Report

Summary

This volume is the formal proceedings report of the Second National Convention of the Indian Liberal Group (ILG), held at the T. V. Raman Pai Convention Centre, Mangalore, on February 18–20, 2005. The convention’s declared theme was ‘Accountability in Governance’, chosen because the organizers regard accountability as both the operational guarantee and the road map for liberalism in India. In the rendered pages, the volume opens with a Preface that records the context: mourning the death of ILG founding member Minoo Masani’s birth centenary dedication, noting reduced delegate attendance (52 of 319 members, against 100 of 434 at the first convention in Hyderabad), and summarizing the inaugural session. The substantive content in these pages consists of two major addresses: N. Vittal’s Inaugural Address arguing that accountability — rooted in individual responsibility, professional standards, and legal enforcement — is the indispensable condition for a liberal society, and S. P. Sathe’s Keynote Address, only partially rendered, which frames accountability within constitutional democracy, examining the formal and moral dimensions of legitimacy, the role of the judiciary, anti-defection law, and the accountability of elected representatives.

The volume as a whole (115 pages) also contains addresses by Hubertus von Welck (FNSt) and S. V. Raju, a Delegates’ Session with organisational business and constitutional amendments, three Liberal Position Papers on economic liberalisation (Ajit Karnik), Indian agriculture (R. M. Mohan Rao), and administration of justice (G. Giridhar Prabhu), plus annexures on the ILG strategy 2005–2010, a President’s Report annexure, and a delegate list — none of which appear in the rendered pages.

Essays

Preface

The Preface, written in the voice of the ILG executive, contextualises the Second National Convention in the rendered pages. It notes that 52 of 319 ILG members attended (against approximately 100 of 434 at the first convention in Hyderabad) and attributes the lower turnout to organisational difficulties catalogued in the President’s Report. Before the formal sessions, the gathering observed two sad duties: mourning the passing of Dr. Mme Louella Lobo Prabhu (who had been scheduled to deliver the valedictory address and died on 31 January, the eve of the convention) and observing condolences for Tsunami victims of December 26, 2004. The convention was dedicated to the memory of ILG founding member Minoo Masani on his birth centenary. The open inaugural session was held at the state-of-the-art T. V. Raman Pai Convention Centre before a 300-plus audience; students from St. Agnes Special School performed a play in Kannada (‘Beggar Who Would Be King’). The Preface briefly characterises the three addresses delivered — Vittal’s on anti-corruption, Sathe’s analytical keynote on accountability in governance, and von Welck’s on promoting liberalism globally — and thanks the Mangalore Chapter organising committee.

• Convention held February 18–20, 2005, at T. V. Raman Pai Convention Centre, Mangalore, with 52 of 319 ILG members attending.
• Dedicated to Minoo Masani on his birth centenary; convention mourned two deaths: Dr. Mme Louella Lobo Prabhu and Tsunami victims.
• Open inaugural session included a Kannada play by St. Agnes Special School students.
• Three inaugural addresses delivered: Vittal (anti-corruption/accountability), Sathe (constitutional accountability), von Welck (global liberalism/FNSt).
• Mangalore Chapter organisers credited: G. Giridhar Prabhu, T. Subbaya Shetty, S. L. Shanbhogue, M. R. N. Pai, Claret D’Souza, Dr. Satheesh Rao, K. Prakash Rao.

