Recent crisis in Uttarakhand and similar situation in Arunachal Pradesh three months ago give us an opportunity to introspect the current status of functioning of the parliamentary democracy. We have adopted representative form of democracy in center and states. As per the constitution CoM in Center and State is collectively responsible to Loksabha and Vidhansabha respectively. This implies that the leader of party or alliance enjoying absolute majority should be appointed as PM or CM. The common sense says that the leader should be elected by members of Loksabha and Vidhan Sabha. However it has been observed that such leader has been nominated by party high command especially in case of National Parties. This practice of high command nomination is substantially responsible for the current crisis.
One significant drawback of high command nomination is that such nominated leader will be accountable to high command rather than to legislature. It creates two centers of powers and super cabinet.It gives rise to centralization of governance and thus against the federal structure. What if a leader is more popular among the elected members of the party than one nominated by high command? Now due to anti-defection law which requires cohesion of atleast two third members of the party for any split. This forces elected members either to comply with the high command or to get disqualified from the membership.
Opposition parties get an opportunity to lure dissenting members. This leaves a hiatus for horse trading. In Uttarakhand constitutional machinery was subverted during budget session. The speaker was aware about intentions of rebelling MLAs from ruling party. When a government fails to get apppropriation bill passed, it is assumed that it has lost confidence of the LS/VS. in the instant case of Uttarakhand, if speaker had allowed division of votes, then there was possibility of it getting defeated. Thus current government would have been compelled to resign. Further as per tenth schedule of constitution, these MLAs would have been disqualified. This sequence of events might have averted the current political crisis.
Instead speaker decided to go by voice vote and rule that the appropriation bill has been passed. Reliability of voice vote is another contentious issue. It is very subjective. There should be provision that even if a single member asks for division of votes, it should be granted. It will be beneficial in two ways. First it will remove all doubts over validity of votes and also it will help voters to know the stand of his representative on a particular issue.
In this context, anti-defection law should be improved upon. Firstly scope of this law should be limited on the issues which affect the stability of government like budget, confidence, no-confidence motion etc. It will help to improve quality of debate as members as individuals may differ from their parties on certain policy matters. Secondly requirement for merger should be reduced to just more than half of total membership of the concerned party rather than 2/3.
Now coming to question whether imposition of president rule is justified or not. It is up to judiciary to decide whether denial of division of votes amounts to failure of constitutional machinery or not. In my opinion speaker's decision to disallow division saved the government which was set to fall. Thus it amounted to failure of constitutional machinery.
Constitution has enough checks and balances. This proclamation has to be approved by parliament within two months. Since ruling party at center lacks majority in RS, it seems difficult that it will last for more than two months. Whatever be the political outcome of this crisis, it is time to improve upon the current practice.
One significant drawback of high command nomination is that such nominated leader will be accountable to high command rather than to legislature. It creates two centers of powers and super cabinet.It gives rise to centralization of governance and thus against the federal structure. What if a leader is more popular among the elected members of the party than one nominated by high command? Now due to anti-defection law which requires cohesion of atleast two third members of the party for any split. This forces elected members either to comply with the high command or to get disqualified from the membership.
Opposition parties get an opportunity to lure dissenting members. This leaves a hiatus for horse trading. In Uttarakhand constitutional machinery was subverted during budget session. The speaker was aware about intentions of rebelling MLAs from ruling party. When a government fails to get apppropriation bill passed, it is assumed that it has lost confidence of the LS/VS. in the instant case of Uttarakhand, if speaker had allowed division of votes, then there was possibility of it getting defeated. Thus current government would have been compelled to resign. Further as per tenth schedule of constitution, these MLAs would have been disqualified. This sequence of events might have averted the current political crisis.
Instead speaker decided to go by voice vote and rule that the appropriation bill has been passed. Reliability of voice vote is another contentious issue. It is very subjective. There should be provision that even if a single member asks for division of votes, it should be granted. It will be beneficial in two ways. First it will remove all doubts over validity of votes and also it will help voters to know the stand of his representative on a particular issue.
In this context, anti-defection law should be improved upon. Firstly scope of this law should be limited on the issues which affect the stability of government like budget, confidence, no-confidence motion etc. It will help to improve quality of debate as members as individuals may differ from their parties on certain policy matters. Secondly requirement for merger should be reduced to just more than half of total membership of the concerned party rather than 2/3.
Now coming to question whether imposition of president rule is justified or not. It is up to judiciary to decide whether denial of division of votes amounts to failure of constitutional machinery or not. In my opinion speaker's decision to disallow division saved the government which was set to fall. Thus it amounted to failure of constitutional machinery.
Constitution has enough checks and balances. This proclamation has to be approved by parliament within two months. Since ruling party at center lacks majority in RS, it seems difficult that it will last for more than two months. Whatever be the political outcome of this crisis, it is time to improve upon the current practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment