Touchstone of democracy

Last week, the United States successfully completed a nationwide mega election to elect its 47th President. Irrespective of who won or lost, the American electoral system stands as a textbook example of democratic culture and political values. The yearlong, continuous updates of results and the varying prospects of presidential candidates in the US may appear all Greek to people in countries where democracy typically involves an election process spanning a few months with a "first-past-the-post" criterion. However, a closer study of the US presidential election system reveals that it epitomises the highest spirit of democracy, not only in government formation but as a way of life from which most countries can learn.

The internal democracy in America's two-party system is exemplary. The election of the president is governed by principles set forth in Article II of the American Constitution and the 12th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, and 25th Amendments. A level playing field for all aspiring presidential candidates within a party is ensured, as they are first required to gain nomination through party "caucuses" (closed meetings of party members) based on qualities like dedication, vision, and seriousness. Then, "primaries" (internal party elections) are held across the 52 states on specific Tuesdays in March, known as ‘Super Tuesday’, where the Democratic and Republican parties choose "delegates" who formally select presidential nominees at their national conventions—DNC and RNC, respectively. If no candidate secures more than 50% of delegates' votes, a re-vote is held in which delegates can freely switch their support until a majority-backed candidate emerges. As a developed democracy, the US leaves no room for backdoor entry through "pick and choose," unlike in some developing countries where the "party high commands" often decide candidate lists—a ‘democracy from above’, as one might call it.

Though the president is elected by all the American people, the election is actually indirect. The 52 states and the District of Columbia hold elections for ‘electors’, fielded by both parties, who later become the "Electoral College" to elect the president. Whichever candidate wins the most electors paves their road to the White House. Interestingly, the Constitution doesn’t prohibit electors from switching their loyalty to vote for the opposing candidate, a rare occurrence referred to as "faithless electors," yet it symbolises the democratic spirit.

The number of electors is based not on state population but on the number of representatives of both houses. The fathers of the American Constitution emphasised on uniform representation over geography and demographics. While populous states like Texas, California, and Florida enjoy greater political attention due to their larger populations vis-à-vis the less populated states like Alaska, Montana, Vermont, the Constitution offsets this imbalance by assigning two electors for each Senate seat in every state. The principle here is that, more than a democracy, a nation should function as a republic with equal and independent component states, thereby preventing the "tyranny of the majority." This system ensures that the president—who, as chief executive and head of state, wields more power than the other two branches of government, the legislature and judiciary—will be equally responsible to all states. Over time, population growth has led to an increase in electors for some states, and campaigns often focus on these states.

A unique feature of American democracy is that, despite winning the majority of popular votes, a presidential candidate may still lose the election. For example, in 2000, despite securing the highest popular vote, Al Gore lost to George Bush, and in 2016, Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. While scholars may term this an anathema to democracy, voters sometimes feel that their votes become meaningless. However, this enigma signifies a philosophy that democracy is not rule by brute majority or mere numbers but a rule by 'unanimity' as a check against tyranny. The system of 'representative democracy' ensures that even though the candidate who secures a greater number of their party's 'electors' becomes president, they are also responsible to the people who didn’t vote for them, in line with the principle of 'winner takes all.' This means that if a candidate wins more electors than their opponent in a state, all the electors go to the winner. Consequently, popular votes cast in favor of the candidate with fewer electors are effectively considered to support the one with more electors. Hence the importance of 'swing' states, such as California (50 electors), where both parties have nearly equal support. The 'winner takes all' principle aims to reduce animosity between rivals and is equitable, as both have equal chances to 'take all.' If followed in developing democracies, this healthy practice could reduce political hatred and the vengeful attitudes towards groups perceived not to have supported the winning candidate.

Democratic values such as freedom, equality, and representation have become foundational in American society, thanks to events like the American War of Independence in 1776, the Civil War in 1864, and the Civil Rights Movement. The two-party system is a time-tested political institution in the US that ensures commitment to political ideology and transparency. The US democratic narrative has largely contributed to its status as a superpower. Presidential and parliamentary governments may differ in structure, but democracy's spirit remains uncompromisable for both. In developing countries, democracy is often seen only as a numbers game, sometimes climaxing in 'resort' politics at its worst. In the 'first past the post' system, the candidate with the most votes wins, even if the combined votes for all other candidates exceed their total, leading to what some call 'electoral autocracy.' Perhaps electoral reforms could help build a more robust narrative of democracy.

A good beginning can be made if political parties worked to restore internal democracy first. Cadres should be developed as committed members with allegiance to the party’s vision rather than as mere numbers supporting a few leaders from dominant social classes, former ruling classes, and political families. Finally, an important question arises: what prevents political leaders from coming together to agree on a two-party system that accommodates diverse interests under a shared agenda? The idea may sound ambitious but not impossible, as the foundation is already laid with two major political blocs at the national level. A two-party system could remedy political chaos, and establish transparency and accountability. Not only America but India, too, can be great again if the politics of confrontation yields to the politics of consensus.

The writer is a former Addl. Chief Secretary of Chhattisgarh. Views expressed are personal