Right To Vote, But From Where?

In a democracy, voting rights are the perfect “holy cow”, which is why they are abused with abandon by whoever can get away with it

The Delhi assembly election 2015 once again revealed an interesting tendency of political parties of all hues to woo residents of “unauthorized colonies”, a euphemism for “landgrab”. This raises interesting questions which I have not seen raised in the public sphere, but bear debate. Why should local government be decided time and again by residents who squat on public land? Free housing, free electricity, free water using a treasury funded by whose taxes? And doled out by a local government chosen by which voters?

Anyone who has traveled internationally would concede that among major nations of the world, Indian urban spaces are among the worst in terms of planning, cleanliness, organization, livability. Ask any expat Indian the main reason they don’t wish to live and work in India, and invariably, the answer is “day-to-day quality of life sucks in urban India”. Why is this so? Why have we failed to create desirable, modern, hygenic urban public spaces that enable people from all strata of society to live healthy, productive lives?

In my opinion, the reason is that our urban politics is totally broken. There is a vicious negative cycle that repeatedly brings less educated rural migrants into urban centers, creates perverse incentives for them to occupy and usurp public land, turns them into a vote bank that is then exploited with the objective of winning urban elections. Often, a local land mafia connected with a political party organizes the occupation of public land, in exchange for an illicit rental payment from the poor migrants. Once the residence becomes established, an entire document chain is created – ration card, election card, aadhaar card, etc. – all based on a spurious claim of legal residence. The solution to this problem will not come from political parties, beneficiaries-in-turn of this cycle. The solution must come from the Supreme Court through a landmark judgment that clarifies a fundamental question about voting rights. Does unauthorized or illegal residence entitle someone to a right to vote from that place?

The Constitution of India gives a right to vote from the place of ordinary residence. A lawyer could analyze this better but to a lay person, it is not obvious that a squatter illegally occupying public land is ordinarily resident there. Many would argue that the squatter is simply a temporary intruder and trespasser on someone else’s property, in this case, the state’s land, land belonging to the people of India. Surely, as a citizen, a homeless person has a right to rest and succor on public land, but this does not imply a permanent, exclusive access to that specific place at the expense of the public. How can a place be an “ordinary residence” if it is not permanent, or exclusive, or legal?

The first reaction to any question being raised about voting rights is outrage and indignation. In a democracy, voting rights are the perfect “holy cow”, which is why they are abused with abandon by whoever can get away with it. However, don’t we have a moral obligation to seek a more perfect union and solve these difficult issues so our society treats all citizens, rural and urban, fairly? Doesn’t our democracy get vitiated by the perverse landgrab cycle described above? Is it acceptable to shake our heads and say “aisa hi hai, nahin badal sakta”?

Our right to vote should be linked to where we reside legitimately. A legitimate residence is one where the property is authorized by the local government, zoned for residential use, for which property taxes are paid regularly, and stamp duty was paid to register legal documents establishing the right of residence (sale deed, lease deed, or whatever mechanism is used locally). You do not need to own your legal residence. You could lease it from the owner. You do not need to lease an expensive property. You could share a lease on a single room with multiple other tenants, as long as the room is part of a legitimate property and the number of occupants satisfies local health and safety regulations. However, if you lease illegal property, for instance, from a local political mafia looking to build a vote bank while earning rents on public property, then your property rights are not legitimate, and should not generate a right to vote. However, you may have some antecedent residence, whether owned, leased or inherited. Your right to vote would be absolutely guaranteed wherever that antecedent legitimate property right is located, for example in your village where you tilled one bigha land. If someone establishes that they are truly homeless and without any property rights anywhere, there could be a process of establishing inherited rights from the legitimate residence of a parent or grandparent or in-law.

The bottom line is: create incentives for every citizen to establish a legitimate residence, no matter how inexpensive, through a valid property right, owned or leased, that decides where you have a right to vote. Such an approach would also go a long way in cementing a system of property rights, perhaps the most important building block in a free market democracy. Of course, there are enabling requirements we have glossed over: tax incentives for owners to lease out their vacant property, incentives for creation of vast quantities of legitimate low cost housing in, or close to urban areas, amendment of the Constitution to once again protect citizens’ right to property, etc.

China has solved this problem by requiring permits for rural migrants that want to reside in urban centers. Have permit, can reside. No permit, cannot reside. Of course, we are not China, and I am not suggesting we ape them. However, a legal property rights based voting registration system would be democratic and enable free movement and migration, while encouraging creation of contracts-based property rights and giving our urban areas a chance to escape the downward spiral they seem perpetually stuck in.

All my grandparents came to Delhi as immigrants, a couple were in fact refugees from pre-partition India. Yet, they struggled to rent properly zoned legal residences until they had the savings to purchase and build their own homes legitimately, they paid property taxes throughout their lives. This is how they obtained their right of abode and vote in Delhi. Why should every city resident not have to stand in line, follow the rules, make sacrifices, and build their life with hard work and patience like they did? If being a migrant to an urban area creates special rights to squat and claim high value urban public property for yourself, we should all squat, and have a race to the bottom by usurping all public land. There is something extremely perverse about vast numbers of citizens using voting rights earned via illegitimate residence to choose a compliant local government that then surrenders title to public lands to those very citizens. That’s not democracy.