& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

The Majority Vote

AS I SEE IT

IKRAM SEHGAL WRITES FROM KARACHI
It is a historical fact that in countries where literacy is low, class divisions are much more pronounced, in effect these become "special interest groups" who have a tested interest in coming to power to protect the ever-shrinking economic pie. In countries of South Asia like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc these are manifested in varying ways.OVER 30 million French voters went to the polls in the first round of Presidential elections to decide their preference in a full slate of nine candidates. In a major unset that stunned political pundits, socialist candidate Lionel Jospin secured nearly seven million votes r 23.24 per cent of the votes cast) to come out first in the pack while the favourite Jacques t'hirac, a Gaullist, was grateful to scrape through to the second round with about 6.2 million votes (20.64 per cent). Chirac was just ahead of his former friend, fellow Gaullist and handpicked PM Edouard Balladur, who had deserted his mentor tn a bid for the Presidency but fell just short by 600000 votes, getting only about 5 6 million votes for about 16 54 per cent). Not to he denied his place under the French sun -Jean Marie Le Pen, the Far Right candidate, secured 15.15 per cent of the vote, translated into 4.6 million votes, slightly above par than his previous performances Next came Communist Robert Hue with 2.6 million votes 3.72 per cent), then Trotskyist Arlette Lag-uiller with 16 million votes (5.34 per cent) followed by Nationalist Phillipe de Villiers (1.4 million votes 4.78 per cent i and Ecologist Dominique Voynet with 3.33 per cent of the vote representing one million votes. At the very tail was the Extreme Right candidate Jacques Cheminade with 83472 votes (about 0 27 percent).
Since none of the candidates got an outright majority (50 per cent), a second run-off election will be held on May 7. 1995 between the Socialist Party Candidate Lionel Jospin and "Rally for the Republic (RPR) Party" Candidate. Paris Mayor Jacques Chirac. Contrary to pollsters speculation a few months ago I hat pitted Con-servatives Chirac and Balladur against each other, the early front runner French PM Balladur self-destructed in the final weeks to make it a straight Left-Right contest. On the surface, the Right (Chirac, Balladur. Le Pen. Villiers and Cheminade) picked up about 18 million votes (60 per cent) to 12 million votes of the Left (Jospin, Hiz, Laguiller. Voynet) about 40 per cent. However, this is rather a simplistic calculation as not all the voters of the Right will vote for Chirac or, for that matter, Jospin will not automatically sweep up all the votes on the Left. A fair esti-
mate is that a vast majority of each side may still favour (heir ideological inclination (and a fair amount may stay at home) but most voters react to individual candidates in preference to their political leanings.
The inaccurate French polls had shown Chirac getting nearly 27 per cent of the vote of about eight million votes — he fell short by a massive 1.8 million votes, nearly 25 per cent less than predicted by pollsters On the other hand. Jospin did better than expected by'about 1.6 million votes and Balladur was short of the projections by about a million votes. These represent very wide margins of error and expert analysts are of the opinion that Chirac almost got clobbered because of 1) voter apathy inasfar that they expected him to win anyway and stayed at home, (2) the Right-Right "split of the Gaullist vote and (3) desperate Socialist attempt to keep their candidate Jospin alive by concentrating the left vote. At the Same time Le Pen, who had no chance anyway, profited from his rabid rhetoric against immigrants, the symbolic backlash maintaining ' his performance of the past. The Extreme Left (in Hue, Laguiller and Voynet) got a better than expected five million votes (about 17 per cent).
Alarmed by the Socialist success in the first round, French PM Edouard Balladur was the first to concede defeat (within the hour of the unofficial results) and throw his support behind his-former, friend and mentor. Jacques Chirac. While clearly upset at his surprisingly poor showing in the pools, Chirac (nicknamed the Bulldozer), was quick to readjust his signals for a determined third bid at the Presidency by a low-key victory speech in the face of Le Peri exhorting his supporters not to vote for Chirac, the Paris Mayor knows he has his work cut out for him if he is to overcome the psychological handicap of the first round "defeat" at the hands of likeable Jospin. Given the mood to the right of the french populace, computer
projections are presently giving him a 57-43 per cent placing over Jospin in the May 7 run-off In actual terms, this means that approximately an additional 11 million voters would cast their preference for him (total 17 million) while Jospin would get only six million votes (total 12 million). Given the mood of the populace, this mathematical calculation of the margin may not be as wide as projected with a 53-47 per cent margin quite possible in favour of Chirac, representing 16 million votes cast for Chirac to 14 million votes for Jospin
While we will have to wait for the actual results on May 7 to see about these projections some very interesting observations are on display for everyone to see. particularly those who are interested to correct the present anoina-li in the electoral system in
vogue in the third world. Essentially this is the practice of having only first past the post" system, making it a lucrative hunting ground for "special interest groups " and even strong minorities. Whether Chirac wins on Jtispin, the mandate the winner will receive from the electorate is very unambiguous, a majority of those eligible who cast their preference would be represented by the winning candidate. That is the essence of democracy, the will of the majority.
