Indian elections are a wonder, as the conduct of the recently concluded Uttar Pradesh elections have proved. The Election Commission merits plaudits on the process and outcome: the rolls were cleaned, the polling stations secured and access provided to genuine voters.

The voters too need to be congratulated for rising above caste and voting for law and order and good governance. Sceptics will disagree, but this could mark a turning point in Indian elections, moving away from caste and communal arithmetic and muscle power to issues that matter. The Bahujan Samaj Party improved its position among all communities and among minorities.

There are lessons to be learnt. Should the poll have taken six weeks and been completed in as many as seven stages. A large number of criminals contested and many were elected across the political spectrum. This does not signify that the electorate favours criminals but that people turn to strong-arm street justice when the criminal justice system breaks down. There is a need for legislation that accepts a chargesheet (and not just an FIR) as a disqualification for candidature if filed more than six weeks from the date of commencement of the poll. This will preclude vexatious poll-related FIRs. For this to work, independent policing is required through processes laid out in the Supreme Court’s directions in the wake of the Sorabjee Committee’s report on police reforms.

An independent police force, supported by Territorial Army units, maybe supplemented by retired ex-servicemen, could be mobilised for short-term election duty. Right-sizing VIP security could also release men for more important duty. As a newspaper pointed out, Delhi alone has 9,000 security personnel guarding 391 so-called VIPs, most of whom do not merit security cover and desire this as status symbols or for personal use.

The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) has suggested some other useful reforms. The most important of these is that the winning candidate must have the support of a minimum of 50 per cent plus one out of the total votes polled. Currently, with less than 50 per cent of the electorate actually voting in many constituencies, no one truly gets a “majority”. With a large number of candidates contesting every seat, the delivered vote is necessarily fragmented and it is not uncommon to see winning candidates romp home with even less than a third or a quarter of the votes polled. There is obviously a hiatus between such numbers and the proud boast about representing the “sovereign will of the people”.

The CEC has suggested a run-off in all cases where the “majority 50 per cent plus one vote” principle is not met, the ensuing contest being between the first two candidates. Such a run-off should be held within a week or two of the count so that there is no undue gap in time, which would create its own problems. The election will then be in two stages, a primary and a run-off poll.

Such a system could be combined with the creation of larger legislatures to accommodate growing populations and special interests, the additional numbers being filled on the basis of a list system linked with the primary voting numbers. This will allow for a women’s quota and admit a class of candidates that has been unable to enter politics as it lacks money, muscle or vote-bank credentials.

The process of issuing voter identity cards must be expedited nationally and the task can be completed in 5-7 years as an add-on to the next Census, with a revision round to fill in the blanks. The linking of panchayat polls organisationally to the national electoral process, though not necessarily in terms of timing, makes good sense. But there is good reason for reservation about the proposition that all elections to Parliament and state assemblies should be held simultaneously on a single date so as to avoid the disruption caused by elections every few months.

Staggered polls have a democratic value in testing public opinion on current issues from time to time. On the other hand, forcing cohabitation in government just to fill time until the next “due date” for general elections could bring in cynical just-keep-afloat combinations.

State funding of elections is back on the agenda. This will work only if expenditure by parties and “friends” is pooled, else a ceiling on candidates alone will result in added expenditure by parties and “friends”. There is also no reason to bar corporate funding provided those are declared in the balance sheet and some guidelines are laid down whereby a certain part of the funding must go to opposition parties or candidates or on the basis of vote-shares so that there is a more level playing field.

Finally, these reforms will best work given party political reform as well. Parties must register, maintain a register of members, hold annual elections and must publish their audited accounts so as to ensure transparency and avoid slush money and black money. Parties would waffle, but the public must push for reforms.