"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.
I partially agree with this statement. There are valid arguments both for and against shifting from First Past the Post (FPTP) system to Proportional Representation (PR).
Arguments for PR: The FPTP system can work to the disadvantage of smaller social groups. In India, dominant social groups and castes can win everywhere while oppressed groups may remain unrepresented. For instance, Muslims constitute about 14.2 per cent of the population but Muslim MPs in Lok Sabha have usually been less than 6 per cent. This shows the unfairness of FPTP. PR ensures that every party gets seats in proportion to the percentage of votes it gets, removing the discrepancy between votes and seats.
Arguments against PR: In FPTP, people clearly know who their representative is and can hold them personally accountable. Voters vote for a candidate, not just a party. This allows people to elect a good candidate even if they do not like the political party. PR systems are followed in countries like Israel and Netherlands, which have very different political contexts.
India already uses a variation of PR system for indirect elections like the President, Vice President, Rajya Sabha and Vidhan Parishads. However, shifting completely may not be suitable given India's diverse social context and the need for direct accountability of representatives to their constituencies.
Explanation
The textbook provides a balanced comparison of FPTP and PR systems. Students should present arguments from both sides using specific examples from the context (like Muslim representation statistics, the comparison table, and the exercise about which system suits different wishes). The conclusion can take either position as long as it is supported by facts from the context.