World Parliament of Indigenous People

8/9/2019 World Parliament of Indigenous People

1/22

The Campaign for Electoral Reforms in India (CERI)

World Parliament of Indigenous People

An Innovative Foray into the Future

December 2010 - Tumkur

M C Raj

Governance, the distribution of values both material and spiritual, hasconsiderable power in the world today to provide unlimited wealth and luxury

as well as to deprive sustenance, dignity and freedom. In indigenouscommunities of yore it was a tool to provide space for all people withoutevolving restrictive dogmas, laws and dominance. It was a direct democracypracticed without any definition and discourse. It has made a quantum jump intimes wherein it cannot be understood nor practiced without definitions andboundaries set by nation-states, and supra-national institutions.

All democracies are however, far away from the utopian ideal. Weakersections and minorities cannot take part in societal game of democraticgovernance unless special efforts are undertaken to equip them to becomeequal players. To achieve this, a broad set of instruments and institutionalarrangements have to be set in place, one among which would be an electoralsystem. They should ensure maximum amount of justice, participation andsecure the rights of minorities and integrate dissenting and differing votes,opinions and interests.

Democracy as it has evolved through the recent centuries of human history isthe sum and substance of Utopia. Thomas Mores 16 th century classic. InGreek, Utopia can mean U-topia meaning no place or it can mean Eu-topiawhich means a happy place. This sums up the essence of democracy in themodern and postmodern world. It is a U-topia (no place) for a vast majority of

people and Eu-topia (happy place) for a small minority of people. This is theessence of modernist and post modernist democracy that it provides bliss to aminority of the powerful and penury to a vast majority of its citizens.

Both Rousseau and Voltaire who captured the imagination of France and ledthe way to the French Revolution, espoused the cause of the common people.They believed that science and philosophy of their own time, the age ofenlightenment, led to depression and not to progress. The two major works ofJean Jaques Rousseau are Emile and Social Contract. Overwhelmed by thereality of inequality that the emergence of the new nation state andindustrialization was bringing about, he put forward the proposition Man is

born free but everywhere is in chains. One can read between the lines ofRousseau the distinction between direct democracy and representative


2/22

democracy. Though not explicitly stated, one can understand that directdemocracy was and is still practiced in the indigenous communities of peopleincluding the Dalits and Adivasi/indigenous and tribal peoples of Indiawhereas representative democracy is a product of the enlightened world. ForRousseau, people are slaves to the will of another in representative

democracy. In direct democracy it is the people who make the law. People arefree if they obey the law that they make.

Current democratic systems can be described as election-basedrepresentative democracy. In some countries these systems arecomplemented by elements of grassroots democracy like petitions andplebiscites. Representative democracies can be divided in two groups ofelectoral systems. One is the majoritarian system followed in countries like theUS, Britain or India, with First Past The Post (FPTP). The other is the PESfollowed in most of the West European nations, New Zealand and Nepal.

Electoral system is the decisive tool in any democracy on how votes of thegoverned are translated into mandates for those who govern. The two majorelectoral systems mentioned above are said to foster two different principlesthat are both important for good governance and simultaneously conflicting.The Majoritarian Electoral system (MES) emphasizes more on the stability ofpolitical systems, as it usually produces a solid majority for a ruling party, butstill provides a good chance to see a change in the government. TheProportionate Electoral System (PES) puts more emphasis on justice,equality, inclusiveness and the representation of all societal groups in thepolitical decision-making according to the number of votes that a party cangain in an election.

CERI strongly believes that democratic governance in all nations shouldprovide not only the basic needs of human being but also a proportionalshare in all the wealth and resources for all citizens in an equitable way.Depriving millions of people of the means of living will gradually reducethe respect people have for democracy and may compel them to takerecourse to undemocratic means of fulfilling their needs.

1. Democracy in indigenous communities

Most indigenous communities in the world have practiced and are stillpracticing variant forms of direct democracy. This is possible in smallercommunities of people and not fit for postmodern representative democraticgovernance. Most nation states in the world today have multiplicities thatmake direct governance of the indigenous people an unmanageableproposition. However, the value systems that have guided governance ofindigenous societies still hold water. Modern democracies have manydimensions to borrow from indigenous forms of governance if they are seriousabout providing adequate space and resources to all their citizens.

Modern democracies are also in need of taking into serious account the fact


3/22

that indigenous communities across the world have preserved their forms ofgovernance within their communities without necessarily imposing theirdemocratic forms as absolute forms of governance. Such sustenance is anevidence of the deep values that have governed these communities despiteunpredictable adversities. Within the governance systems of these

communities such values still remain highly valid and relevant. This perhapsexplains why even such overarching and sometimes even violent forms ofdemocratic praxis have failed to make inroads into self-governancemechanisms of indigenous communities.