Inaugural Address: Accountability :The Road Map and Guarantee for Liberalism

By N. Vittal

N. Vittal’s Inaugural Address, titled ‘Accountability: The Road Map and Guarantee for Liberalism’, argues in the rendered pages that accountability is not merely a bureaucratic desideratum but the functional precondition for a liberal society. He opens by invoking Minoo Masani’s definition of liberalism — the individual at the centre, tolerance as the essential spirit, pragmatism as method, and pluralism as outcome — and links this to the ILG’s founding principles (individual freedom, right to information, economic prosperity, technology and human development, active citizenship, rule of law). He then identifies four features of good governance under liberalism: rule of law with equal access to justice; dignity of the individual (drawing on President Kalam’s observation about human potential); optimum total factor productivity (framed via Masani’s pragmatism); and the three pillars of constitutional governance (judiciary, legislature, executive). The address traces accountability to three sources: individual sense of responsibility (the mother as ideal type), professional codes of conduct, and enforcement mechanisms. Vittal introduces his two informal ‘laws’: the first — that in any organisation, those who work get more work and those who do not work get no promotion or perquisites — and the second — that the greater the media publicity a corruption case receives, the greater the chances of acquittal of the guilty. He analyses why prosecutions fail in India: the legal presumption of innocence, the 300-year backlog in courts (illustrated by the Harshad Mehta scam), the legal cushions available to the wealthy, and the conspiracy charge that often backfires. He argues for greater transparency and the Right to Information Act as the first step, cites John Kennedy’s ‘failure is an orphan’ observation in the context of the Bay of Pigs, and calls for a systemic change: radical modification of Article 311 to bring public servants under a performance contract system. He concludes by calling for a culture change — moving from a culture of power to one of service — and cites L. K. Jha’s observation that India erred in calling public servants ‘government servants’ rather than ‘public servants’.

• Accountability is defined as the functional guarantee and road map for liberalism, not merely an administrative virtue.
• Four features of good governance under liberalism: rule of law, individual dignity, optimum total factor productivity, and constitutional separation of powers.
• Accountability arises from three sources: individual responsibility, professional codes of conduct, and enforcement systems.
• Vittal’s First Law: those who work get more work; those who do not work get no promotion. Vittal’s Second Law: media publicity for a corruption case increases the probability of acquittal.
• Structural reasons for impunity: 300-year court backlog, legal cushions for the wealthy, conspiracy charges that backfire, and Article 311 protections for public servants.
• Prescription: Right to Information Act, radical reform of Article 311 to allow performance contracts, and a culture change from power-seeking to public service.

Keynote Address: Accountability in Governance

By S. P. Sathe

S. P. Sathe’s Keynote Address, ‘Accountability in Governance’, begins in the rendered pages with a rigorous jurisprudential and constitutional analysis. Sathe opens by distinguishing democracy as government by elected representatives accountable to the people, and frames the Constitution of India as requiring the State to promote welfare and secure a just social order. He then introduces his central concept: accountability as a moral concept — constitutional/liberal democracy is essentially a moral system in which constitutionalism is sustained not merely by law but by morality. He distinguishes obedience out of fear from obedience out of volition, drawing on H. L. A. Hart’s distinction between ‘being obliged’ and ‘having an obligation’. The Nuremberg tribunal is cited to show that legal validity does not equal legitimacy. Sathe then examines what constitutional democracy entails: (a) rule of law, (b) utmost regard for individual liberty, and (c) an independent judiciary. He surveys how parliamentary conventions evolved differently in India than in England and Australia, using the controversy over the President’s obligation to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers (from Rajendra Prasad’s conflicts with Nehru, through M. C. Setalwad’s opinion, to the Supreme Court’s eventual endorsement and subsequent constitutional amendment) as a case study in the conversion of unwritten conventions into written rules. He examines the Anti-Defection Law (Fifty-second Amendment) and its consequences — cabinet size, the 1/3rd exception, and the later constitutional amendment removing that exception. The address then turns to the accountability of elected representatives: disqualification provisions under the Constitution (office of profit, criminal convictions, the Representation of the People Act Section 8), citing the Satish Harma petrol pump allotments case and the Kargil victims case to illustrate partisan and judicial inconsistency. The rendered pages end mid-address, with Sathe arguing that legal restraints are insufficient and that healthy political precedents matter more, giving the examples of Profumo in England and Mrs. Gandhi’s forcing of ministers to resign despite legal clearance.

• Accountability is a moral concept: constitutional democracy functions according to law and morality together; legitimacy requires both.
• H. L. A. Hart’s distinction between ‘being obliged’ and ‘having an obligation’ underpins Sathe’s argument that accountability is not merely coerced compliance.
• The Nuremberg tribunal is used to show that legal validity without legitimacy is insufficient — Nazi officials could not plead superior orders as a defence.
• India’s constitutional history is traced through the conversion of unwritten conventions (President’s obligation to act on Council of Ministers’ advice) into written constitutional rules.
• Anti-Defection Law (52nd Amendment) is examined in detail: the 1/3rd exception, subsequent removal, and the problem of partisan disqualification decisions by Speakers.
• Disqualification of elected members: office of profit, criminal conviction, the Representation of the People Act provisions, and inconsistency in judicial enforcement.

