Law School Special Democracy in Law Schools Part II

To argue against elections is to argue against democracy, and for autocracy, fascism, and possibly a slide into post-apocalyptic horror. Any article against elections (such as the one you are reading) regardless of the context of the elections, would have to face all the above accusations. There is an a priori assumption of efficiency and moral supremacy associated with the elective process of representation, which is maintained regardless of context and setting. However, there is a difference between fair selection and representative selection, and while elections assure the former result, they do not, in all situations, assure the second. One such anomalous situation is that of college elections. Specifically, the elections of student body representatives in law schools..Firstly, most such elections are conducted through the first-past-the-post systems. This system has several flaws, which are exacerbated in a smaller electorate. Just as in larger electorates, if a candidate wins 58% of the votes cast, in a college of 600 voters, then he is the preferred candidate of 348 students. But this also means that 252 students did not want him as their representative. Within those 252 students may lie niche categories of students whose interests can potentially be ignored by their newly elected representative. While such electoral wastage might be permissible in larger electorates, where alternate systems are unfeasible, it is unacceptable in a small university, where it is hardly difficult to effectively collate the interests of most, if not all, of the students into an effective agenda. The first-past-the-post system, therefore, deliberately promotes an inefficient outcome where an efficient one is available..But it is not only that the method is flawed, but the principle as well. The law school demographic, unlike the national demographic, is a function of very particular factors. Income is a primary determinant of who gets into law school and who does not. Most national law schools are still not very economically diverse. To make a sweeping, but true generalisation, the majority of students in most law schools come from comparatively affluent backgrounds, while a small minority belong to relatively lower income groups..A student representative in such a situation should not only try to represent the interest of the majority, but ensure that the minority are not disadvantaged or marginalised by their representative actions. However, any process of selecting a student representative, which emphasises upon the vote of the majority, will ignore this crucial second role that representatives have to perform. Keep in mind that it is very difficult for a student who is economically disadvantaged to speak about his/her economic difficulties, and the process of student elections does not in any way assure us of a representative who will be sensitive to the issues of the marginalised. Student elections enforce a ”majority is right” way of thinking, which plays out in decisions big and small- whether it be farewell parties on a scale that requires exorbitant amounts of student contribution, or simply organising events which simply don’t cater to everyone’s taste..How do most elections play out? A crude, but utilitarian model is one which divides the electorate between party supporters and swing voters. Your party supporters will always support a candidate, regardless of his agenda, because they support his or her party. The party, therefore, becomes an interest group unto itself. Swing voters, on the other hand, can go either way, depending upon the (ideally) perceived merits of the candidate..Law school elections are not politicised, i.e., there are no parties. There are, however, friends. People who stand for elections are usually charismatic individuals, who not only have friends, but also an extended group of followers of admirers. Cliques based on personal alliances are very clearly defined in law schools, and the more charismatic the individual, the larger the clique. Therefore, personal alliances inevitably play an uncomfortably large role in these elections. Friends not only vote for friends, but they also campaign for friends, and enter into conflicts for friends. It is easier to hide in the anonymity of a city than the boys’ hostel of a law school, and unless you have been an unsocial hermit all this while, your decision to vote uncomfortably tied up with personal loyalties, ties of friendship, and social allegiances. So is your vote in national elections, one may argue. But at least people won’t get to know if I swung my vote..Given the numbers and the methods employed, non-partisan elections are almost impossible in law schools. They are almost impossible elsewhere as well, but as mentioned before, we are prioritising means over ends if we insist on an inefficient system where an efficient one is possible. What, then, is this efficient alternative? Elections are not the only way in which democracy can be promoted. Law schools are perfect for the practice of direct democracy. It can be argued that all decisions eventually are made with the consent of the student body, and therefore direct democracy, even if not institutionalised, is certainly practised. However, the presence of a representative elected on a partisan agenda becomes rather superfluous then, and only serves to create a suspicion in the minds of the minority that their interests are not being served. Effective dialogue can take place between the administration and the authority directly, without the presence of a potentially biased intermediary. After all, law school is supposed to equip us to articulate our own opinions clearly, and not delegate the task of articulation to a third party. All a law school needs is an effective mechanism, which allows students to make their opinions public, and allows for the collation of all opinions into an efficient decision. Online voting and forums is one method, regular referendums is a related one..Elections, much as politics, are a means to an end. The end may be democracy, or simply the enabling of the most efficient and representative decision-making process. But there is no absolute positive value to holding elections where they are clearly inefficient. The purpose, after all, is representation of all. It is only when representation of all becomes impossible that representation of the most, or even the majority, is acceptable. And I refuse to believe that representing the interests of 600-odd students is such an impossible task..Darshana Mitra is a graduate from the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata (Class of 2012)