2. Self governance sans private ownership

Governance in indigenous communities can be understood as the distributionof values, understood as entitlement in postmodern rights discourse. Valuesare further understood in two categorical terms. One category of valuepertains to the physical realms of life. This will consist of all those needs of lifethat can be fulfilled by visible, tangible, physical and material resources suchas land, water, food, housing, forest, trees etc. The other category of valuepertains to the intangible, invisible, metaphysical and spiritual realms of life.This comprises space, authority, normative, social order, freedom of all kindsetc. The indigenous communities are guided by the value premise thatcosmos owns us and we do not own the cosmos, we belong to space andspace does not belong to us, earth being our mother owns us and we have noneed to own the earth etc. Modern democracies have been strongly imbeddedin the greedy need for private ownership of the physical and material values.

Such private ownership is strongly imbedded in a dominant belief system thatthe male man is the absolute owner of material world. Dominant religionseven propagate the paradigm that god created material values so that mancan own and overpower nature to suit his designs. Such dogmas anddoctrines are far removed from the worldview of indigenous communities ofpeople. Governance is not for accumulation and amalgamation of materialvalues by individuals who have the power to do so. Governance is for thedistribution of material and spiritual entitlement to all members of thecommunity without individuals claiming to own anything privately to theexclusion of other members of the community from using material resources.

3. Colonization and Democracy

Indigenous praxis of democracy is for governance understood as distributionof material and spiritual entitlement. In such governance the dividing linebetween democracy and governance is very thin. Colonial democracy is forreaping rich harvest by those who have the power to establish dominantspaces in governance. There is a clear demarcation between democracy andgovernance identifiable by different sets of procedures, rules and regulations.Democracy in colonial context only seeks to serve those who give dividendsto it. This naturally leads to the isolation of those who are unable to pay taxesto the State. Those who pay more taxes have more space and those who payless tax get only marginal benefits from postmodern democracies. Unlike


4/22

governance in indigenous communities modern democracies indulge in thebusiness of governance with a price. Those who are forcefully incapacitatedand are unable to pay a price to the State are excluded from space ingovernance. Electoral systems in such democracies are designed in such away that only paying citizens will be able to gain space in the instruments and

mechanisms of governance.

Such evolution of the contours of democracy is inevitable, as the progressionof modern and postmodern democracies has been designed with certaindefinite dominant agenda of interests groups all over the world. Moderndemocracy and governance are products of engineered processes and notorganic as in indigenous communities of people. The vast resources that wereamassed as a consequence of colonizing countries in different continentsneeded to be shared among individuals of post-feudal society. Liberalism,freedom, fraternity came to form the essential ingredients of such democraticform of governance. Though all these were values of governance in

indigenous communities they lacked the specific dimension of distribution ofvalues only to those who had dominant power. They were guided by thevalue that distribution must be equitable and to all. This trajectory ofdemocracy has finally ended up governance by the gun, that today there arechampions of democracy who do not hesitate any more to establish theirbrand of democracy by destroying not only the sovereignty of nations but alsotheir physical well being and resources.

4. Agent State character and irrelevance of indigenous

people in governance

One of the consequences of the resistance to monarchy and feudalism is theemergence of the nation state as a progressive instrument of governance.Nation State is the agent of democracy, the particular brand of democracythat colonizing nations established in their respective countries. It is suchnation states that decided to set up a form of government in colonizedcountries that would suit their amalgamation of unlimited wealth andaccumulation of limitless profit. It was not the same brand of democracy in thecolonized countries. Different sets of rules of governance were evolved for thecolonized nations. This is an evidence that the evolution of democratic

governance was skewed in history to fit well into the designs of those whowanted to dominantly govern the nations of the world. The Queen of Englandanchored warships in the shores of New Zealand and sent word to someselected Tribal leaders of the Maori people to negotiate a treaty with them.Democracy surrounded by warships!

Not only in colonized nations but also in the country of the colonizers nationstate became a significant tool of governance. The emergence of the nationstate is an inseparable part of the colonial democracy that evolved all over theplace during the enlightenment phase of human history mainly in the West. Itis an essential ingredient of the new form of governance. Industrialization andcolonization necessitated nation state that would put in place firmly a legalsystem that would safeguard industrial production and its consequent


5/22

accumulation of profit. Distribution of values to the powerful had to be donethrough a legitimizing legal system, labor unrest had to be contained with afist of iron through a legally established police and military, necessaryinfrastructure had to be created and maintained through a taxing system ofthe common citizen etc.

Indigenous people who lived largely in colonized nations did not fit much intothis agent character of the nation state. They did not have the capacity into ataxation system that would provide resources to the state to serve the industryin the best possible way. It would be better to leave them to manage their lifeby themselves. In countries where they thickly populated the geography of thecolonized nations and offered stiff resistance innumerable discourses wereproduced to legitimize and even sanctify the use of force and religion againstinnocent and unassuming native people. Crucifix, chocolates, cheese and gunformed a queer combination of bringing the indigenous people to their knees.Reverential fear, sugar coated with economic benefits became the smooth

path of democratizing the uncivilized native people in many parts of theworld.

