lower House of 

legislatures. Merits of Direct Election 1.          It stimulates political interest among voters. 

The strongest argument in favour of direct election is that it stimulates political interest of the voters in election and politics. Each voter feels that he has a voice and a share in the making or unmaking of the zovernment, for he directly elects those who will make laws and constitute the government. This makes him an active and alert citizen. He becomes conscious of his political rights and duties. Direct election is, therefore, conducive to good citizenship and develops civic sense. 

It broadens the mental horizon of the people. Direct elections are hotly contested by political parties and their z:andidates, for  electoral decisions are directly made by the people. The randidates and their workers or canvassers directly approach the people 41th their own party and personal manifestoes and principles. They explain iocial, political and other national problems to them, in order to win their .Dtes. The voters are thus educated and enlightened on these problems by fferent parties. In this way election campaigns acquire great educative ialue and broaden the mental horizon of the voters. 1.         It secures effective control of the government by the electorate. 

The supreme purpose of representation and election is to make the z:vernment responsible to the people. This purpose is effectively achieved 

the method of direct election than by the other method. As the 7...7resentatives are elected by the people-themselves, they feel themselves 

be directly responsible to them. They are responsive to popular opinion. _ .ey keep themselves in touch with the needs and wishes of the voters, for r _Is alone they can hope to be re-elected. 

It is less exposed to corruption. The representatives are elected by large number of voters who .mnnot be bribed or intimidated. Hence there are less chances of corruption - :his system than in the case of indirect election. Dtsadvantages of Direct Election. 

It places power in the hands of ignorant masses. Average voter is ignorant, unintelligent, uninterested and 

itbdifferent to the problems of his country. He does not often understand the value of his vote, which he casts for other considerations than political. He 
492 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

is under the influence of such persons or forces as the priests, the casterelations, his relatives, his landlord, etc. The result is that he does not elect right type of candidates. 2.         Passions and propaganda dominate direct elections. 

Direct election means election campaigns and intensive political propaganda for or against different candidates. The voters are easily misled or carried away by clever orators or demagogues who skilfully play upon the passions and emotions of the masses. Both the press and the platform are geared to intense propaganda campaign. The average voter is unable to resist its influence. Thus the opinion of the people is made for them by professional politicians and propagandists. Indirect Election. 

It is comparatively more complicated. The voters do not elect their representatives. They elect only a number of persons, called electors who constitute what is called an electoral college as an intermediary body. These electors then, in their turn, choose the representatives finally. Thus an indirect election involves double election: first a general election by the whole electorate, and then a limited election by the small body of electors. who finally elect  the representatives. This method is not so common. It is usually favoured  for the election of the Second Chambers or the Upper House, especially of the Federal States. It is also employed for the election of the presidents of the Republican States. For example, in France the Upper Chamber is indirectly elected, in the U.S.S.R the Soviet of Nationalities and in Pakistan the Senate and the President are indirectly elected. Merits of Indirect Election. 

The method of indirect election was much favoured by writers during the early period of the rise of modern democracy. In theory, it has many advantages. It was regarded as an effective remedy of the dangers ef universal suffrage and an effective check to the emergence of mob rule Some of the chief merits are as below: 1.         It is free from the gusts of popular passion. 

As this system interposes intermediaries between the primar voters and final representatives, it is free from the gusts of popular passions It is, as, J.S.Mill wrote, intended to impede the full sweep of popula: 

feelings, for final choice rests not with the people but with a few electors who ”would be less moved than the Demos by the gust of popular passion.’ 

2.         The representatives are elected by men of ability and 

intelligence. 

The chief argument in favour of indirect election is that it secures I the election of competent men and intelligent persons. This would tend to 
ELECTIONS 

493 

improve the quality of the legislature which would consist of competent and qualified members. 3.         It ensures cool consideration of political issues. 

Indirect election means really two elections which necessarily imply a longer process of choosing the representatives. Indirect election, it is therefore said, ”introduces an element of delay in elections, and acts as a sort of sieve through which election fever passes”. The sieve is the ”electoral college”, the intermediary body of electors, which makes the final choice after cool consideration, because it is free from popular pressures and passions. 4.        Finally, the method of indirect election is good for countries whose people are educationally backward and politically unorganised. It is particularly useful for electing the Second Chambers. Defects of Indirect Election. 

Experience with the system of indirect election has revealed that its theoretical advantages are non-existent, while it has many defects and thsadvantages in actual practice. They are as follows: 1.    It kills popular interest in the elections and politics. 

The greatest defect of this method is that it makes the primary Noters indifferent to the election. They know that their votes are merely the first stage of a process the end of which may be quite different from what they would vote for. They lose interest in politics. ”If a middleman”, writes Garner, ”is interposed between the voter and the object of his choice, his Interest is necessarily diminished and his opportunity for political education w.eakened.” Indirect election has, therefore, little or no educative value. It -4eakens the spirit of popular government which depends upon popular _-nterest in public affairs and political intelligence of the masses. 

It is out of harmony with the spirit of modem democracy. Another great defect of this method is that it weakens, if not Jczu al 1 y vitiates, the principle of representative democracy. It weakens the -threct responsibility and relationship between the representatives and their mnstituents, between the rulers and the people. It interposes intermediaries ietween the  primary voters and the law makers and creates a distance or zap between the two. 

It is illogical, for if a man is fit to choose an elector, he is also fit to thoose a representative. If he has intelligence enough to choose an elector, iiew can his intelligence be doubted when it comes to choosing the final, the real. representative? 

Indirect election has often become direct election in present zones. This change has been brought about by the rise of strong and well.7-2anised political parties. The primary voters vote for such intermediary mectors who have already pledged to vote for the candidate of the party to 
494 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

which they belong. Thus intermediaries become a sort of living ballotpapers or registering machines and indirect election becomes really a direct one. This is illustrated by the election of the American President. 5.       It breeds intrigue and corruption. 

As the number of .secondary voters of ”the electoral college” is small, intrigue and corruption are easy. They can be easily bribed or intimidated or otherwise influenced by interested parties and vested interests. The electors, holding no permanent office or position in the public eye, ”would risk nothing by a corrupt vote except which they would care little for, not to be appointed electors again.” It breeds dictatorship and autocracy. . 6.        Finally, indirect election can be successful when both primary and secondary voters are honest, intelligent, and public spirited. But this is rarely so.