On Sunday, Bengaluru witnessed the Graduate Constituency Elections. At a singular poll, an estimated 20 lakh Bangaloreans gained an opportunity denied to 75 lakh fellow citizens. Out of the City’s 95 lakh population, only an elite 21 percent graduate citizens could register themselves to elect a double-representative to the State Legislature.
This elite section enjoys not only the constitutional right to elect a general territorial representative, but also the ‘unconstitutional’ privilege to choose a special representative to cater exclusively to the interests of City graduates. When Ambedkar said, “Higher Education, in my opinion, means that education which can enable you to occupy the strategically important places in State administration”, he surely could not have meant this! This elitist practice indicates an inherent inconsistency between our electoral principles and practices that needs to be urgently examined and corrected. On the one hand, the Union Government upholds education as a fundamental right that must be universal and free. On the other hand, the State Government makes access to education the basis of an electoral privilege denied to 79 percent of the City’s populace.
What could possibly be the rationale behind the system, this citizen wonders? That the masses are incapable of the judicious exercise of discretion in electoral choice? And that the educated elite must be called upon to elect a few competent legislators to undo the incompetence of the several mass-elected MLAs and MLCs?
Or, that the needs of graduates are so especially different and complex that they cannot be resolved by representatives elected from general territorial constituencies? That the issues of the elite are far more intense than those of the poor and uneducated?
Neither argument holds good, given the assumptions behind the electoral principles: That the illiterate are as capable of making sound political choices as the literate are, and that the requirement of a singular general electoral roll for voters across the nation (irrespective of the incidence of birth or access to socio-economic opportunities) is non-negotiable.
The debate of illiterate v/s literate voter was laid to rest when India accepted Ambedkar’s defense, “My feeling is that every man is intelligent enough to understand exactly what he wants. Literacy has not much bearing on this point.”
What can perhaps be argued is that an elected graduate may be able to provide a contribution that a non-graduate cannot. The potential for good governance that this possibility offers can be better addressed by reserving seats in the Legislative Council for graduate candidates, who must be elected to the House by the general electorate comprising both graduate and non-graduate voters. That is, reserve seats for graduates, not votes; certainly not entire electoral constituencies.
(The author is faculty member, Department of Political Science, Christ University, Bangalore)