5. Modern State, Citizen, Tax Payer, Welfare etc.

In continuation of the character of being agent state modern nation states arebecoming more and more economic states with governance being tacitlytransferred into the hands of economic bodies. From tax payer, to investor tocorporate bodies the focus in modern nation states are shifted to corporate

bodies as political decision makers without necessarily delinking the tax payerat the bottom of the pyramid. Political bodies are put in place by economicbodies either directly or indirectly in order to make their decisions or decisionsfor their wellbeing. In this effort care is taken not to antagonize the taxpayer inorder to safeguard the investment and capital of the Corporate Sector. Thelosers in this whole game of governance are the indigenous people as theyare not at the top of the taxpayers list.

Something positive that has happened in the transformation of governancesystem is the prominent place given to citizen who has become a nucleus ofthe postmodern state. The citizen is a taxpayer as well as a vote payer, thus

representing the inseparability of economy and politics from each other. Thedividing line between economic welfarism and governance as a distribution ofvalues has been almost obliterated in the postmodern nation state. Thoughthe citizen has no own identity it is still a space that is created for differentindividuals with their own identities. This creates an opportunity for peoplewith traditional identities. At their level they can forge unity among themselveswith their identities but can still make the best use of the rights of citizens andvoters.

Citizens who are not in the level playing field of taxpayers then become theobjects of welfare state where marginal economic benefits trickle down so that

their unrest may not become uncontainable. Thus modern nation statemanages to maintain the dichotomy between the subject character of the


6/22

citizen and the object character for its own benefit. It keeps its edge overcitizens by keeping the bigger taxpayer as greater beneficiary of its welfaremeasures and the smaller taxpayers or the non-taxpayers as simple objectsof the welfare state to languish in the peripheries of governance and to perishinto oblivion if unable to come into the level playing field of modern

competitive society.

6. Trickle down of controlled political space and

governance

In democracies where ideal precondition of equality of all players does notexist the indigenous people happen to lose out as a consequence of cutthroatcompetitions. In such societies the dominant forces take full control of thepolitical space to others who are not part of their competing group. Such

appropriation of dominant space and its equal blending of deprivation ofspace is not limited only to indigenous communities of people. It also extendsto all communities of people who do not share a dominant worldview and whohave not developed the capacity for aggrandizement of spaces. Asgovernance has slipped out of the hands of such communities communicativeinteraction among them has been highly limited in comparison to theenormous capacity of dominant groups to indulge in immediatecommunicative interaction. The dominant groups also strategize their movesin such a way that such communities would largely remain in isolation withoutthe possibility for sharing their common deprivation. Though they allow atrickling down of limited political spaces to groups of people living in the

peripheries they keep the essential control of systems and structures in theirhands.

As governance goes global, social structures must follow in step.Globalization has led to the formation of a truly global economy, wherestates have less influence in global economic factors, and increasinglythe world economic system is controlled by a powerful minority ofbanks, international financial institutions and corporations. This processhas been facilitated by the major nations of the world, primarily theUnited States, and it has in turn led to the formation of a truly global

ruling class. David Rothkopf refers to this global class as theSuperclass and has concluded that it is a class consisting of roughly6,000 individuals, roughly one member of the Superclass for everyone million people. When Empire Hits Home

7. Demand for inclusion in governance

History is replete with resurgence of the indigenous people in differentepochs. It is not that they have isolated themselves from the affairs of the

world. It is the other way round. No doubt they have lived their lives with theirspecific worldview that does not match the dominant worldview of most parts


7/22

of the world. But this specificity has kept them away from destroying natureand exploiting the resources of the cosmos for selfish greed. Their cry forintegration into the instruments and mechanisms of world governance springsfrom their strength to contribute to the world in terms of democraticgovernance. The specificity of the indigenous and Dalit people is the

distribution of values to fulfill needs of all people and not the greed of somepeople. In this interphase between need and greed the indigenous and Dalitcommunities have received a body blow repeatedly.

Resilience of the Dalit and indigenous people knows no bounds. They havebounced back into the mainstream and have been claiming their legitimatespace in society and in governance. They have been at the receiving endmainly because of the mindless violence that they have faced in the dominantsociety. Their present endeavor in many countries of the world to lay claimover political spaces in their respective countries is part and parcel of theireffort to bounce back.

8. The Covenants of UN and legal measures of ILO

Indigenous communities all over the world have made use of the spaceprovided by the UN through its two international covenants and ILOconventions that have recognized their legitimate claim for self-determination.However, such recognition for self-determination has come within the existingdemocratic framework. It is only in the recent past that the Dalit communitieshave made a strong entry into the UN, though it must be acknowledged that

their entry into the UN mechanisms is not for the first time. It must also beacknowledged that the UN was under compulsion to ensure the rights ofindigenous people because of exorbitant and blatant violation of rights inmany countries of the world.

Democracy is also considered to be that system of governance that can bringabout the realization of the Universal Human Rights, at least better than anyother known system of governance. This is mainly because rights ofindividuals are guaranteed by an elaborate set of measures and mechanisms.Many States in the postmodern period have also developed broad sets ofmechanisms, which allow citizens to effectively participate in the processes of

political decision making and distribution of societal resources and wealth.Individuals have the right to form interest groups according to their own willand interests and enter societal competition for these resources. Suchdemocracies function fairly well only when individuals and groups within ademocratic frame are relatively equal. Under the ideal precondition of equalityof all the players, social competition leads to a fairly high level of equality andjustice between the groups and individuals.

