THE M. P. AND HIS CONSTITUENCY

V. LINGAMURTY

Vice-Principal, M. R. College, Vizianagram

I

Vox populi, vox Dei is the watch word of democracy. In its literal sense democracy means government by the people. But now it has undergone a change of scale. “Its dimensions are enlarged, its horizons expanded. Departing from the polis it embraced the nation. It exchanged Lilliput for Leviathan.”¹ Under the changed circumstances democracy which was confined to the microcosm has to be made applicable to the macrocosm. “The solution to this problem was to bring to the capital those who were prominent in their localities on the assumption that they spoke for the remainder of the population and in the hope that they could commit the folks back home to decisions taken at the centre. In an indirect democracy the legislature is supposed to represent the people–to know what they want and to respond to their wishes. So fair and free elections are the sine qua non of democracy. As it is humorously remarked: “M. Ps must keep in mind the fact of the dissolution of parliament just as members of certain monastic orders keep their coffin by their side to remember that one day they must die.”² In all modern democracies the importance of the legislature is accepted. But the role of the elected representative has not been uniform, for there is no rigid pattern to which he has to conform himself.

All modern democracies stand for the same ideals, but all of them do not have the same governmental machinery. Some are parliamentary and some others are non-parliamentary; some are unitary and others are federal. These variations are reflected in the relations that exist between a M. P. and his constituency. In a federal state the freedom of expression of members in the second chamber is restricted in the sense that they are expected to voice the opinion of the States which they represent. Herein lies the theoretical justification of giving equal representation in the Senate in the U. S. A. to all the States, irrespective of their size and economic progress. The principle that the primary duty of members of the second chamber is to represent their respective constituencies explains Article 249 in the Indian Constitution.

In every modern state the impact of political parties on the working of democratic machinery has become most significant. The relations between the M. P. and his constituency are determined today not so much by the system of government as by the party system. In countries like the U. S. A. where party cohesion is low, a member of the legislature cares more for his constituency than for his party. In Britain which has highly cohesive parties, the M. P’s legislative behaviour is on party lines. In India the existence of a centralised party system has left little freedom for the M. P. to use his discretion. But in recent years the growth of regionalism and groupism in the Congress party is making the M. P. consider himself more as a constituency-man than as a party-man. Today the Indian M. P. in his relations with his constituency can be said to stand midway between the M. P. of Britain and the Congressman of the U. S. A.

II

Empirical studies in the U. S. A. have shown a linkage between mass political opinions and governmental policy-making. This linkage can be illustrated from the Congressional roll call votes on Civil Rights legislation.³ Considerable policy agreement is found between Congressional roll call votes and the attitudes of the individual Congressman’s constituency. The studies made on the above subject have led to the following conclusions: (1) Constituencies elect representatives whose views may be independent of those of the constituency. (2) But Congressmen vote in accordance with the attitudes of the constituency (as they perceive them) with a mind to the next election. (3) Both the Congressman’s perceptions and his attitudes have direct effects on his roll call votes, though the former is more powerful than the latter.

The delegate theory of representation is adopted by several of the Communist states in Europe. In U. S. S. R., Albania, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Yugoslavia, “the member is bound to carry out the mandate given him by the electorate.”⁴ According to law, members have “to give a regular account to their constituents of how they have fulfilled their mandate.”⁵ In Switzerland also the legislative behaviour of a member of the Federal Assembly is determined by the constituency attitudes. According to Article 19 of the Swiss Constitution the members of the legislature shall vote without instructions from their political parties. That is, the members vote in the legislature not by party mandate but according to the constituency opinion. In fact, nothing in the Swiss political system is more instructive to the student of modern democracy than the kind of direct democracy that functions in that country.

