Power Politics - independent voice for public good

Current Issue: July 2009

Broad-basing Political Parties

Ideally, there should be two almost equally strong parties. In India this would obviously have to be the Congress and the BJP. There could be two other parties representing the Left and the Right of the political spectrum which could prescribe the outer parameters of the playing field within which the two major parties would operate, argues former civil servant and noted thinker MN Buch

The democratic world can be divided between countries which practise the Westminster style and those which follow the American presidential system.

India follows the Westminster model, under which the Executive, drawn from Parliament, is accountable to it. The system would collapse if the Executive and the Legislature are drawn from different parties.

In the post-Emergency landscape India has been a witness to coalision government. The Centre saw the emergence of its first coalition in the Janata Party Government led by Morarji Desai. After Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980 and was assassinated in 1984, we did have two single party governments of the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi and P V Narasimha Rao, but thereafter it has been coalitions all the way.

The two main coalition governments which lasted their normal term are the NDA under Atal Bihari Vajpayee and UPA under Manmohan Singh. Both were loose coalitions of parties not necessarily ideologically aligned and, therefore, both were at the mercy of coalition partners. This has given rise to a very dangerous situation in which any party with just a few members can dictate terms which are immediately accepted because of the fear that the withdrawal of its support will bring down the government itself. In NDA Jayalalita of AIDMK and Mamta Banerji of Trinamool Congress called the shots. In UPA, utill recently, the Left, Lalu Prasad Yadav's RJD and Karunanidhi's DMK did the same. The net result was that there was almost a total lack of governance at the Centre and key policy issues remain unresolved. Even in matters of law and order the government was unable to take a firm and consistent view.

Parliamentary democracy demands that there should be strong political parties which command widespread support amongst the people. Ideally, there should be two almost equally strong parties. In India this would obviously have to be the Congress and the BJP. There could be

two other parties representing the Left and the Right of the political spectrum which could prescribe the outer parameters of the playing field within which the two major parties would operate. Regional parties should not be allowed to dominate the central arena. Regional interests are, no doubt, important in the highly diverse and variegated Indian society, but they cannot be permitted to override national interests.

How do we force our political groups to coalesce and become part of the larger national parties? For this purpose we need major electoral reforms which would eliminate splinter groups from the national scene, strengthen the larger parties and enable them to present their r e s p e c t i v e ideologies to the electorate so that it can choose between them. These reforms would have to take the form of curbing the tendency of i n d e p e n d e n t candidates to offer themselves for election, w h i l s t simultaneously forcing the regional parties to either transcend regional barriers or to merge into larger parties.

I have a few suggestions in this regard. First, none should be allowed to contest a State Legislative Assembly election unless he has first successfully contested a local government election at the Panchayat or Municipal level. Similarly, none should be allowed to contest a parliamentary election unless he has first successfully contested a State Legislative Assembly election.

This would rule out all nonserious independent candidates and would leave in the fray only those independents whom the electorate knows and respects.

Another suggestion I have is that no political party should be eligible to contest election to Parliament unless it has won and holds at least five seats each in the Legislative Assemblies of at least three States. The minute the party is required to establish an effective presence in at least three States, it will widen its horizon and can no longer afford to be Statespecific or regionally parochial. Thus narrowly regional parties

would be out of Parliament and would not be in a position to influence, through blackmail, decisions at the national level. Conversely, they would be forced to merge themselves with larger parties and thus become a part of the national mainstream. This would immunise Parliament and future governments from undue p r e s s u r e generated at present by small parties affecting the n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t adversely. Besides, I have a few s u g g e s t i o n s also in regard to curbing the role of money and muscle power in e l e c t i o n s . These are as follows:

The Government should make available to every candidate a vehicle, preferably a jeep, at the rate of one per assembly segment, one for the election agent of the candidate and one for the candidate himself in every parliamentary constituency.

The salary of a driver per vehicle, reasonable quantity of fuel and lubricants, plus normal cost of maintenance and wear and tear, would be met by government for a period commencing from the date of announcement of the election schedule up to the day following the completion of counting of votes.

On the day of the poll every candidate should have two polling agents per polling station to look after his interests. The Government may make available on the day of the poll a sum of Rs. 100 per polling agent to each candidate in order to meet the refreshment and similar costs of each polling agent.

A lump sum grant of Rs. 10 lakh for a parliamentary constituency and Rs. one lakh for an a s s e m b l y constituency may be given by government, to every candidate w h o s e nomination has been accepted in order to m e e t miscellaneous costs, especially on propaganda m a t e r i a l , incidentals, etc. Thereafter the closest possible watch should be kept on any other expenditure incurred by the candidate and if this is found to exceed the prescribed limit, any complaint in this behalf should be inquired into, within two days of the complaint being made, by a judicial officer to be nominated by the District and Sessions Judge. If the inquiry reveals that the candidate violated expenditure norms or has indulged in a similar malpractices and the District Election Officer endorses the inquiry report, the State Chief Electoral officer should be authorised to disqualify the candidate.

This would definitely reduce electoral malpractices through the use of money power, whilst allowing candidates without major financial resources to fight an election because the State has taken care of the necessary minimum expenditure which would have to be incurred in our very large assembly and parliamentary constituencies.

Our political parties must be forced by law to put up candidates who have a reputation for integrity and who would be acceptable to the electorate. Today the electorate has very little choice because there seems to be competition between the parties for populism and almost all the parties are willing to put up even criminals as candidates. The electorate thus has to choose between unsuitable candidates only.

I would suggest, and my suggestion is by no means original, that the ballot should give one additional choice to the electorate, which is "none of these". If the number of negative votes cast is the highest in a constituency, the election should be rescinded for that constituency, all the candidates should be disqualified for six years, each of the parties should be fined Rs. 10 lakh for a parliamentary constituency and Rs. one lakh for an assembly constituency and the parties must pay pro rata for the cost incurred by the electoral authorities in holding a fresh election for that constituency.

Article 173 gives the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of a State Legislature. Article 102 (1) (e) states that a person shall be disqualified to be a member of Parliament if he "is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament". Under Article 173 a person will not be qualified to be member of a State Legislature unless, as Article 173 states, he, "possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed in that behalf by or under any law made by Parliament".

My respectful s u b m i s s i o n would be that by s u i t a b l e amendment of Part II of Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, Chapter I of which relates to membership of Parliament and Chapter II relates to membership of S t a t e Legislatures, we can legislate for these reforms. Further, there is Chapter III which specifies disqualifications for membership of Parliament and State Legislatures and by suitable amendments we can cover the suggestions for reforms made by me.

Regarding political parties which would be eligible for election to Parliament, we can make suitable provisions in Part IV-A of Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951. Chapter VIII which relates to election expenses can also be suitable amended in the light of my suggestions.

In the ultimate analysis electoral reforms are subject to a political will to bring about reforms. The question which should trouble us is whether our parties have such political will or not. If they show some statesmanship, India can have the finest electoral system in the world.

Editor's Choice

Power Pulse..

Iranian Turmoil..

Mind & Body..

Of Life & Colour..

INTERVIEW


© Copyright Power Politics 2008 -2009