India’s Economic Liberalisation : The Unfinished Liberal Agenda

By Ajit Karnik

Ajit Karnik opens with two apparently contradictory propositions: India has made substantial progress since the 1991 liberalisation, yet the country still has a very long way to go before it can deliver the benefits of economic development to its people. He anchors this tension in a comparison with China, noting that at India’s average growth rate the doubling period for per capita GDP is seventeen years against nine for China, and that average Indian incomes of Rs. 2,000 per month could have been four times higher had India followed a less dirigiste path from the start. His central polemical point is that decades of pro-poor policy were in practice anti-poor: subsidising consumption rather than guaranteeing income, protecting those already employed rather than opening opportunity to those without jobs, and chasing a socialist dream of welfare enhancement through means that are the worst enemy of socialist ends.

The essay then moves through the achievements of post-1991 reforms — rapid stabilisation, sustained growth above 5 per cent, sharp reduction in the poverty ratio, and the dramatic reversal of the external-account crisis — before pivoting to the “Unfinished Liberal Agenda.” Karnik articulates the liberal position as rejecting any false State-versus-market dichotomy in favour of complementarity, invoking Hayek’s “Fatal Conceit” as the danger of planning hubris. He works through five institutional reform areas that he regards as inadequately recognised in mainstream policy debate: privatisation (the burden of proof should lie with those who wish to keep any enterprise in the public sector); labour laws (rigid job-security provisions have suppressed formal employment and driven capital-intensity, benefiting incumbents at the expense of those seeking work); globalisation (trade liberalisation unambiguously benefits growth and lowers poverty; Bhagwati’s “In Defense of Globalisation” is preferred to Stiglitz’s critique); government finances (India’s tax-to-GDP ratio is far too low and expenditure composition, not quantum, must change); and credible commitments and policy predictability (the FRBM Act is offered as a model for earmarked fiscal rules). A sixth section, on property rights, draws heavily on Hernando de Soto to argue that it is the enforcement of rights — not their formal existence — that matters for development and that the poor suffer most from their non-enforcement.

In the conclusion and Suggested Plan of Action (seen through printed page 71), Karnik engages Karl Polanyi’s “The Great Transformation” directly, calling Polanyi’s characterisation of market society as a “satanic mill” graphically false, and likening the liberal economist’s task of persistently arguing for market institutions to Sisyphus condemned to roll a boulder up a mountain. The Suggested Plan of Action recaps each reform area as a set of specific action points for the Indian Liberal Group.

• India’s post-1991 growth record is real but insufficient: at 6 per cent per annum per capita GDP doubles only every 17 years, against China’s 9-year doubling time.
• Decades of ostensibly pro-poor policy were actually anti-poor because they confused redistribution of a fixed pie with growth, and protected the employed at the expense of the unemployed.
• The liberal position is not State versus market but complementarity: the State’s role is to create a market-enabling environment and provide a safety net, not to run businesses.
• Rigid labour laws are identified as a structural cause of India’s failure to industrialise and generate formal employment, keeping over 60 per cent of the labour force in agriculture.
• Globalisation is defended via Bhagwati against Stiglitz: trade liberalisation unambiguously lowers poverty; selective safety nets, not closure, are the correct policy response to transition costs.
• Property-rights enforcement — not their formal legal existence — is the key institutional gap for the poor, drawing on de Soto’s work on Peru and developing-country experience.
• Polanyi’s “Great Transformation” is challenged directly as a false romanticisation of pre-market society that has become a rhetorical resource for anti-reform forces.

Indian Agriculture and Rural Indebtedness

By R. M. Mohan Rao

R. M. Mohan Rao’s paper is an executive summary of proceedings from a National Seminar on Indian Agriculture and Rural Indebtedness held at Guntur. It opens by framing the post-liberalisation farm crisis — rising suicides, growing indebtedness, and the deliberate exclusion of agriculture from the economic reform process — as an indictment of policy neglect that demands urgent liberal remediation. The essay surveys the structural condition of Indian agriculture (predominantly small and marginal holdings, declining institutional credit, stagnating Green Revolution technologies, fragmented marketing, and an eroding social safety net) before systematically proposing policy initiatives across five domains.