In Western democracies, of which Britain is a typical example, there is evidence of their (parliaments of those states) intention in the fact that the imperative mandate has no validity and that there is no machinery by which a member can be unseated by his constituents or the party which put him up for election.”⁶ Proliferation of governmental activity in a modern state calls for greater administrative discretion and so the M. P. has to carry out not the mandate of his constituency but the advice given by the experts. As the Royal Commission of 1932 in Britain observed, “the function of the representative chamber should be to utilise our technical knowledge for the general welfare and harmonize particular interests through some notion of the common good.”⁷ In Britain the M. P. considers himself as representative of the nation as a whole and not an agent of his constituency. “The British representative is not expected to trim his legislative votes to the wishes of local interests…He can afford much more readily than his American counterpart to support his party even if it means overriding the particular desires of his constituents. The British custom is such that he need hardly fear strictly local reprisals against his subsequent candidacy.”⁸ The British tradition about the role of the M. P. is partly due to the country’s party system.” The member is the obedient servant of the party machine.” ⁹ The British view of the M. P.’s relation with his constituency is well expressed by H. J. Laski: “He is elected to do the best he can in the light of his intelligence and his conscience. Were he mainly a delegate instructed by a local caucus, he would cease to have either morals or personality.” ¹⁰

The American and the British systems seem to represent two divergent principles regarding the relations between the M. P. and his constituency. This does not mean, however, that in Britain there is no link between the elected member and his constituents. Nor does the party mandate completely prevent him from voicing the views of his constituency. The debates and the question periods afford opportunities for the M. Ps to express their own opinions and to air the grievances of their constituents.

III

In India the M. P. in his relations with his constituency behaves with a dubious personality. The illiteracy and ignorance of the electorate leave the M. P. free to play contradictory roles. Sometimes he behaves like his British counterpart and at other times like the American Congressman. The parliamentary system of government and the existence of disciplined parties necessitate the M. P. to voice the party opinion and not the constituency opinion. However, he keeps close contact with his constituency. A unique feature in the life of some Indian M. Ps is that they spend much of their time in their constituencies and no day passes without the constituents meeting them for some favour or other.

The federal system and regionalism which is inherent in Indian life, are developing a tendency towards establishing a correspondent between the parliamentary behaviour of a M.P. and the attitude of his constituency. During the last fifteen years there were several significant instances to illustrate this fact. The reslgoation of Mr. C. D. Deshmukh from the cabinet was due to the stand taken by the members of his own constituency over the inclusion of Bombay in the proposed Maharashtra State. The resignations tendered by Mr. C. Subrahmanyam and Mr. O. V. Alagesan of their posts as ministers were only in response to the opinion of their constituents on the language issue. The questions raised in parliament by M. Ps of the Southern States on the location of the fifth steel plant reveal the impact of the constituents on the M. Ps. While a number of Andhra M. Ps both of the Congress and opposition parties demanded a categorical statement from the Prime Minister on the location of the steel plant at Visakhapatnam, some Andhra M. Ps of the Communist party resigned their seats in the Lok Sabha. Mr. Rajaram and Mr. Kandappan, D. M. K. members from Madras, asked whether any decision had been taken about the Salem plant. Mr. Basappa (Congress) of Mysore raised the question of a plant at Hospet, while Mr. Joachim Alwa (Congress) expressed his anxiety about Goa being neglected. A member from Madhya Pradesh shouted, “what about Bailadilla?” ¹¹

The instances cited above are in fact problems agitating the entire country and not a few constituencies. A close study of parliamentary debates and discussions indicates that the linkage between constituency attitude and M. P’s parliamentary behaviour is very slight. Even on the problem of the steel plant at Visakhapatnam a prominent M. P. from Andhra Pradesh is said to have remarked: “We always look at every problem from our viewpoint. The centre has responsibility for all the States. There are equal claims from Hospet, Salem and Bailadilla.” ¹² The absence of close linkage between the M. P. and his constituents is due to the ignorance of the latter. The constituents are too ignorant to guide their representatives and they hardly know what to ask and what they ought not to ask the elected representative to do. It is not uncommon for constituents to approach the M. Ps for help and assistance on matters like good roads, takkavi loans, schools, bridges and licences for starting sugar and rice mills. Such demands made on the M. P. are indicative of the ignorance of the people of the distinction between federal and State subjects.