9. Representative Democracy

The sheer expansionist development of capitalism led to a compulsive needto look for forms of governance that will suit not equitable distribution of


8/22

values but amalgamation of resources in the hands of a few in a few nations.Colonizing democracies had to find a way not only to govern but also a wayout of governance. Direct democracy as practiced in small communities ofindigenous people made itself irrelevant except in those communities in whichit was effectively being used for real distribution of values. The changing

contours of democracy and governance demanded that identities of traditionalcommunities be given an easy go by and legitimizing technology be adaptedfor greater accumulation. Representative democracy was put in place withcitizen as inalienable individual being at the core of it.

Representation of the individual citizen was ensured through vote in anelectoral system. The transformation of the members of traditional and evendominant communities into numbers became a grandiose accomplishment. InIndia this was represented by two great men of yore. Gandhi made a famousdictum, One man, one vote. Ambedkar gave a counter, One man, onevalue. The dichotomy continues unabated through centuries.

Dominant democracies have found it convenient to introduce the First PastThe Post (FPTP) as the most suitable form of their representative democracy.Communities were soon replaced by parties, camouflaging all unifyingidentities under the garb of the voter. Nationalism slipped easily into the placeof religion that played effectively the role of meaning system. The conflict ofideology continued through the discourses of cultural nationalism wherereligion retained its traditional role of meaning system and political nationalismwhere the nation state itself assumed a central role in guiding the destiny ofcitizens. In the beginning stages of democracy wherein two party system wasthe order of the day FPTP fit the bill of dominant democracies. It is designedspecifically to make a choice between two parties. One of them has to win.

10. Proportionate Representation The sensitive side of

Europe

But democracy itself was born out of dissent and aspiration to break out intonew systems of governance. As multiplicity developed dissenting trends hadto be accommodated within the parameters of democratic governance.European governments led the way in accommodating differences. Coalitions

became almost the normative of emerging governance in many Europeannations especially in Western Europe. FPTP made itself naturally irrelevant.Representative democracy led some fascists like Hitler, Mussolini etc. tomanipulate it endlessly to successfully establish a hegemonic form ofgovernance under the guise of democracy. Nations have started waking up.Though it is a bit too late in the day it still augurs well for humanity. With muchlabor pain many nations transformed their electoral system into ProportionateElectoral System.

Both these electoral systems have their strengths and weaknesses. However,the beauty of Proportionate Electoral System is its ability to continuouslyadapt itself to changing needs of time and people as well as its ability toaccommodate differences systemically. This is also coupled with an


9/22

increasing sensitivity to human rights among many European nations.

A comparison between the FPTP and the PR System can be seen in thefollowing, taken from the Manifesto of CERI. M C Raj has also written thisdocument.

Europe is also progressing gradually into greater understating of electoralsystem through multifarious discursive practices. One of the latest discoursesthat is happening is between Scientists for Democracy in Europe (SDE) andthe Voting Theory for Democracy (VTFD) on electoral systems focusing onEU and EP. Another example is the Penrose Power. The Penrose approachswitches focus from one person, one vote to another condition, namely togive every citizen of the EU the same influence on decisions where the latterinfluence is also called being decisive and can also be called Penrose(voting) Power. The decisive argument in both the schools is forProportionate representation. However, their argumentation is to enhance

true democracy even within the PR system.

11. FPTP PES: A Comparison

First Past The Post(FPTP)

Proportionate ElectoralSystem (PES)

Indian Democracy has FPTP as itselectoral system to providerepresentation to voters in StateAssemblies and in the Parliament ofIndia. Most citizens of India areunaware of the existence of otherpossible electoral systems in theworld.

Many democracies have shifted toPES. This system is widely practicedin many democracies and morecountries are shifting to ProportionalRepresentation (PR).

The FPTP system allows politicalparties to come to power both in theStates and at the Centre with a

woeful minority of votes. Thecontestant who has more votes isdeclared winner, irrespective of thepercentage of votes won. Though it isknown as majoritarian it leavesmajority of voters withoutrepresentation.

In PES a party is allotted seats inproportion to the percentage of votesthat it gets. There will not be any

difference between the percentage ofvotes and the percentage of seats.Thus only parties with more votersupport can come to power.

Parties with less than 30% of voteswin more percentage of seats andclaim the right to form governments.This leaves out a vast majority of

voters unrepresented in governance.

In PES majority means more than50% of votes. The other votes are notwasted. They are given to othercandidates to provide representation

to all voters in the Assemblies and inthe Parliament.


10/22



Majority is understood to be the onewho gets more number of votes thanother contestants instead of beingover 50%. There are members in thepresent Lok Sabha who got less than10% votes but won the seat as othersdid not manage to get that manyvotes. There are only 5 members inthe present Lok Sabha who have wonwith more than 50% of votes of thetotal electorate.

If parties are unable to gain morethan 50% of votes they cannotassume power to govern. Partieshave to make coalitions with similarideologies to influence voters.