The policy prescriptions follow a liberal conception of the State as promoter and facilitator rather than controller. Mohan Rao calls for debt relief along the lines of the 1990 Debt Relief Scheme, issue of Kisan Credit Cards with expanded credit limits, de-politicisation of co-operatives, mandatory 18 per cent bank lending to agriculture, crop insurance redesigned at the village level, removal of all Exim restrictions on farm-product movement, a reoriented extension system accountable to farmers rather than bureaucracies, marketing reforms giving farmers freedom to transport and sell freely, and a social-sector package covering primary education, rural health insurance, and broadened KCC insurance limits. Throughout, the paper frames agriculture’s exclusion from liberalisation not as an oversight but as a deliberate policy choice, and argues that correcting it is both an economic necessity and a liberal imperative.

• Agriculture contributes approximately 25 percent of GDP and employs 56.7 percent of the workforce yet has been deliberately kept outside the economic reform process, which Mohan Rao treats as a liberal grievance rather than mere oversight.
• The persistence of old problems (monsoon dependence, debt bondage, poor rural infrastructure) is compounded by new ones: growing fragmentation of holdings, declining soil fertility, falling groundwater, increased commercialisation risk, and collapse of joint-family social absorption networks.
• Post-1991 financial sector reforms disrupted institutional rural credit flow, pushing farmers toward input dealers and non-institutional lenders — a key driver of the farmer-suicide crisis particularly visible in Andhra Pradesh cotton belt during 1997-98.
• The liberal policy framework proposed centres on a pro-active State that guarantees land and water stewardship, removes all movement and Exim restrictions on farm products, issues Kisan Credit Cards with consumption coverage, mandates 18 per cent bank lending to agriculture, and funds crop insurance at village level.
• Extension reform is flagged as critical: existing public-extension systems lack accountability; para-extension through input suppliers has actively contributed to suicides; a multi-agency approach with media, SHGs, and farmers’ organisations is recommended alongside a holistic farming-system approach suited to Indian diversity.
• Marketing is described as having become ‘a gamble’ due to government interventions that procure forcefully in rising markets and abandon farmers in falling ones; the essay calls for toll-free market intelligence services, warehouse receipt credit, and electronic-media price dissemination.
• Social-sector interventions — vocational education for rural youth, group rural health insurance, extended KCC insurance limits, and special health schemes for small and marginal farmers — are presented as integral to reducing the vulnerability that converts debt into death.

Administration of Justice

By G. Giridhar Prabhu

G. Giridhar Prabhu’s position paper argues that an independent judiciary is the sine qua non of democracy, but that India’s judicial system has been severely compromised by five decades of constitutional over-amendment, opaque and politically influenced appointment processes, judicial overreach into legislative territory, and an overwhelming backlog of cases. Drawing on Lincoln’s definition of democracy and Palkhivala’s lament that Indians received a Constitution but not the ability to cherish it, Prabhu frames the crisis as a failure of all three constitutional pillars — Legislature, Judiciary, and Executive — to uphold the Rule of Law, which he characterises through the three Cs: Corruption, Confusion, and Chaos.

The paper moves through a series of concrete reform demands on behalf of the Indian Liberal Group. On judicial appointments, Prabhu calls for a transparent Judicial Service Commission to replace the opaque collegium system, citing the Law Commission’s 14th Report and Ram Jethmalani’s observation that there are really only two kinds of judges — those who know law and those who know the Law Minister. He advocates mandatory Codes of Conduct, age-capped recruitment (no appointment above 55 for High Courts, 57 for Supreme Court), retirement extended to 65, and a cooling-off period before retired judges take arbitration assignments. On criminal justice, ILG demands prioritise enforcement of law, fair trial, punishment, social rehabilitation, and a five-year reform timeline for new prisons and backlog reduction. An appended ‘Notes for Discussion’ section provides case-pendency data showing 3.27 million cases pending in High Courts (41% older than five years) and over 22.7 million in district courts, with the ILG noting that up to 80 per cent of current litigants have lost confidence in the judicial system.

