Though the Indian elections is all about personalities and larger than life leaders, our Westminster style first past the post system makes individual candidates' election the most decisive component of who makes it to 7 RCR. In the run up to the elections, parties seeking vote on basis of strong personalities are being countered at the ground level by a clamour for electing the best candidate. This particularly suits the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) who seek to dent the BJP's overwhelming personality based campaign. With little history and no baggage, the party candidates have a clean slate to begin writing their electoral prospects. Other parties also have in the fray professionals from different walks of life who seek to leverage their non-political achievements.
So where does this leave the voter? What choice does he or she have? A voter who would want Narendra Modi as the PM would also be sorely tempted to vote for Nandan Nilekani. In such a context, an analysis of the Westminster system and the powers of a Member of Parliament (MP) could help in this regard.
I have been reading a lot of articles and umpteen twitter feeds where candidates have claimed the incumbent of not having done enough for the constituency. To what extent can an MP "work" for his or her constituency? Development and civil works are not approved or sanctioned by the MPs. Each MP can suggest to the Head of the District, works to the tune of Rs. 1 crore which can be taken up in that constituency. In essence, an MP has 5 crores to spend during a full tenure. Figuratively that is nothing. An MP cannot do "development" as claimed by most of the contestants against the incumbents. The best an MP can do is raise concerns of the constituency in the right departments, raise questions in the Lok Sabha and maneuver whatever elbow room they have to influence work be taken up in their constituency. For example Rahul Gandhi has all the power to ask the Power Ministry to commission a power plant in Amethi. And if the MP is in opposition ranks, then the person would be bereft of any elbow room. Hence judging MPs for local development work is incorrect. Rather the judgement should be based on MPs interaction with people, how the person has amplified the concerns voiced and how influential the MP has been. The primary job of an MP is that of a legislator - creating laws. An MP sits in parliament to discuss, debate and make laws and pass resolutions. In this context, the working of the Westminster system has to be understood.
In theory, the Westminster system elects an MP who has the right to express his or her thoughts - be it for or against the Government. The MP can question, demand, debate, appreciate and take a decision as per his or her own conclusions on any matter. But in reality, MPs are part of a social grouping called a political party (unless an MP is an independent) and would rarely speak against the party or vote against party wishes. Imagine a scenario in the 16th Lok Sabha - if the BJP is in power and wants to pass a resolution on a pro-business executive decision. Nandan Nilekani, in his individual capacity can be fully appreciable of such a decision. But if the Congress party takes a stand against the resolution, Nilekani would have to toe the line. In essence, the discourse boils down to what the party thinks rather than what the individual thinks.
By voting for your MP, you are actually voting for your party. A few in the party would be the key decision making syndicate. And your MP would generally heed decision of the party with respect to policies, voting on resolutions and creating laws. The development work of the constituency would largely be in the hands of the state and local government. You cannot expect your MP to be a very big influence in state and local government unless the same party is in power and the MP has considerable influence. Your MP can also turn out to have a bad influence but does not have any decision making authority.
In the Indian system, it is a vote for the party and not a vote for the best candidate. You may disagree, invoking the candidates' credentials as being impeccable and worthy of a vote. But, wearing my glasses of pragmatism, I would vote for a party rather than a candidate.
