The Hindu Business Line : Agent or arbiter

A DRAWBACK common to all democracies is that once the voters have cast their votes for particular parties and candidates at the time of election, they lose their hold over them, and their right to regulate what their so-called representatives do thereafter.

India's brand of democracy is much worse in this respect in view of its being a `soft state' with all the attendant ills of arbitrariness, waywardness and criminalisation of politics and even Cabinets. Leave aside accountability, there are angry complaints that many MPs/MLAs do not even visit their constituencies until the next election forces them to.

During the recent Lok Sabha election, there was a hilarious (and perhaps apocryphal) story of people of some constituencies wanting the most murderous thugs in their locality nominated as candidates so that they could elect them by thumping margins.

When asked for the rationale for this quaint request, they said that since no elected member was ever known to visit the constituency, electing the rascals was the surest way of keeping them away from their neighbourhood for the next five years at least!

In those five years, the people are relegated to the position of mute and helpless witnesses to many misdeeds committed in their name. They have no other option than to suffer the agony of waiting until the next election to wreak their vengeance. All this gives rise to the pertinent question: What is the precise role of those elected by the people to representative institutions such as Parliament, State legislatures and local bodies?

Are they like delegates adhering to specific briefs and instructions, or are they, once elected, free to function according to their best lights, without worrying about the reaction of the electors? In short, are they mere agents or power-of-attorney holders?

In a speech in 1780, Edmund Burke elected to British Parliament from Bristol, took the stand that MPs were not bound by the likes and dislikes of their constituents and could discharge their duties in the best manner conducive to common good. On the other side, the Constitutions of some democracies give to voters the power of recalling their elected representatives if they are not up to expectations.

Between the two situations, is it not possible for Parliament to enact a law requiring MPs/MLAs to submit to their constituents quarterly reports of their activities, explanation for their votes on particular issues coming before legislatures, accounts for the Constituency Development Fund, and their future plans?