• Prabhu opens by invoking Lincoln and Palkhivala to argue that India has a Constitution but has failed to develop the capacity to cherish or enforce it.
• He identifies judicial activism — the judiciary acting as lawmaker — as the primary structural deformity corroding the separation of powers.
• The collegium system for judicial appointments is criticised as non-transparent and susceptible to political and partisan influence, with Ram Jethmalani cited as evidence.
• ILG proposes a Judicial Service Commission, mandatory Code of Conduct, retirement age raised to 65, and a bar on retired judges taking government arbitration assignments for at least one year.
• Criminal justice demands include fair trial, enforcement of law, social rehabilitation through a correctional system, and implementation of the Malimath Committee’s recommendations.
• The ‘Notes for Discussion’ appendix presents stark pendency data: 21,995 Supreme Court cases, 3.27 million High Court cases, and 22.75 million district-court cases, with up to 80% of litigants reported to have abandoned confidence in the system.
• The essay closes with the warning that unless the three constitutional pillars are strengthened, democracy risks meaning ‘of the Criminals, for the Criminals and by the Criminals’.

1. Strategy of the Indian Liberal Group (ILG) (2005-2010)

This annexure presents the formal five-year strategy document of the Indian Liberal Group (ILG) for the period 2005–2010, prepared under the guidance of Dr. Peter Traub, a German liberal consultant affiliated with the Friedrich Naumann Foundation. The document opens with a statement of the ILG’s main aim — to be recognised as a pressure group and catalyst for change across most of India, fighting for a broad understanding of liberal values at all levels of public life — and organises the strategy around six main-aim aspects: educating people on liberal values; influencing political decision-making; taking up key issues for concrete results; empowering and activating local people; strengthening liberal politicians and political parties; and supporting other organisations and individuals spreading liberal ideas.

For each of the six aspects, the document sets out concrete milestones, then specifies detailed activities and task assignments with named responsible persons and deadlines. Aspect 1 (education) involves profiling target groups (students, media, elected representatives, women, farmers, business people, civil servants), formulating liberal principles as guiding frameworks for training, developing training kits, training trainers, and building marketing techniques to ‘sell’ the liberal message — with the overall image-building slogan ‘ILG — we care!’ Aspects 2 and 3 focus on lobbying and policy-watch activities: building systematic relationships with the Prime Minister’s office, civil servants, elected legislators, opinion leaders, and national and regional media, while also taking up specific issues that demonstrate the relevance of the ILG’s ‘five liberal pillars.’ Aspects 4 and 5 address grassroots empowerment of local elected bodies and citizens, and engagement with political parties — including identifying and training potential liberal candidates, counselling ILG members who are party members, and providing leadership curricula.

• The ILG frames itself as a pressure group and catalyst for change, not a political party, aiming for recognition across most of India by 2010.
• The strategy is organised around six main-aim aspects with corresponding milestones and time-bound task assignments.
• Aspect 1 targets six categories: students/youth/teachers, media, elected representatives, women, farmers, business people, and civil servants, with dedicated responsible persons for each.
• Aspect 2 operationalises political influence through systematic relationship-building with the PM’s office, civil servants, legislators, opinion leaders, and media — including a proposed ‘ILG Policy Watch’ monitoring official websites.
• Aspect 4 (local empowerment) and Aspect 5 (party strengthening) together constitute a theory of bottom-up liberal political mobilisation, from local body orientation to identifying and supporting liberal political candidates.
• Dr. Peter Traub, a German liberal consultant formerly with the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, is credited as a key external adviser who shaped the strategy framework.
• The document’s marketing approach includes producing videos/DVDs on empowerment success stories and identifying an ‘emotional, image-building message’ for each target audience.

Address by Chief Guest: Promoting Liberalism Globally - The Mission of the FNSt

By Hubertus von Welck

Hubertus von Welck, Regional Director South Asia of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation (FNF), delivered the Chief Guest address at the ILG Second National Convention in Mangalore. The address introduces the FNF’s history, global mission, and operational instruments to an Indian liberal audience, framing the Foundation as the institutional vehicle through which Germany’s liberal tradition — rooted in Friedrich Naumann’s vision of civic education and participatory democracy — is projected internationally.

