Delimitation Is Becoming a Battle for Power, Instead of Improving Representation
Unless we reframe delimitation as a question of representation, we risk reducing democracy to power sharing between elite groupings
Published in the Times of India
The discourse around delimitation in India today is framed as a conflict between two foundational democratic ideals: the principle of political equality—"one person, one vote"—and the imperative of power-sharing in a federal system. At this moment, these ideals appear to be at odds. This tension is not new. It is why previous attempts to revisit delimitation were shelved. But the issue is back—and this time, kicking the can down the road may not be an option. At stake is not just electoral arithmetic but the very character of Indian federalism and the legitimacy of our democratic institutions.
The 2026 delimitation exercise threatens to drastically reduce representation for southern states that have successfully controlled population growth, while rewarding northern states where populations have expanded. This creates a paradoxical disincentive for development—states that invested in education, healthcare, and family planning now face political penalties.
To navigate this tension, two broad approaches have emerged. The first argues for degressive proportionality—allowing some inter-state variation in constituency sizes to cushion Southern states from losing representation despite successful population control. There is precedent for this approach globally, where perfect numerical equality is often tempered to protect minority voices or regional balance.
The second approach looks beyond Lok Sabha seats and proposes compensatory mechanisms: strengthening the federal structure by devolving financial powers, reforming the Rajya Sabha to reflect state interests more meaningfully, and creating better institutional checks on centralisation.
But both solutions, while worthy of discussion, are technical fixes. They treat delimitation as a logistical exercise, not a democratic reckoning. What is missing is a more fundamental question: what does representation mean in a democracy?
Representation Has Collapsed
We speak about "one person, one vote" as a democratic mantra. But that principle presumes a functioning representational system—where elected representatives are responsive to constituents, not just delegates of party leadership. In today's India, this assumption no longer holds.
The anti-defection law has hollowed out the core of representative democracy. MPs and MLAs are not free agents expressing the will of their constituents; they are constrained actors, answerable to party leadership rather than voters. What began as a safeguard against opportunism has become a mechanism for enforcing conformity.
This is not merely a legal or institutional issue—it strikes at the heart of democratic theory. If representation is reduced to majorities —counting heads without hearing voices—we are left with a democracy that votes but does not deliberate. And without internal party democracy, there is little space for debate or deliberation even within political formations. What remains is the illusion of representation without its substance.
Parliament and Parties Have Withered
The erosion of representation is further compounded by the irrelevance of Parliament as a site of deliberation. Parliamentary debate is now often performative. Real decisions are made elsewhere—in party war rooms, executive offices, or through opaque processes shielded from public scrutiny.
Political parties themselves have failed to evolve as democratic institutions. Inner-party democracy remains elusive, with leadership monopolising decision-making. The anti-defection law, in this context, has become a tool to enforce obedience rather than build consensus. Scrapping it might introduce short-term instability—but it would also force parties to engage dissent, to negotiate internally, and to treat legislators as political actors rather than instruments.
Successive waves of bureaucratisation and digitisation have distanced representatives from governance in their own constituencies. MPs and MLAs increasingly intervene on behalf of their constituents on individual petitions as opposed to responsive political agents aggregating local concerns and aspirations.
From Citizens to Beneficiaries
The consequences of this collapse are visible in our polity. Political identities are increasingly being construed in narrow terms and citizens are being converted into beneficiaries. Instead of a shifting coalition of interests and ideas, we are seeing tribalism and polarisation.
The essence of democracy lies not just in expressing preferences, but in the capacity to revise them. That possibility is shrinking and undermines the very premise of democracy, which is the centrality of persuasion, mobilisation, possibility of change, of majorities evolving, of alliances shifting.
If representation is meant to be dynamic, then delimitation must go beyond seats and redrawing lines on a map to engage with how power is exercised and how voices are heard.
Representation Is a Listening Mechanism
Delimitation, then, is not a standalone reform. It cannot be. It is entangled with the nature of our parties, the design of our institutions, and the spirit of our federalism. To treat it as a procedural issue is to miss the moment. What we face is not a numbers problem but a representational crisis.
Representation is not simply about equalising constituency sizes. It is about creating the institutional and normative conditions where citizens are seen and heard—not just counted. We have preserved the ritual of voting but abandoned the practice of listening. A true democracy requires more than periodic electoral legitimacy—it demands ongoing negotiation between citizens and the state, and among citizens themselves.
The Path Forward
Unless we reframe delimitation as a question of representation—who is represented, how, and to what end—we risk reducing democracy to power sharing between elite groupings. Democracy requires both procedural integrity and theoretical clarity. Procedure requires getting into the minutiae and thus one-person one vote has to be the starting point of our discussion. But if delimitation really is about improving the quality of representation, then we have to address all substantive issues instead of just the ones that interest us.
Finally, in the absence of building a robust consensus, we now face the risk of deeply distorted incentives. Already, Southern states—fearful of losing influence—are seeing political pressure to reverse population control gains. Some governments are encouraging higher fertility; others may find it politically expedient to support inward migration. These are not healthy signals in a democracy and are born of a system where representation is tethered to numbers, not needs. This could undo decades of developmental progress and deepen regional cleavages.
This dynamic reflects a broader trust deficit. Without a shared national imagination—without institutions that ensure voice, balance, and reciprocity—every reform becomes a zero-sum contest. Delimitation then becomes not a democratic exercise but a battleground of competitive insecurities between power groups
Also Read:
