Political Diary

New Delhi, 19 June 2010

Advani’s Welcome Poser

HALT INDIA’S POLL MERRY-GO-ROUND

By Poonam I Kaushish

Phew, if the heat-wave was not bad enough, elections really poop one out. Specially, in our country which is afflicted by a new disease, PES --- Perpetual Election Syndrome.  Which is wreaking havoc on our body politic --- right, left and centre. Week after week. Month after month. Year after year. A year-long merry-go-round.

Its symptoms have been around for decades. Power, more power and absolute power with a heavy dose of vote-bank politics, replete with I-me myself syndrome. Politicians of every colour, caste and creed have progressively allowed the malady to become chronic. Gravely undermining governance. Even the semblance of administration has been dispensed with. All in the vicious grip of PES with the devil taking the hindmost!

Barely has the dust settled on Mamata’s TMC euphoric win in W Bengal’s civic poll, the mara-mari for cushy Rajya Sabha seats and the ongoing tussle for power in Jharkhand, notwithstanding President’s rule, which has seen 5 Governments since its inception in 2004. That we need to brace for another ring-a-ring-polls in Bihar, W Bengal, Assam, Kearala, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

Amidst this nerve-racking money spewing elections vending machines, BJP Chairman LK Advani deserves kudos for spotlighting this malady and boldly suggesting a cure. He has mooted the idea that one way to fight PES is to hold simultaneous polls for Parliament and the State Assemblies. This, he reasoned, would not only save money of the Exchequer and the Parties, but enable Governments at the Centre and in States to concentrate on delivering good governance.

More important, it would facilitate the Government in taking hard decisions in public interest without having to worry about its impact on its vote banks. Experience shows that Government’s per se have avoided implementing policies in national interest, lest it upset a caste, community, religion or region. With governance becoming the first casualty of frequent elections, a fixed term for the Legislatures would stem the spreading rot. Advani avers he has Prime Minister Singh on board.

Undoubtedly, it is one way to get rid of incompetence, malfeasance and casual governance. But it is an idea that needs to be debated extensively at all levels. Its pros and cons must be weighted before arriving at a final solution. Remember, the change advocated would entail changing the basic structure of the Constitution. But before that we must ask: Can one hold simultaneous polls for Parliament and the State Legislatures? If so, would it be advisable in the best national interest.

As matters stand, the poll issues at the Centre and in the States are quite different and it would, therefore, not be advisable to mix them. Two, holding simultaneous elections could create confusion for the voters. A Party could be deserving of support at the Centre for its policies and performance at the national level. Yet, the same Party could be deserving of popular punishment and defeat for its policies and performance at the State level.

Simultaneous elections could however be held for the State Assemblies and the legislatures given a fixed term. In the event an elected State Government was to fall, the Centre would have the option of imposing President’s rule till it was time for a fresh poll. The Constitution permits the Centre to rule through the Governor for a period of six months, renewable by Parliament for a maximum of five terms.

But a fixed term for the Lok Sabha would create basic difficulties as there is no provision for President’s rule at the Centre. More so when coalition politics these days is liberally peppered with Aya Rams and Gaya Rams and Governments fall like nine pins on ego clashes even, whims. This could create more problems than solving them.

Recall the ugly nineties. When elections to the Lok Sabha were held twice within a year and a half. After 1996 the General Elections were due in 2001. But they had to be preponed to 1997, thanks to the United Front Governments of Messrs Gowda and Gujral losing the backing of their mai baap Congress and forcing a poll on the nation. Then came Vajpayee’s BJP-led coalition Government. This fared even worse. It fell after 13 months, necessitating another election in September 1999, post Kargil. A similar situation arose post the 1989 General Elections. First when V.P. Singh’s Janata Dal Government was “mandalised out” and replaced by the Chandrashekhar Government. It bowed out when the Congress withdrew its support. Forcing an election in 1991.

At that time, the then President, Venkataraman floated the concept of a national Government in an effort to save the ignominy of another election and the massive drain on the national exchequer. But it was found impractical and unfeasible. A national Government entails a national consensus by all Parties. But when elections came around, could they afford to take a contrary viewpoint? The idea was dropped.

Importantly, having a fixed term of the Lok Sabha and the State Legislature goes against the basic tenets of Parliamentary democracy. Yet the remedy is worse than the disease. A fixed term entails that if a Government enjoying the people’s mandate is voted out, it shall continue to hold office or be replaced by another Government, which may not necessarily enjoy the popular mandate. Plainly, a Government which lacks the confidence of the House would be foisted on the people, with no say in the matter. Smacking of de facto dictatorship or monarchical anarchy this idea carries with it the seeds of unrepresentative governance.

History shows that whenever a minority Government is thrust on an unwilling nation, the electorate gets the Government defeated at the first opportunity. Remember Charan Singh was dumped after he back-stabbed Morarji Desai to usurp the latter’s Prime Ministership with Indira Gandhi’s support in 1979. What is more, he is the only PM who quit without facing the vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha even once. 

The situation is much worse in the Sates. Post Mandal, the plethora of regional parties care two hoots about governance. All they seek is the kursi and the power that goes with it. Friends and enemies are all rolled into one. Yesterday’s enemy may turn a friend today and become an enemy again tomorrow. In this milieu, good administration goes out of the window and there is no semblance of any honest governance. Their motto: Jiski lathi uski Bhains. Needless to say, a fixed term would not only be anti-democratic but destroy India’s polity.

Nehru had simultaneous polls to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies for the first decade. Thereafter, he himself advocated delinking the two despite the higher cost involved. He felt that delinking would ensure fairer and more objective polls. National issues would not get confused with State and other local issues. Today, confusion has got infinitely more confounded with various States completing their five-year terms at different times. The result? Elections costs have sky rocketed. The leaders are electioneering (and collecting funds) right round the year instead of providing good governance.

Where do we go from here? The US model deserves to be considered. The President and State Governors are elected directly for a fixed four-years term. The President chooses his own team and so do the Governors. True, the President is answerable to the House of Representatives and the Senate, but he is not required to seek their confidence vote. This ensures good governance, stability and continuity enabling him to take hard decisions without fear of losing power.

In sum, Advni has done yeoman service by raising this serious issue. But this by itself is not enough. It needs to be nationally debated both within Parliament and outside. India’s democracy should not be reduced to a tu-tu mein-mein between political parties all the time. Enough of the destructive PES! ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)