Evaluating Reserved Seats as a Measure of Substantive Representation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes through the Analysis of Parliamentary Questions in the Lok Sabha (1999–2016)

Abstract

The provision of reserved seats for scheduled castes and tribes (SC/ST) in legislative bodies has been celebrated as one of the most empowering measures for them to overcome historical disadvantage. However, historical trajectory of reserved seats for SCs/STs suggests that key players like Ambedkar preferred separate electorate, multi-member constituencies and double vote as measures of effective representation for SCs over simply reserved seats with the joint electorate. It was out of political compromise in the face of Gandhi’s fast unto death that Ambedkar accepted reserved seats with a double vote from which double vote was taken out later. As per the general assumption, the presence of SCs representatives in decision-making bodies makes the voices of their community better heard. This study attempts to empirically know the ‘representativeness’ of SC/ST members of legislative bodies as far as substantiveness of their representation is concerned by comparatively analysing parliamentary questions raised by them and non-SC Members of Parliament (MPs) on the issues concerning SCs. Our analysis confirms a positive relationship between reserved seats and number of questions asked on SC/ST interests by the reserved seat MPs. However, several other factors like party affiliation, membership in ruling or opposition party and ideology appear to affect SC/ST MPs’ ability to represent their community.