Another fascinating feature in the relationship that exists between a M. P. in India and his constituency is the wide variance in the attitudes of the two. A sample survey conducted in India in 1962 on about a thousand people and one hundred M. Ps to find out their priorities in legislation, showed little coincidence in the attitudes of the constituents and their elected representatives. The ladder survey, as it is called, indicated that while the common people gave top priority to subjects of their daily life and to public utility services, the M. Ps gave top priority to national and international affairs. For example, a M. P. like Mr. Nath Pai is found particularly interested in discussions on foreign policy, while his constituents are least concerned with it. This kind of discontinuity in the attitudes of the elected representatives and the common people is due to lack of national awareness among the people. However, the national upsurge that could be noticed on an occasion like the Chinese aggression over India in 1962 and Pakistani attack in 1965 show that people are not unaware of national problems. Even some poor men in the Southern States like Andhra Pradesh and Mysore which are far away from the area of fighting, contributed to the Defence Fund.

Empirical studies on the linkage between the M. P. and his constituency have shown the gap that exists between the two, a gap between modernism and traditionalism. The debates on the floor of the House and in parliamentary committees are conducted in the modern idiom which is at variance from the traditional language of the common people. While the M. P. uses the modern idiom in discussions over public health and medicine, the common man uses traditional language. While the constituents speak of Ayurvedic treatment and nature cure, the M. Ps use the Western idiom and speak of X-Ray plants and Radium treatment. Similarly while the latter speak of power projects, the former speak in the traditional style of the village well and the tank. No doubt the M. L. As present a different picture, for “the members of, the State Legislative Assemblies are drawn from layers much closer to those of traditional politics. No one can visit the lobbies of a State Assembly without realising quite vividly that the Member of a (State) Assembly (M. L. A.) is in touch with his constituents. The M. L. A. is one of the great gap-closers in Indian politics.” ¹³ This cannot be said of the M. Ps in India though a few of the leaders at the national level like Mr. Chavan, Mr. Kamaraj and Mr. N. G. Ranga operate in both the languages, modern and traditional.

The M. P. in his relations with his constituency plays a useful role in serving as an intermediary between his constituents and the departments in the capital. A person may feel that a rule was applied harshly in his case, that he has rights which were overlooked and that he is being pushed around by bureaucrats. The M. P. does not hesitate to take up all such matters. In fact in all countries the M. Ps. act as intermediaries between the Government and the people. But the M. Ps. in India go a step further and act as intermediaries between the Government or even non-governmental departments and the people in matters which are really not their concern. They play multiple roles in their dealings with their constituents.

The diversity of peoples in India and the backwardness of the people do not permit the presentation of a uniform picture of the relations between the M. Ps. and their constituents. A sample survey conducted in the Lok Sabha revealed the diversity in the relations between the M. Ps. and their constituencies.¹⁴ Out of the 178 respondents 82 were found to have linkage with their constituents who may be called ‘interacting M. Ps.’ Of the 82 M. Ps. 37 were active both in the Parliament and in their constituencies while 45 were active in their constituencies only. The rest of the 96 M. Ps. were found to have very little linkage with their constituents and may be called ‘non-interacting M. Ps.’ Of them 26 were found active in Parliament but not in their constituencies and may be described as Delhi M.Ps. The remaining 70 are undistinguished and do little work either in the Lok Sabha or in their constituencies. This data can be presented in a tabular form as given below.

Interacting M. Ps. Non-interacting M. Ps.

37 Linkmen. Active both 26 Delhi M. Ps. Active in Politically influential

in Parliament and in Parliament but not in

their constituencies their constituencies.

45 Home. M. Ps. Active in 70 Undistinguished Politically

their constituencies, M. Ps. Do little both non-influential

not in Delhi. In Dehi and in their

Constituencies

The non-interacting M. Ps. come from two types of classes, (1) those who have a traditional hold over their constituencies like the Maharajah’s of the old Native States and Zamindars and those leaders who earned a name by their role in the freedom struggle. Sentiment and tradition are so deep-rooted among the common people that they support members of the old ruling classes and the leaders of the freedom struggle with blind veneration. The 26 Delhi M. Ps. maintain very little linkage with their constituents; they spend much of their time in the capital itself and rarely visit their constituencies or take up the cause of their constituents. Moreover, they are typical of the cleavage that exists between modernism and traditionalism. The 26 Delhi M. Ps. are westernised and they hardly understand the language of their constituents. (2) The second class of non-interacting M. Ps. consists of those who are not highly educated. They also constitute the non-influential section of the M. Ps. Such non-interacting and non-influential M. Ps. largely occupy the Reserved Seats. Among the Link-members also can be noticed two categories, men of talk and men of action. The former are active only through talking and participation in parliamentary debates and the latter actively work through their party organization and also through non-party organisations like trade unions and school boards. It is further revealing to note that a larger number of members of the opposition parties than of the Congress party serve as Linkmen. Out of the 37 Link-members in the above sample 15 belong to the Congress party and 22 belong to the opposition parties.

