When the Rules Outlive the World That Made Them

Frozen Institutions and the Bargains That Unfreeze Them

Every institution is designed around the distribution of power at the time it was created. The real test comes when that distribution changes and the institution does not.

The Security Council: Built for 1945 The UN Security

Council gave permanent seats and a veto to the five powers that won the Second World War. That was the price of getting them to join and in 1945 it was arguably worth paying. Eight decades later, UN Secretary-General António Guterres used the BRICS summit in New Delhi to call for an overhaul of post-war institutions, including the Council.

Before the General Assembly session, he described the Council as paralysed by divisions among the major powers and its outdated structure as intolerable. The problem is built into the rules. Under Article 108 of the UN Charter, any amendment needs ratification by all five permanent members.

So the countries that benefit from the current arrangement can block any change to it. The one real reform, in 1965, enlarged the Council from 11 to 15 members by adding non-permanent seats and left the veto untouched.

Lok Sabha Seats: A Freeze Closer to Home

India has its own frozen institution and it shows the same pattern from a different angle. In 1976, the 42nd Amendment froze the allocation of Lok Sabha seats among states at the 1971 census, so that states that had controlled population growth, mostly in the south, would not lose seats to faster-growing states.

In 2001, the 84th Amendment extended the freeze until the first census after 2026. The freeze was sensible when it was made, because it rewarded states for good governance. But as it continued, the gap between population and representation widened.

According to PRS projections, reallocating seats at the current size of the House would take Tamil Nadu from 39 seats to 32 and Kerala from 20 to 15, while Uttar Pradesh would go from 80 to 89. The states that gain from the freeze have every reason to resist ending it.

What Comparing the Two Shows

Both freezes were reasonable when they were created. Both became hard to defend once the reason for them faded while the advantage they gave remained. And in both, the countries or states that benefit hold a practical veto over change.

So what does work? Look at the reforms that have succeeded or are being attempted. The 1965 Council reform added seats rather than taking anything away. The 2026 Delimitation Bills propose raising the Lok Sabha to 850 seats, which turns a fight over dividing a fixed number of seats into a question of how to allocate a larger total.

For the essay paper: the point is not simply that old institutions need reform. It is that institutions change when a new settlement makes change acceptable to those who would otherwise block it.