The percentage of votes that a partygets is not the same as the

percentage of seats it gets in thiselectoral system. Parties with lesspercentage of votes can gain morenumber of seats and parties withmore percentage of votes can gainless number of seats in this system.This does not give a truerepresentation of the voters choice. Itis only a token representation.

In the PES any party will be able togain seats only in proportion to the

percentage of votes that it gains. Thisis one of the reasons why it is calledproportional. There is not possibilityof manipulating number of seatsagainst the percentage of votes in thissystem. With its variants in counting,this system ensures that all voters arerepresented in governance.

In FPTP system only one member

can be elected from oneconstituency. It is called singlemember constituency. This leads toalienation of representation instead ofbeing inclusive. Apart from promotingextreme rivalry and violence, itsystematically excludes the losingvoters from participating ingovernance.

PES has multi-member

constituencies. This will enable two ormore members getting elected fromthe same constituency to providerepresentation to different parties. Inreturn, this will enhance voter interestin elections and enables greaterparticipation of citizens ingovernance.

It is well recognized that FPTP ismore suited for countries with two

party systems and not suited forcountries with multiparty systems.

PES is more suited for counties withmulti-party system. India arrived at an

era of coalition politics long time agoand therefore, FPTP is a misfit forIndia.


11/22



The present electoral system in Indiaencourages corruption, use of musclepower, communalism etc. to gain theslight margin of winning votes. Theparties that come to power are notmandated by the citizens. Onlyparties that have the power tomanipulate voters are able to come topower. These are generally partiesthat have dominant, fascist,communal and casteist ideology.

Many countries with PR system followState sponsoring of electionexpenses. This prevents corruption,money and muscle power,malpractices, play of emotions oncommunal and caste basis etc.

State expenses for bye-elections in

India are generally very huge. Alsoparties indulge in corruption andmindless violence in bye-elections

There are no bye-elections in PR

system as the next candidate in theParty List will automatically enter theParliament in the event of death orresignation of the existing member.This reduces huge expenses,corruption and electoral violence.

Parties that represent a vast majorityof Dalits, Adivasis/indigenous andtribal people, minorities and womenare unable to get their proportionalrepresentation in the present electoral

system. They are able to get onlyrepresentation through reservedseats provided they follow thedictates of dominant parties that theybelong to. This makes themrepresentatives of their parties andnot representatives of their people.

In the party list the constituency that acandidate will represent will beindicated. This will enable voters fromthat constituency to vote for the partyto which their popular candidate

belongs.If a party fields more and morepopular candidates their percentageof votes will increase in manyconstituencies. Thus the popularity ofparty ideology and the popularity ofcandidates are both important in PRsystem.

Because parties are unable to gainthe required number of seats to form

government, there is much horsetrading after the elections andformation of coalitions that are notdesired by voters.

PES provides ample space forforming coalitions representing

smaller communities that do not havethe chance of being represented inFPTP. Smaller parties representingunrepresented communities canmake a coalition and gain therequired percentage of votes to cometo power.


12/22



There is little inner party democracyin the present electoral system.Parties are based on a singlepersonality and their family can easilygain power through the presentelectoral system without holdingorganizational elections. Partycandidates are chosen by the leaderor the family.

In PES, inner party democracy is aprerequisite by design. Before theelections political parties will have toprepare a list of candidates selectedthrough party elections and submitthe same to the Election Commission.Candidates of parties will be declaredelected from this list in the sameproportion as the percentage votesthat a party or a coalition gains.

By its very nature FPTP dividescandidates and their followers(voters). It leads to fragmentation by

its individualistic orientation. Thewinner takes it all is its paradigm.

The chances of the presently un- orunder-represented sections such asthe Dalits, Adivasis/indigenous and

tribal peoples, minorities and womenforming a coalition to gain the powerto govern and form stablegovernments are much greater inPES than in FPTP. By its very nature,PES unites and brings voters andparties together.

FPTP results in centralization ofpower in the individual. Indiasexperience with political parties

shows that they are increasinglybecoming leader centric with little orno ideology. The issues get relegatedto backstage while the identitiesbecome more important. This hasaffected the credibility of the entirepolitical system as the leadersbecome unaccountable to people asmost of them have realized that theywill definitely get the mandate of thepeople based on their identity and not

on the basis of their performance orideologies.

In PES, it is the party that mattersmost and individual representativescomparatively less. Voters select

parties more for its ideology and lessfor personalities, though it isrecognized that the leaders do havean image. Parties with similarideologies have greater chance ofcoming into coalition rather thanparties coming to grab power basedonly on calculations of requirednumber of seats. Countries with PEShave demonstrated that family anddynastic rule has no place in

governance.