The federal Constitution of India puts the M. P. at a disadvantage in maintaining close contacts with his constituency. This is partly due to the distance to which he is taken away from his constituency and largely due to the type of problems with which he deals, problems which do not touch the day to day life of people. There is a feeling among the M. Ps. that their election to parliament loosens their hold over the people. So the M. Ps. maintain their linkage with their constituents through different channels of communication. Unlike the USA where television and radio are the chief channels of communication, in India such mass media are not accessible for several of the M. Ps. The M. P. in India depends largely on personal contacts and on correspondence through letters. Both during his stay in the capital and more so during his stay in his constituency the M. P. is kept busy by visitors. His weekly mail also is fairly heavy. Some M. Ps. utilize non-political organizations like trade unions, P. T. Association, Rice Millers’ Associations and Bankers’ Associations as channels of communication. With the widening sphere of public enterprise, the contacts between the M. P. and his constituency are growing in significance. Besides private citizens, State Governments also do a lot of lobbying to getting licences and financial aid for industries and other projects. The purposes for which the constituents utilise the M. Ps. reveal the secular nature of Indian democracy. Empirical studies have pointed out that till now, with the exception of the Sikh community, no other community used the M. P. as a channel of communication between the Government and the people on matters of religion. However, the recent agitation for anti-cow slaughter legislation indicates that as parties like the Jan Sangh gain strength, the M. Ps. will have to play new roles.

The above study lends the following generalisations over the linkage between the M. P. and his constituency in India. (1) The prevalence of both traditionalism and modernism in Indian politics is revealed in the relations between the M. P. and his constituents. M. Ps. who come from tradition bound constituencies establish little linkage while those elected by politically advanced constituents keep touch with their constituencies. (2) Unlike the M. Ps. in Western democracies some of the M. Ps. in India play multiple roles and even do certain functions which are not legitimately theirs. Nurturing one’s own constituency is a feature noticeable in the case of certain M. Ps. (3) The steady disintegration of the Congress party, the growth of groupism in all parties and the advance of regionalism are all making the M. P. care more and more for his constituency. (4) In the USA on the question of racism, the representatives of all the Southern States remain united and this becomes explicit by the phrase, the ‘Solid South.’ In a similar way, on an issue agitating any one state in the Indian Union, M. Ps. of that state, irrespective of the party to which they belong, voice the will of their constituents. However, the electorate in India is too ignorant and backward to make the M. P. act according to its will. So normally the constituency opinion has little bearing on the parliamentary behaviour of a large majority of the M. Ps. But several of the M. Ps. are not indifferent to their constituents.

¹ Lipson: Democratic Civilization. P. 57

² Ibid. 439

³ Charles F. Cnudde and Donald M”rone: The Linkage Between Constituency Attitudes and Congressional Voting Behavior-A Causal Model. A. P. S. Reviews, March, 1966.

⁴ Parliaments: By Interparliamentary Union. P. 49

⁵ Ibid

⁶ Ibid

⁷ Leslie Lipson: The Democratic Civilization. P. 474.

⁸ Leon D. Epstein: Cohesion of British Political Parties APSA Review, June, 1956.

⁹ Ibid

¹⁰ Grammar of Politics. P. 319.

¹¹ The Hindu. November 5, 1966.

¹² The Indian Express: November 9, 1966.

¹³ W. H. Morris Jones: The Government & Politics of India. P. 69-70

¹⁴ The results are based on a questionnaire applied on 178 members of the Lok Sabha by Prof. Henry C. Hart, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. (U.S.A.)

Back