Election And RepresentationClass 11 India Constitution At Work NCERT Solutions
10 Solutions
Generated by KedovoAI
Solution 1 of 10
Q1Exercises
Which of the following resembles most a direct democracy? a. Discussions in a family meeting b. Election of the class monitor c. Choice of a candidate by a political party d. Decisions taken by the Gram Sabha e. Opinion polls conducted by the media
Solution
d. Decisions taken by the Gram Sabha
Explanation:
Direct democracy is a system where citizens participate directly in day-to-day decision-making and the running of government, rather than through elected representatives. The chapter cites the ancient city-states in Greece and local governments, especially Gram Sabhas, as the closest examples of direct democracy. In a Gram Sabha, all adult members of a village or a group of villages meet to discuss local issues and make decisions directly, which is the core principle of direct democracy.
Q2Exercises
Which of the following tasks are not performed by the Election Commission? a. Preparing the Electoral Rolls b. Nominating the candidates c. Setting up polling booths d. Implementing the model code of conduct e. Supervising the Panchayat elections
Solution
b. Nominating the candidates
e. Supervising the Panchayat elections
Explanation:
- Nominating the candidates: This is the role of political parties or is done by individuals who contest as independent candidates. The Election Commission's role is to scrutinize the nominations filed by candidates, not to nominate them.
- Supervising the Panchayat elections: The chapter clearly states that the Election Commission of India is not responsible for conducting local body elections. These elections are supervised by State Election Commissioners, who work independently of the Election Commission of India.
Q3Exercises
Which of the following is common to the method of election of the members of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha? a. Every citizen above the age of 18 is an eligible voter b. Voter can give preference order for different candidates c. Every vote has equal value d. The winner must get more than half the votes
Solution
c. Every vote has equal value
Explanation:
- Lok Sabha Elections: Members are elected directly by the people based on universal adult franchise, where every citizen above 18 has one vote, and each vote has equal value within a constituency.
- Rajya Sabha Elections: Members are elected indirectly by the elected members (MLAs) of the State Legislative Assemblies. While the voting system (Proportional Representation by means of Single Transferable Vote) is different, the principle that the vote of each elector (in this case, each MLA) has equal value is maintained.
Q4Exercises
In the First Past the Post system, that candidate is declared winner who a. Secures the largest number of postal ballots b. Belongs to the party that has highest number of votes in the country c. Has more votes than any other candidate in the constituency d. Attains first position by securing more than 50% votes
Solution
c. Has more votes than any other candidate in the constituency
Explanation:
The First Past the Post (FPTP) system, also known as the Plurality System, declares the candidate with the highest number of votes in a particular constituency as the winner. The winning candidate does not need to secure a majority (more than 50%) of the votes; they only need to get more votes than any other single competitor in that constituency's electoral race.
Q5Exercises
What is the difference between the system of reservation of constituencies and the system of separate electorate? Why did the Constitution makers reject the latter?
Solution
The difference between the system of reservation of constituencies and the system of separate electorates is as follows:
-
System of Reservation of Constituencies: In this system, certain constituencies are reserved for candidates belonging to specific disadvantaged social groups, such as the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). However, all voters in that constituency, regardless of their community or caste, are eligible to vote. This ensures representation for the specified group while maintaining a common electorate.
-
System of Separate Electorates: This system, introduced by the British government, meant that for electing a representative from a particular community, only those voters who belonged to that community were eligible to vote. For example, only Muslim voters could vote for a Muslim candidate in a constituency designated for them.
Why the Constitution makers rejected Separate Electorates:
The framers of the Indian Constitution rejected the system of separate electorates because they feared it would be detrimental to national unity. They believed that separate electorates would:
- Hinder National Integration: It would encourage citizens to think of themselves as separate communities rather than as part of a single nation, thereby deepening social divisions.
- Isolate Minority Communities: Instead of bringing minority communities into the mainstream of national life, it would isolate them and prevent the development of a shared political culture.
- Bar Progress: As expressed by members like Tajamul Husain in the Constituent Assembly, many felt that separate electorates had been a 'curse' to India and had harmed the country's progress. Adopting the system of reserved constituencies was seen as a way to ensure fair representation for oppressed groups without dividing the electorate along communal lines.
Q6Exercises
Which of the following statements are incorrect? Identify and correct them by substituting, adding or rearranging only one word or phrase. a. FPTP system is followed for all the elections in India. b. Election Commission does not supervise Panchayat and Municipal elections. c. President of India cannot remove an Election Commissioner. d. Appointment of more than one Election Commissioner in the Election Commission is mandatory.
Solution
The incorrect statements and their corrections are as follows:
a. FPTP system is followed for all the elections in India.
- Incorrect.
- Corrected statement: The FPTP system is followed for Lok Sabha and most State Assembly elections in India. (Elections for President, Vice President, Rajya Sabha, and Vidhan Parishads follow the Proportional Representation system).
b. Election Commission does not supervise Panchayat and Municipal elections.
- Correct. This statement is correct as it is. Local body elections are supervised by State Election Commissions.
c. President of India cannot remove an Election Commissioner.
- Incorrect.
- Corrected statement: The President of India can remove an Election Commissioner. (The process for removing the Chief Election Commissioner is more difficult and requires a recommendation with a special majority from both Houses of Parliament, but other Election Commissioners can be removed by the President).
d. Appointment of more than one Election Commissioner in the Election Commission is mandatory.
- Incorrect.
- Corrected statement: The Election Commission can be a single-member or a multi-member body; the appointment of more than one Election Commissioner is not mandatory. (The chapter states that the EC has been both a single-member and a multi-member body at different times).
Q7Exercises
Indian electoral system aims at ensuring representation of socially disadvantaged sections. However we have only 12 per cent women members in our legislatures. What measures would you suggest to improve the situation?
Solution
While the Indian electoral system provides for reservation for SCs and STs, the representation of women in legislatures has remained low. To improve this situation, the following measures can be suggested:
-
Reservation for Women in Legislatures: The most direct measure would be to implement a system of reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. A constitutional amendment could reserve a certain percentage of seats, such as one-third, for women candidates. The Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam (Women's Reservation Act, 2023) mentioned in the chapter is a step in this direction.
-
Mandatory Quotas within Political Parties: Political parties could be legally required to nominate a minimum percentage of women candidates in elections. This would ensure that women have a fair chance to contest elections across various constituencies, not just reserved ones.
-
Financial Support for Women Candidates: Special funds could be created by the government or the Election Commission to provide financial assistance to women candidates for their election campaigns. This would help mitigate the economic barriers that often prevent women from entering politics.
-
Promoting Political Awareness and Training: Efforts should be made to increase political awareness and provide leadership training for women at the grassroots level. This would create a larger pool of capable and confident women ready to take on political roles.
Q8Exercises
Here are some wishes expressed in a conference to discuss a constitution for a new country. Write against each of these whether FPTP or Proportional Representation system is more suited to meet each of these wishes. a. People should clearly know who is their representative so that they can hold him or her personally accountable. b. We have small linguistic minorities who are spread all over the country; we should ensure fair representation to them. c. There should be no discrepancy between votes and seats for different parties. d. People should be able to elect a good candidate even if they do not like his or her political party.
Solution
Here is which electoral system is more suited to meet each wish:
a. People should clearly know who is their representative so that they can hold him or her personally accountable.
- Suited System: FPTP (First Past the Post)
- Reason: The FPTP system is a constituency-based system where each geographical unit elects one representative. This creates a direct link between the voters of a locality and their representative, making it easier for them to know who to hold accountable for their issues.
b. We have small linguistic minorities who are spread all over the country; we should ensure fair representation to them.
- Suited System: Proportional Representation (PR)
- Reason: In a PR system, parties get seats in proportion to their share of the national vote. This allows smaller parties, often representing minority communities, to gain representation even if their support base is not concentrated in any single constituency.
c. There should be no discrepancy between votes and seats for different parties.
- Suited System: Proportional Representation (PR)
- Reason: The fundamental principle of the PR system is to allocate seats to parties in the same proportion as the votes they receive. This minimizes the discrepancy between a party's vote share and its seat share, which is a common feature of the FPTP system.
d. People should be able to elect a good candidate even if they do not like his or her political party.
- Suited System: FPTP (First Past the Post)
- Reason: The FPTP system offers voters a choice not just between parties but also between specific candidates. Voters can choose to vote for a candidate based on their individual merit, even if they are not aligned with that candidate's political party. In many PR systems, voters primarily vote for a party list, giving them less say over individual candidates.
Q9Exercises
A former Chief Election Commissioner joined a political party and contested elections. There are various views on this issue. One view is that a former Election Commissioner is an independent citizen and has a right to join any political party and to contest election. According to the other view, leaving this possibility open can affect the impartiality of the Election Commission. So, former Election Commissioners must not be allowed to contest any elections. Which position do you agree with and why?
Solution
I agree with the second view: a former Election Commissioner should not be allowed to contest any elections.
Reasoning:
The Election Commission of India is a constitutional body whose credibility rests on its independence and impartiality. The fairness of the entire democratic process depends on the trust that citizens and political parties have in the Commission.
If a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) or an Election Commissioner (EC) can join a political party and contest elections immediately after demitting office, it raises serious questions about their impartiality during their tenure. The possibility of a post-retirement political career could create a perception of bias. Decisions taken by the commissioner while in office might be scrutinized to see if they favored a particular party with an eye on future political prospects.
This could lead to the following negative consequences:
- Erosion of Public Trust: It would undermine the public's faith in the neutrality of the Election Commission. People might suspect that the commission's decisions are politically motivated.
- Compromised Impartiality: Even if a commissioner acts impartially, the mere possibility of them joining a political party later can create a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of one. The decisions of the EC must not only be fair but must also be seen to be fair.
While a former commissioner is an independent citizen with constitutional rights, the need to protect the sanctity and institutional integrity of the Election Commission is a far greater public good. Certain high constitutional posts require restrictions on future employment or political activity to ensure their functioning remains above suspicion. Therefore, a mandatory cooling-off period or a complete bar on contesting elections for former Election Commissioners would be a reasonable restriction to uphold the dignity and impartiality of this vital democratic institution.
Q10Exercises
"Indian democracy is now ready to shift from a crude First Past the Post system to a system of Proportional Representation". Do you agree with this statement? Give your reasons for or against this statement.
Solution
I do not fully agree with the statement that Indian democracy is ready to shift from the First Past the Post (FPTP) system to a system of Proportional Representation (PR). While the PR system has its merits, the FPTP system has served India's specific needs well, and the challenges of implementing PR in India are significant.
Arguments against shifting to PR (and in favor of FPTP):
-
Simplicity and Familiarity: The FPTP system is extremely simple for ordinary voters to understand. Voters choose a candidate, and the one with the most votes wins. The PR system, especially variants like the Single Transferable Vote (STV), is very complex and would be difficult to implement and understand in a large and diverse country like India with varying levels of literacy.
-
Stability of Government: The FPTP system tends to give the largest party or coalition a 'bonus' of seats, which often leads to a clear majority in the legislature. This facilitates the formation of stable governments, which is crucial for effective governance in a parliamentary system. The PR system, by contrast, often results in fragmented legislatures and coalition governments, which can be unstable.
-
Accountability of Representatives: FPTP provides a clear link between a representative and their constituency. Voters know who their MP or MLA is and can hold them directly accountable. In a PR system, especially one where the entire country is a single constituency, this direct link is lost, which can dilute accountability.
-
National Unity: The framers of the Constitution feared that a PR system would encourage communities to form their own political parties, potentially deepening social cleavages. The FPTP system encourages parties to appeal to a broad range of social groups within a constituency to win elections, thereby promoting a more inclusive and moderate political culture.
Arguments for shifting to PR:
-
Fairer Representation: The primary advantage of PR is that it ensures parties get a share of seats that is proportional to their share of votes. This would prevent situations like the 1984 election, where the Congress won over 80% of seats with only 48% of the vote.
-
Representation for Smaller Parties: PR would allow smaller and new political parties, which may have significant support spread across the country but not concentrated in any one constituency, to gain representation in the legislature.
Conclusion:
While the PR system appears fairer in theory, the practical advantages of the FPTP system—its simplicity, its tendency to produce stable governments, and the direct accountability it fosters—make it more suitable for a vast and diverse country like India. A complete shift to PR could introduce instability and complexity that Indian democracy may not be ready for. A hybrid system could be explored, but abandoning the time-tested FPTP system entirely would be a risky proposition.