The democracy or market liberalism works on similar principle. I.e. people must have more to choose from for their own good. Business men all over world use the cartel system for their own profit. And this cartel formation is now illegal in many counties. My question is about political cartels which are famously known as "seat sharing adjustments"
The less options we have the more trouble we are going have. The more options we have more benefits for us. For example take the case of cell phone network providers. When tata docomo entered the market with cheaper call costs, rest of the network providers are forced to lower their and offer more services to stop their customer base from going to docomo. Similar situation happened when times of india reduced their newspaper cost few years back. The ultimate beneficiary in these situations is the ordinary customer. We can't expect the local cable guy to lower his charges. He won't , because he does not have any other competitor as alternative.
Its similar situation in case of "political seat sharing" too. Constituencies were assigned to political parties. They share them like the old villains in the crime movies ..." You don't interfere in my area ...I won't interfere in yours"
If seats were not shared every party would try to impress the citizens for their votes. If seats are shared, the party which got the constituency need not care much about the citizens opinion because they don't have much options to choose from. And party which didn't get the constituency won't care because its party symbol won't be on EVMs used in that constituency !!
Horse trading in politics is not new. To curb this we have anti -defection laws which prevent the horse trying among the members of parliament and legislative assemblies to become ministers, but what about the similar trades among the contestants to become our legislators??
Should we make laws to banish seat-sharing? Or should have an option " None of the above " on the EVMs?
No comments:
Post a Comment