12. CERI A Pressure on India

The Campaign for Electoral Reforms in India (CERI) started in recent timesone of the first ever, concerted drives to usher in the Proportionate ElectoralSystem in India. This is a sequel to the great political battle that Dr. B. R.

waged against Hindu fundamentalists in India who wanted to establish Indiaas a Hindu nation. He demanded separate electorate for the Dalits. The


13/22

British granted it not only to the Dalits but also to the Muslims and Christians.Unfortunately Mr. M. K. Gandhi went on a fast unto death against such apolitical right being given only to the Dalits. He did not have objection to thesame being given to Muslims and Christians. Ambedkar lost out and reservedseats came in place of separate electorate as compromise formula in what is

now known as the Poona Pact. However, very little is known in India about thefact that Dr. Ambedkar passed a resolution on 27 August 1955 as theChairperson of the national federation of the Scheduled Castes that Indiashould not resort to reserved seats and separate electorate. What we need isan electoral system with multi-member constituencies. REDS has taken a cuein this change of position of Ambedkar as a part of its continued struggle forthe political empowerment of the Dalit people in India.

Subsequent elections in India since independence have shown thatcandidates with even less than 10% votes in a given electoral constituencycan win the seat. In the 2009 general elections to the Indian Parliament, 145

out of 573 elected members won with less than 20% votes. Only five MPs,Nagaland, Sikkim, two Tripura and one from West Bengal (Tamluk) got morethan 50% of votes. The average MP got only one fourth of the vote share.

Indias FPTP electoral system has reservation for the Dalits andAdivasis/Tribals/indigenous people. The present reservation system for thepolitical realm of India is the reserved constituencies as a result of the PoonaPact between Ambedkar and Gandhi. Though this system definitely creates aclear reservation quota in a rather simple manner, it has not actually fosteredthe emergence of well-articulated policies for minorities. This is, according to

our analysis not caused by the inability of the respective actors, but by thestructural conditions under which they are working. As the candidates for thereserved constituencies are totally dependent on the party establishment forbeing nominated, they are also depending on them in formulating policies forthe respective minority groups they are representing. If they would developmuch independent thinking this would often lead to situations in which theyforfeit their political future. Even in a reserved constituency the electedmember is the sole representative of that constituency. This forces theDalit/Tribal/Adivasi elected member to the representative of all political,economic, social and cultural interests in their respective constituency andconsequently dilutes any profile of being an outspoken representative of a

particular minority group or an ideology.

Within the Majoritarian system reservation has only become a handy tool inthe hands of the dominant parties to politically neutralize Dalit/Adivasileadership. In the FPTP system seats in the Parliament are not proportionateto the percentage of votes that a party gains thus leaving out a vast majorityof voters unrepresented in governance. Some of the States in the NorthEastern part of India are woefully under-represented. There are many Tribalgroups in many of these States and except Assam all other States have onlyone or two seats in the Parliament.

India has been witnessing sporadic clamour for electoral reforms. Suchclamour has been restricted to cleaning up the existing system and has not


14/22

been extended to critically examining the legitimacy of the system itself in theframework of a mature democracy. Some sections of the intelligentsia in Indiaare not even aware of the nuances of other electoral systems in vogue inmany democracies.

Another section is aware of the existence of other electoral systems but knowintuitively that it is going to provide space for many marginalized communitiesof people in India. This is something that the chemistry in their bodiesnaturally resists and therefore, such intellectuals have shunned any publicdebate on the First Past The Post (FPTP) or the Majoritarian Electoral System(MES).

A third set of intellectuals have clamoured for the American type of two partyelectoral system in India. The USA, UK and India are major democracies thatstill cling onto the MES though dialectics are in advanced stage in the formertwo countries for ushering in PES. Some stretch the argument a bit further

and argue for governance to be handed over to the unelected executive. Theunderlying position is that representatives of common people should not bevested with the power to govern the country.

CERI stands against such tendencies that seek to invest the power togovern in the hands of the elite and the executive who can easily beproduced by those sections of society that have already appropriatedunlimited opportunities for themselves. Elections in democraticsocieties are for delegating representatives of citizens to govern, todistribute values equitably.

13. The Researches Germany

In serious pursuit of its search for meaningful alternatives REDS took up aresearch on the German electoral system, which has accommodatedreservation within its proportionate representation system. Germany waschosen for research for various reasons that made sense to the Dalit search.

Her PR system is a consequence of its serious exercise to arrest there-emergence of Hitlerian fascism.

Her situation is very similar to the endeavor of the Aryans in India whowant to resurrect Hindu fascism as the ruling normative in India.

Germany is a multi-cultural society whose different ethnic communitieshad to be given proportionate representation.

German electoral system has given reservation to the minority Danishpeople in one state in the northern part.

Germany has a Mixed Member Proportionate Representation system,which may also be a more acceptable form in India.


15/22

After completing the research in Germany, Dalitocracy, The Theory andPraxis of Dalit Politics was written and the Campaign was started in India.

14. Samediggi and Norwegian electoral system

As the Campaign for electoral Reforms moved along the existence of theSami Parliament with a clear discourse on self-determination of theindigenous people came to light. CERI took up a research on the Norwegiansystem with specific reference to the Sami Parliament. The findings of theresearch have been written down in the form of a novel. Another researchdocument on the Norwegian electoral system is also in the offing. Throughtheir struggle for culture, language, water and land the Sami people have alsoachieved their political rights. The Norwegian government has executed aSami Act in order to safeguard the rights of the Sami people as an indigenouscommunity. This is a very unique system wherein elections to the NorwegianParliament and the Sami Parliament take place on the same days and at thesame place. Sami people have to register themselves as Sami voters andonly those who register as Sami voters can vote for the Sami Parliament. TheNorwegian government parts with a certain portion of its annual budget to theSami Parliament with full and independent rights for the Samediggi to use itfor the development of the Sami communities.

