The Republic Of India And The Commonwealth Of Australia: A Comparison And Contrast Of Two Major Democratic Asian Countries

A comparison and contrast of two major democratic Asian countries

The Republic of India is a constitutional republic. The Commonwealth of Australia is a federation, a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. The head of state is the current monarch[footnoteRef:2] and their power is controlled by the constitution. Australia’s democracy is effective in terms of the votes reflecting the majority of Australian’s views; however, it is important to note India’s strong history of cultural, ethnic and religious influence on law with Hinduism dominating almost three-quarters of religion in India and government with the practical caste system (whilst now illegal) still drastically influencing law and culture in India. With a western bias, it can be easy to say that Indian government is undemocratic and ineffective, but democracy cannot be perfect, and the roots of the Indian government is deeply embedded in Indian culture and lifestyle; for example, with a population that great elections are a nightmare – India’s literacy rate is 10% below the world’s average which affects India’s ability to invent a preferential voting system because people simply wouldn’t understand. [2: (or representative of that monarch)]

II. Elections

[image: Image result for Indian religion graph’]Both Australia and India use a bicameral system of parliament. In Australia the House of Representatives holds general elections every three years to elect representatives to parliament using two-party-preferred (TPP) preferential voting. On the contrary, the lower house in India (Lok Sabha) holds general elections every five years using first-past-the-post voting. This inherently represents an undemocratic system of electing government as FPTP fails to reflect the popular vote in the number of seats awarded to competing parties. A fundamental requirement of an election system and ultimately democracy, is to accurately represent the views of voters, but FPTP[footnoteRef:3] often fails in this respect. Which in terms of electoral accuracy, places Australia strongly in front. Additionally, both countries subscribe to a concept of Universal suffrage– as a direct consequence, elections are more indicative of the population. [3: ]

The Lok Sabha is divided into states which are then divided into territorial constituencies. In 1976, the number of seats that each state holds were frozen in such a manner that the ratio between that number and its population was as close to uniform as possible[footnoteRef:4]. Each state is divided into territorial constituencies in such a manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it (in each case, one) remain the same throughout the state. However, as the population increases this ratio does not change and presents a flawed and systemically undemocratic principle[footnoteRef:5]. Currently, the lower house has 543 elected[footnoteRef:6] seats in the Lok Sabha. Government is then formed when the head of government, the prime minister, is appointed by the President of India from the party or coalition that has most seats in the Lok Sabha. [4:

Providing the fact, the state’s population at the time was above 6 million – states with populations below six million were not represented] [5: (as the intended system of proportional representation isn’t actually met)] [6: Some seats aren’t elected in the general election and are appointed by the president of India]

On the contrary, Australia’s House of Representatives is divided into electoral divisions[footnoteRef:7]. The House of Representatives currently consists of 151 members, elected by and representing single-member districts just like India. However, the number of members is not fixed but can vary with boundary changes resulting from electoral redistributions, which are required on a regular basis by the AEC. Under the Constitution[footnoteRef:8], each state is entitled to members based on a population quota determined from the ‘latest statistics of the Commonwealth”. As a direct result of preferential voting, a 2PP system is formed. [7: Also known as seats or electorates] [8: (Section 24(1))]

In Australian politics, this is historically the Liberal-National coalition and the Australian Labor Party. Both parties occupy similar space on the political spectrum being placed as centre-right (pro-capitalist) and centre-left (socialist) respectively. Similarly, the government is formed in both India and Australia when the head of state (the Governor-General or the President) inviting the head of that party (or the future Prime Minister) to form government in the lower house, that person is then known as the Head of Government. This herein, represents the principle of separation of powers.

III. Separation of Powers

Both countries follow similar systems in the form of government accountability, in Australia, the separation of powers is exercised through the Westminster principle. Whereas, parliamentary debate and opposition are at the centre of democracy with the duty to scrutinise the government of the day. Under the Indian and Australian constitutions, three branches of government are formed – the legislative, executive and judicial. As bicameral countries, it is the duty of the upper house to scrutinise legislation brought from the lower house and vice-versa.

In India, the Executive branch of government is run by the prime minister as head of government along with the main organ of the cabinet running 57 ministries, however, executive power is vested mainly in the President of India, as per Article 53(1) of the constitution which states the president holds all constitutional powers and exercises them directly or through subordinate officers. The Judicial branch of government is granted to the supreme court which is the judicial forum and final court of appeal under the Constitution of India, with the power of constitutional review and ensures that if a legal challenge against law made by the legislature violates the constitution or is otherwise unlawful that law may be over turned by the Supreme Court.

In a similar fashion, Australia’s judicial branch is in the form of the High Court of Australia which has the power to interpret and make judgements on the constitution. The law declared by the High Court is binding for all lower courts throughout Australia. Conversely, the Queen (as represented by the Governor-General [GG]) is at the forefront of the Executive branch in Australia. Whilst technically the Prime Minister is included in the Executive branch[footnoteRef:9] (as appointed by the GG) [9: However exercises less executive power than that of the GG]

In both India and Australia, checks and balances exist with the upper and lower houses both needing to pass a bill and the head of state signing it for it to become law.