Von Welck organises his remarks in three parts. First, he traces the FNF’s origins: established in Germany on 19 May 1958 under the patronage of Federal Republic President Theodor Heuss, the Foundation took its name from Friedrich Naumann (1860–1919), a pastor-turned-politician whose most consequential legacy was the plan for a ‘Free Academy for Politics’ designed to educate citizens for democracy. Second, he articulates the Foundation’s overriding goal — to promote the principle of freedom — through three interlocking convictions: that freedom drives development (with free markets and the rule of law as key components), that democracy safeguards peace, and that human rights are both ends and prerequisites of liberal development policy. Third, he enumerates six focal themes the FNF has adopted for 2004–2007: Globalisation and Development, Education as the basis of a free society, Peace-building and conflict prevention, Active citizenry and local politics, Human rights and constitutional reform, and the Liberal information society. The address closes (in the rendered pages) with an extended reading from ‘Jonathan’s Guiding Principles’ in Ken Schooland’s The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible, presented as a distillation of self-ownership and non-aggression principles — the text cuts off before the conclusion.

• The FNF was founded on 19 May 1958 in Germany and takes its name and civic-education mission from Friedrich Naumann (1860–1919), whose ‘Free Academy for Politics’ concept shaped the Foundation’s participatory ethos.
• Von Welck’s overriding thesis is that freedom, development, and peace are inseparable: market freedom correlates positively with growth and the human development index; democracy is a structural bulwark against war and extremism.
• The FNF’s three primary instruments abroad are civic/political education, political dialogue (including an International Academy of Leadership), and political consultancy for liberal parties and organisations.
• Six focal themes for 2004–2007 cover globalisation and development, education reform (including education vouchers), peace-building, active local citizenry, constitutional human-rights protection, and the liberal information society.
• The address ends with a reading from Ken Schooland’s libertarian fable The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible as a statement of the FNF’s philosophical foundations; the text is cut off mid-passage in the rendered pages.

President’s Address: Reviving the Liberal Dialogue in Contemporary India - Why India Needs a liberal Political Party

By S. V. Raju

S. V. Raju’s President’s Address, titled ‘Reviving the Liberal Dialogue in Contemporary India: Why India Needs a Liberal Political Party — The Role of the Indian Liberal Group’, is explicitly directed at India’s younger generation — those between 21 and 40 who constitute 70% of the population and whom Raju calls ‘GenerationNext’. He holds this cohort responsible for the present state of Indian politics and argues that they must understand how post-independence policy choices led the country to its current condition of corruption, nepotism, and crony capitalism.

Raju traces a detailed historical arc from the euphoria of 1947 through the Second Five Year Plan’s radical socialist turn, the construction of a ‘licence-permit-quota raj’, the emergence of a ‘New Class’ of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, and the eventual crisis that forced India to approach the World Bank and IMF in the early 1990s. He credits the Congress government led by Narasimha Rao (and its Finance Minister, now Prime Minister) with initiating the economic U-turn, and observes that successive NDA and UPA governments have continued that direction despite Left pressure. He draws on the Swatantra Party’s legacy as a model for a principled liberal opposition that believed in free markets, decentralisation, and coalition democracy.

In the rendered pages, Raju then turns to the question of whether a Liberal Party is viable and necessary in India’s emerging coalition environment. He argues that liberal values must permeate all areas of governance — not just the economy — and that the ILG’s core purpose is to push that message. He describes the core philosophy of any prospective Liberal Party: belief in individual freedom vis-à-vis the State, the Rule of Law, limited government, and acceptance that government must also provide basic social services. He closes the rendered portion with a discussion of the negative vote and the ILG’s public support for the right not to choose any candidate on the ballot.

• Raju addresses GenerationNext (ages 21–40, 70% of India’s population) and assigns them both responsibility and agency for reforming Indian politics.
• He traces India’s post-independence decline to the Second Five Year Plan’s Soviet-inspired socialist model, the permit-licence-quota raj, and the resulting New Class of corrupt politicians and businessmen.
• The economic U-turn initiated by the Narasimha Rao Congress government is acknowledged as the turning point, with successive NDA and UPA governments continuing liberalisation despite Left opposition.
• The Swatantra Party is invoked as the historical liberal precedent — a party that championed free markets, decentralisation, and coalition politics — and as a model for what the ILG might revive.
• Raju argues that a Liberal Party is needed urgently, before parliamentary democracy is subverted by criminals and unprincipled opportunists, and outlines its core philosophical commitments: individual liberty, Rule of Law, limited government, and basic social service provision.
• The ILG’s active support for the negative-vote concept (the right to reject all candidates) is cited as a concrete example of liberal engagement in electoral reform.