Author: T.V.R. Shenoy
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: September 12, 2002
Will all of Gujarat become a Mangaldoi?
When I read the phrase 'bye-election',
I am never sure whether it is a Freudian slip or a pun. Whichever, the
misspelling is applicable given that everyone seems hellbent on finding
reasons to bid farewell to timely polls. And so it is that I ask: was Mangaldoi
an aberration or a portent?
Most readers have probably never
heard of Mangaldoi. For their benefit, this is a Lok Sabha constituency
in Assam which has entered the records for all the wrong reasons - namely,
the dubious distinction of going without a representative to the Lok Sabha
for the longest time. Mangaldoi was denied a by-election for almost two
years at a stretch; then no polls were held in this constituency even when
a general election was held. The reason was that the conditions were not
conducive for elections.
I shall not waste time and paper
trying to draw parallels between Gujarat and Mangaldoi. But Mangaldoi's
unhappy history made me wonder how other nations tackle the vexed question
of by-elections and the timing of polls. Specifically, I draw your attention
to the two other great English-speaking democracies, the ones that inspired
much of our Constitution, the United States and Britain. Let us begin with
the United Kingdom.
In Britain, a by-election becomes
necessary almost as soon as a member of the House of Commons dies or resigns.
(Strictly speaking, he does not quit; instead, he 'appeals to the Chiltern
Hundreds' - a nominal post but one defined as an 'office of profit under
the Crown' which makes the holder ineligible for a seat in the Commons.
The request, and the subsequent writ for a by-poll, are granted automatically
and simultaneously.) Thus, no citizen of Britain goes unrepresented for
a period of more than four months.
How about the timing of general
elections? This falls within the ambit of Parliament which can postpone
polls just as long as it feels necessary. (For instance, the House of Commons
elected in 1935 was not dissolved until 1945 because of the exigencies
of World War II.) The other side of the coin is that a prime minister in
command of the Commons can force a dissolution even if the standard five-year
term has not yet expired. In either case, once the royal warrant is issued,
elections are normally held within six weeks.
What is the situation in the US?
The American Constitution steps past both issues - by-elections and timing.
There is no such thing as a by-election in the US. If the president dies,
the law provides a long list of successors - the vice-president, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, and so on. If a senator dies, his successor
is nominated by the governor of the state which elected him. And whether
in the executive or the legislative branch, this successor serves the remainder
of his predecessor's term, whether that is six months or six years. American
lawmakers also removed the issue of mid-term polls from the agenda.
The date can neither be postponed
nor brought forward. Elections must be held on the first Tuesday in November
- unless Tuesday falls on the first of November, in which case it is on
the second Tuesday - in every fourth year starting from 1788. The law also
states that there shall then be a two-month hiatus before the new incumbents
step into office in January. There is, unlike the British model, absolutely
no room for flexibility.
Elections have been held on schedule
in the US even in 1864 (in the middle of the US Civil War) and in 1944
(while World War II still raged). Take a look at the calendar, and you
can figure out the exact date of the next American polls. There is something
to be said for this stiffness. If nothing else, it removes uncertainty
- the bane of India when it comes to holding polls at the Assembly level.
(At the Union level, we follow the British model, complete with Parliament
holding the power to extend its life, as Indira Gandhi did in 1976.) Thanks
to the provision for President's rule, a state can be governed without
an Assembly for years on end.
The classic case came in Kerala
in the 1960s. Governor Jain decided that no party or combination would
win a majority even if elections were held. Kerala went without an Assembly
for almost three years until polls were held simultaneously along with
the general election in 1967. The governor's analysis fell flat on its
face; in a House of 133, the Congress could win just nine seats with the
Left getting a whopping 117! But the episode proved how easily democracy
could be subverted given a helpful man in the right place.
Today, the norm is that a state
cannot be ruled for more than six months without the will of its people
finding expression through polls. Parliament, itself the supreme elected
body, has the right to extend this period. But can either the judiciary
or the Election Commission do so? This raises the core question: what are
the rights of the voter? Does the citizen not have the right to choose
his own government, or is he condemned to be governed by someone appointed
by Delhi?
In a parallel case, what happens
if the prime minister recommends a dissolution of the Lok Sabha only to
find that the Election Commission refuses to hold polls for ten months
because conditions are not conducive? And if this is unacceptable, then
on what grounds shall you oppose it?
A vile cocktail of politics, fanaticism
and violence has vitiated the atmosphere in Gujarat. (But more so than
in Jammu & Kashmir?) Yet if all Gujarat becomes a Mangaldoi, it might
become a test case for India itself someday.