Perceived corruption in Australia is at a very low rate[footnoteRef:10], however as of 2019 concerns about political donations have become increasingly common. Contrariwise, Corruption in India is an issue that adversely affects India’s economy. Not only has it held the country back from reaching new heights, but rampant corruption has stunted the country’s development. A similar study by TI in 2005 recorded that more than 62% of Indians had at some point or another paid a bribe to a public official to get a job done. Whilst corruption is on a steady decline, corruption has stunted India’s growth and development in permanent ways. Dynastic influence on democracy has always existed in India and accounts for the majority[footnoteRef:11] of elected members under 35 and aids in stunting India at becoming a free and fair democracy due to the fact that this dynastic influence creates a huge polarisation of wealth and influence. [10: Transparency International’s 2016 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks the country of Australia 13th place out of 176 countries.] [11: Based on statistics ]

IV. Freedoms and Rights

Australia allegedly has a strong history of protecting civil and human rights[footnoteRef:12], however deep-seeded political and human rights issues remain. At the centre of this, Australia’s treatment of refugees has caused overwhelming amounts of human rights violations including holding refugees and asylum seekers who arrived by boat in Australian waters on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea and on Nauru. Secondly, the huge polarisation between Indigenous and non-indigenous people in the criminal justice system and the gross legal and socio-economic underrepresentation that Indigenous people face in the workforce, in Australia’s democracy and in opportunity. The employment to population rate for Indigenous 15–64-year-olds was around 48% in 2014-15, compared to 75% for non-Indigenous Australians. Neglect and abuse of people in juvenile detention and people with disabilities come seeded from the fact of Australia’s weak human rights legislation. [12: (during Australia’s modern history) – and legally implied but in practice, limitations exist]

Universal suffrage, freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination is explicitly protected under Australian Law. Section 80 of Australia’s constitution protects the right to trial by jury. Under the Australian constitution, there is implied freedom of communication (and expression) however heavy restrictions apply. In India, laws protect security and government officials from being persecuted for abuse. India’s founding document provides six freedoms and rights granted by the government: There are six fundamental rights recognised by the Indian constitution: Right to equality[footnoteRef:13], Right to freedom[footnoteRef:14], Right against exploitation[footnoteRef:15], Right to freedom of religion[footnoteRef:16], Cultural and Educational Rights[footnoteRef:17], and Right to constitutional remedies[footnoteRef:18], and finally the Right to Privacy[footnoteRef:19]. In practice, government overreach, abuse of power and corruption all play a central role in the life of Indian citizens – and for a lot of people, that’s just what it means to live in India. In terms of national legislation, India has a far greater level of freedoms and rights than Australian citizens. Like many countries, India recognise the importance of having freedoms and rights remaining ubiquitous and provided in the constitution. Whilst in practice, statistically most white Australian citizens will enjoy those six freedoms, for Indigenous Australians everywhere there is a gross disenfranchisement of citizens. [13: (Articles. 14-18)] [14: (Articles. 19-22)] [15: (Articles. 23-24)] [16: (Articles. 25-28)] [17: (Articles. 29-30)] [18: (Articles. 32-35)] [19: (as of Aug,28,2019)]

V. Conclusion

In closing, Australia has a more effective democracy[footnoteRef:20]. However, cultural context could not be more important in comparing Australia and India. Australia’s system of government would not work in India and vice-versa. The Indian form of government was modelled to reflect the Hindu caste system, whilst a strong Christian influence helped shape the Australian form of government. With this consideration of cultural, ethnic and religious differences – whilst India’s system can be greatly improved it is entirely appropriate for Indians living in a post-caste system society. [20: This judgement is only made on the premise of effective democracy within Australia, legislative crossovers would be a nightmare for the Indian geopolitical sphere]

Bibliography

1. About Rights and Freedoms. (2019). Retrieved from Australian Human Rights Association: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/about-rights-and-freedoms
2. Australian Citizenship – Our Common Bond. (2012). Retrieved from Department of Immigration and Citizenship: http://www.citizenship.gov.au/learn/cit_test/_pdf/australian-citizenship-aug2012.pdf
3. Australian Government Publishing Service. (2011, March 12). The Australian System of Government. Retrieved from House of Representatives: https://web.archive.org/web/20110312124621/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/infosheets/is20.pdf
4. Australian Labor Party National Platform Archived 23 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 11 December 2014
5. Baker, C. (2019). Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from Corruption and integrity issues: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/CorruptionIssues
6. Chandra, K. (n.d.). In K. Chandra, Democratic Dynasties: State, Party, and Family in Contemporary Indian Politics (pp. 131,136). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=VwbFDAAAQBAJ&pg=PR10
7. General Election 2014. (2016). Retrieved from Election Commission of India: http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/GE2014/ge.html
8. Governor Generals Role. (2015, July 20). Retrieved from Office of the Governor-General: http://www.gg.gov.au/governor-generals-role
9. India: Repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. (2007). Retrieved from Human Rights Watch: https://www.hrw.org/news/2007/11/20/india-repeal-armed-forces-special-powers-act
10. Kelly, P. (1995). November 1975. Allen & Unwin.
11. Office of Legislative Drafting, Attorney-General’s Department. Commonwealth of Australia. (n.d.). Australia Act 1986. Retrieved from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aa1986114/index.html#s1
12. Sawer, M. (2004). ‘Australia: Replacing Plurality Rule with Majority-Preferential Voting’. Retrieved from https://researchers.anu.edu.au/publications/4497
13. SINGH, H. (2016, October 13). Jaran Josh. Retrieved from 2011 Census Literacy Rate Statistics India: https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/census-2011-literacy-rate-and-sex-ratio-in-india-since-1901-to-2011-1476359944-1
14. Constitution of Australia.80, 140, 24, 1, 80, 18.