15. The Maori People and New Zealand electoral

system

CERI has also made a research on the electoral system of New Zealand,which has a provision of Maori electorate within it its electoral system.Interestingly New Zealand without a written constitution has taken recourse tothe German model of Mixed Member Proportionate Representation system. Apoint of special interest is that New Zealand still follows the monarchical orderof the British Queen whom they reverentially call as the Crown. Britain, whichis dilly-dallying with proportionate electoral system has no qualms aboutaccepting PR system being followed in New Zealand. Here, voters are given achoice either to register themselves for general electorate or for Maorielectorate. Only those who register themselves as Maori voters can vote inthe Maori electorate. In Norway a citizen can vote as a Norwegian voter aswell as a Sami voter. But in New Zealand a Maori voter can vote only in theMaori electorate. Subsequent to the MMPR system in New Zealand, thenumber of Maori seats has risen from 4 to 7 in the parliament and is expectedto rise more with the increase in the registration of Maori voters. Maori partyheaded by a Maori woman has pocketed five of these seven seats. Maorishave also contested in general seats as members of national parties such asthe Labor and the National and have won 13 other seats thus raising thenumber of elected Maori members to 20 in the parliament. Maori people have

also taken up reclamation of land as a major issue along with their politicalassertions and are regaining many lost islands and vast stretch of land from


16/22

their British rulers.

16. CERI in Nepal CERiN

Nepal has gone through many struggles to wriggle itself out of the octopushold of monarchy. In the recent past the Maoists have unified the nation likenever before and have thrown monarchy out of governance structures.Immediately after throwing out the monarchy the Maoists set about seriously aprocess of democratization in Nepal. Surprisingly they took up the Germanmodel of MMPR for their country as their electoral system with some minormodifications. The party list in Germany should be in the order of priority andparties have no authority to change the order of the list after elections. Nepalhas allowed parties to change the order of priority after elections. Nepal iswriting its new constitution away from the monarchy. In this democraticframework the PR system has to be integrated into it new constitution. It is inthis context the CERiN has been started in Nepal.

17. Dalit Parliament Dalit Representation

After many years of learning at the feet of Dalit women and men REDSdecided to innovate the new model of community organization with the Dalit

Panchayat Movement. It is aimed at creating maximum space for Dalit selfactualization as a people of their own making and block the hitherto designedpath of reflexive actualization. Though this very innovative approach to Dalitliberation coupled with the emergence of Dalitology was looked at with anatural skepticism in the beginning it has now been acclaimed as one of themost successful endeavor in the recent phase of Dalit history. There is nounderstating of the need for spreading this successful model to the rest of thecountry.

Unlike the other countries India is still dithering with the British legacy that ithas inherited as a colonial legacy. Transforming the electoral system of India

is not going to be as easy as it has been in other countries. However, as amodel setting REDS decided to set up a Dalit parliament in Tumkur on thefoundations of the unprecedented Dalit Panchayat Movement. Even beforeknowing the existence of the Sami Parliament REDS in Tumkur went aboutsetting up the Dalit Parliament. The research on the German electoral systemwas put to the best use in a huge electoral process in Tumkur District todemocratically elect the Dalit parliament. This is nothing much in comparisonto what the Sami people and Maori people have achieved. But a model for thefuture has been established for internal governance that can assume andassimilate the discourses of self-determination from their indigenouscounterparts in Norway and in New Zealand.


17/22

18. The Next phase of CERI

CERI has till now made inroads into the following arenas.

The Path We Traversed

The Campaign for Electoral Reforms in India was launched in October2008 after having seriously considered the non-representative and non-participatory nature of the First Past The Post electoral system that is invogue in India. Power as participation should lead to participatorydemocracy. Unfortunately the Indian electoral system denies to a largeextent not only participation but also genuine participants to many sectionsof Indian population. Friends of Dalit Solidarity Platform in Germany,especially Mr. Walter Hahn casually suggested that we have a look atother electoral systems in the world, especially in Germany. From anIndian point of view this made sense as German electoral system hastaken many difficult steps to arrest the re-emergence of fascist forces inGermany.

1. A Research was taken up by M C Raj on the German Electoral Systemand as a consequence the book Dalitocracy, Theory and Praxis of DalitPolitics was published and has been widely distributed for generaleducation. It did not stop with being a book but stimulated a lot ofdiscussion in many circles on the need for reconsidering the IndianMajoritarian Electoral System.

2. It was decided to launch a Campaign to bring about proportionateelectoral system and the launching took place in Dhaka in anInternational Conference. In this launching Conference a Core Groupof CERI was set up with State Coordinators from 15 States.

3. The International Conference was followed up by a NationalConference in Delhi where interested people from different parts ofIndia took part. Participants from Nepal along with their ElectionCommissioner placed a formal request to CERI to start a chapter ofCERI in Nepal and also organize an International Conference in

Kathmandu in view of the urgency for integrating the ProportionateElectoral System into the new Constitution of Nepal.

4. Subsequently five State Conferences have taken place in the States ofManipur, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Tamilnadu and Karnataka.

5. The Communist Party of India has officially declared its support toCERI in the State Conference of Tamilnadu. Greater assertions fromthe Left parties have come for the Proportionate Electoral System inIndia.

6. Many Intellectuals from North Eastern States have started openlysaying that Proportionate Electoral System may be the only solution to


18/22


19/22

18. The German Dalit Solidarity Platform, Bread for the World, Misereorand Cordaid have been in the forefront of supporting the efforts ofCERI. There has also been a swell of support and solidarity from totallyunexpected people and parties including the Congress in some Statesfor the Campaign.

19. World Parliament of indigenous people - Foray into

the Future

The recent past of CERI has thrown up some plans for the future in aconcerted way.

- Plan for an international workshop of electoral experts in underway.The Workshop will take place in Berlin in October-November 2011

- Friends in the North Eastern States of India are planning to set up aNorth Eastern Parliament of the Indigenous people.

- As a consequence of the research in New Zealand the Maori leadersand intellectuals have started planning for the setting up of the MaoriParliament in the model of the Sami Parliament.

- M C Raj and Jyothi have been again invited to New Zealand by theUniversity of Auckland to present the keynote address in theirinternational conference in June 2010 and to participate in a Writing

Retreat in Rotorua

During the research in New Zealand it came up for discussion that the Samipeople in Norway, the Maori people in New Zealand, the Native Americans inthe United States, the indigenous people of the North Eastern States of Indiaand the Dalit People should join hands to work towards the formation of aWorld Parliament of Indigenous People. Such a Parliament will collectivelywork towards the reclamation of history and culture resources of allindigenous communities of the world along with providing mutual support tothe expanding of democratic spaces of the indigenous people in governanceall over the world.

20. The Plan for Get Together

The Scope of this Get Together is for an initial discussion on the strategy forcarrying forward the formation of a World Parliament of Indigenous People. Itwill also comprise the scope of evolving mechanisms of mutual support forone anothers campaigns at different levels.

Participants in this Get Together will be 25, five from each of the

communities mentioned above. Sami 5; Native Americans 5; Maori 5;Indigenous people of North East India 5; Dalits 5.


20/22

The venue of the Get Together will be Booshakthi Kendra of Tumkur,Karnataka, India.

The Organizerof the Get Together will be CERI legally supported by REDS

The duration of the Get Together will be three full days excluding the arrivaland departure days. It will also include another official day for field visits in theareas of the Dalit Parliament.

The Get Together will witness different art forms of Dalit culture showcased bydifferent performing groups.

Apart from history and culture the Get Together will specifically focus onelectoral systems in each of the participating countries and will strategize onconsolidating the path made till now.

Follow up of the Get Together in a formal way! Similar Get together in othercountries!

20.a. The Processes

All participants in the Get Together will be resource persons.

Cultural welcome and introductions

Panel presentations

Plenary Discussions

Country presentations

Documentaries screening from different countries

Cultural evenings

Getting to know each other

Visits to villages

Interaction with village Dalit leaders

Strategizing for the future

Consolidation and conclusion

Cultural Outing The Two faces of India


21/22

Departures

20.b. Number of Days

Arrivals

Day One RestDay Two Welcome and sessionsDay Three - Sessions and village visitsDay Four - Sessions and consolidationDay Five - Cultural Outing The Two faces of IndiaDay Six - Departures

20.c. The Content

1. History of Norway in specific reference to Sami people2. History of New Zealand in specific reference to Maori people3. History of USA in specific reference to Native Americans4. History of India in specific reference to the Tribal and Dalit people5. Culture of the Sami people6. Culture of the Maori People7. Culture of the Native Americans

8. Culture of the Triabl and Dalit people9. Electoral system of Norway with specific reference to Sami people10.MMPR of New Zealand and Maori people11.FPTP of USA and Native Americans12.Indias electoral system, Tribals and Dalit people13.Strategies for electoral reforms14.Strategies for World Parliament

20. Expected Outcome

1. Meeting of different indigenous cultures that was till now not planned2. Expansion of the understanding of the common foundations that exist

among different indigenous history and culture.3. Solidarity among the indigenous people of the world4. More and more indigenous communities will join this solidarity group5. Development of new political theory from indigenous perspective6. Evolution of appropriate electoral systems in congruence with the new

theories and old practices in the indigenous communities7. Gradual expansion of political space in respective countries through

applying pressure for electoral reforms

8. Mutual support to campaigns for electoral reforms in respectivecountries, especially to the one in India


22/22

9. Formalizing the strategies for the formation of the World Parliament ofIndigenous people

10.More of such Get Together being organized in different other countriesof the world

Documents

World Parliament of Indigenous People