Elections and democracy

In any game, everyone must follow agreed rules, and there must be an impartial umpire whose decisions all accept. Change the rules and the result changes. Elections are similar: different systems of election can produce different winners, and we need impartial machinery to run them. Because these decisions must be made before the electoral 'game' begins, they cannot be left to whichever government is in power. So democratic countries write them into the constitution.

Can there be democracy without elections? In a large country, not really.

• In a direct democracy, citizens take part directly in day-to-day decisions and in running the government, as in the ancient Greek city-states. In India, local bodies, especially gram sabhas, come closest.
• But direct democracy cannot work when decisions involve lakhs and crores of people. So rule by the people usually means rule by the people's representatives: citizens elect representatives who govern. Citizens take part only indirectly, which makes the method of election very important.

Can there be elections without democracy? Yes. Many non-democratic countries hold elections, and their rulers are keen to look democratic, but they arrange elections so they never threaten their rule, with no real choice.

What makes an election democratic? A democratic constitution lays down the basic rules, leaving details to laws:

• Who is eligible to vote?
• Who is eligible to contest?
• Who supervises elections?
• How do voters choose their representatives?
• How are votes counted and representatives elected?
• The first three ensure elections are free and fair; the last two ensure fair representation. The Indian Constitution answers all five.

Example (new): a sports club whose current captain can decide the rules for electing the next captain on the day of the vote, and also counts the ballots, is unlikely to hold a fair election; fixing the rules in advance and appointing a neutral returning officer protects the contest.