While it is a possibility that Jospin may win, the present measure of the will of the French people indicates a. turn to the rignt, giving the edge to Chirac, nominally the runner-up in the first round This is the same that happened much more drastically in the Ukraine where the sitting President Kravchuk got 43 per cent in the first round, •a clear lead over former PM
Kuchma who got only 33 per cent. In the run off election, Kuchma got 53 per cent, an
improvement of 20 per cent while Kravchuk could only mange an increase of 4 per cent only to 47 per cent. Kravchuk had a clear majority of 43 per cent of the electoral votes tn the first rourid. a greater numlier of voters who had voted for other candidates did not want to see him in office and thus went over en bloc to his opponent in the second and final round, a fair expression of the will of the majority as to their preference.
It is a historical fact that in countries where literacy is low, class divisions are much more pronounced, in effect these become " special inter est groups who have a vested interest in coming to power to protect the evershrinking economic pie. In countries of South Asia like Pakistan. India, Bangladesh, etc these are manifested in varying ways.In Pakistan,
the divisions may be lecause of sect, ethnicity, Baradri, caste, etc while in India it is further complicated because of the sharp class division within the Hindu caste system with the Brahmans miles apart from the Untouchables, who incidentally have started to flex their muscles. With a good size Muslim and Christian population, ethnicity, etc adds to the turpioil. While in western countries where "'special interest groups" may he created out of ideological motivation, in third world countries these are mostly created out of heritage, the accident of birth in a particular location, religion, sect, caste, etc. These cultural divisions make further polarisation into potential for violence.
This is the very anti-thesis of democracy where individual preference must be the cardinal principle behind the free vote. In essence, democracy can never function within these parameters, the model clcarlv shown in ad-
vanced western countries is a clear Left and Right divide, not so in the Third World. The result is that anyone who gets between 20-25 per cent of the vote has a core strength that gets him or her elected in the ’first past the post" basis It is not secret that the winning candidate depends upon a hard core of voters who prefer him not because of their individual likes but because their closed society wills them so. This is not democracy, this is an absolute farce The aspirant winner need only target a part of the electorate and his (or her) success excludes the major part of the electorate who mostly become spectators during the tenure of the N.M A MPA xhilr the special interest group live off the winner - spoils. This core group nun Im- of ethnic, sect, caste land even a blind belief in their partv
The polarisation enhances division in the populace as in time the other groups become frustrated at their inadequacy in numbers and decide that they have no future within this system because of their back-ground and begin to look for alternatives like secession that will give them a place in the sun. This process promotes dis-inte-gration whereas oqr aim should be for candidates to have corss-over votes from all sides. Moreover the present system inculcates a weak government as candidates get elected who do not owe any allegiance to (he majority of voters in their constituencies and thus being unaccountable are available for defection to the highest bidder.
Pakistan is a classic example of everything that has gone wrong with democracy/ but could have been different provided we were logical and truthful in our concept. Except for the MQM whose candidates mostly get more than 50 per cent in the first round and a handful of leaders like the MP Ms Benazir Bhutto, etc in her ancestral I.arkana constituency, the rest get between 20-30 per cent of the votes cast in their constituencies to get elected. Since the voting percentage is
about.50 per cent, it means that oniv between 10-15 per cent of the eligible voters in .a particular constituency manage to get their candi date elected. Some are elected because they were Shia or Sunni, some because they belonged to a Baradi i, some because they were Mohajir or Sindhi, some because they were Awan or Rajput or whatever, some because they created a "group on the strength of money.
How can known honest men like Air Marshal (Retd) Asghar Khan. Mairaj Mohammad Khan, etc ever 'get elected in such a system even though the majority may prefer them in th* ultimate analysis? It is therefore important that before even such people are forced to compromise on principles for the sake of being elected in a "democracy such as presently ours, w opt for a measure that gives verdict on the basis of a genuine majority vote The present disinte-Ction of our society is also
p-rooted on the frustrations of the majority at being effectively shut out of the democratic process by a strong minority with the help of a divided vote
Critics argue that a second run-off election involves considerable expense that an impoverished natiorf cannot afford. Is this price too much to pay for the integrity of this country? Do we have to continue to suffer the paralysis of government and the vagaries of nepotism and corruption because of a few billion Rupees"’ In the face of the many billions that are regularly frittered or pilfered by our un-accountabte leaders. the concept of a majority vote is a small price to pay.
A run-off election will put the "Special Interest Group" against the will of the majority, democracy can only prevail when the majority vote prevails. In the process Shia will have to align with Sunni, Awan with Rajput, Mahajir with Sindhi. etc and so on. Only candidates who command the confidence of the majority of the eligible electorate will get elected. If Pakistan is to be saVed then we must change the system to reflect the correct interpretation of democracy, not one that works in favour of feu-dals. the rich and the influ-cntials. Of all the ills we dream about reforming, there is nothing more important to Pakistan's survival than democracy in its correct form to reflect the true will of the majority vote