HVK Archives: President and a 'political' meet - part I of II
President and a 'political' meet - part I of II - The Hindustan Times
Subhash C. Kashyap
()
19 May 1997
Title : President and a 'political' meet - part I of II
Sub Title : A courageous act
Author : Subhash C. Kashyap
Publication : The Hindustan Times
Date : May 19, 1997
There can be different opinions about the necessity, desirability
and the timing of the conference of Governors and political party
leaders convened by the President, Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma on June
2 and 3. To impute motives to the Head of the republic, however,
can only be indicative of the depths to which our minds and
political morals have descended.
Nobody can dispute that in recent years, the President and the
Governors have been faced with very difficult problems in formation
of democratic Governments in cases where the people did not return
a clear verdict in favour of any one party or Pre-poll alliance of
parties. This has come to be called a situation of 'hung'
legislatures.
The letter sent to the Governors has referred to the predicament
where no party secures an absolute majority and has asked them to
sent their notes stating their considered views on how it should be
tackled i.e. how should the Head of the State proceed in the matter
of appointment of the Chief Minister and formation of Government.
Even though Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma himself is known to be a jurist
and constitutional scholar, it is courageous of him to feel that he
needs help and advice from the collective wisdom of the Governors
and party leaders.
Eyebrows need not be raised if the President had merely convened an
in camera conference of Governors only where the problem could be
discussed threadbare, a consensus attempted and even a communique
issued at the end. The present initiative, however, becomes
unprecedented and open to controversy when political party leaders
are also invited and this is done not by the Prime Minister but by
the President. Even otherwise, in such a large gathering of
persons with diverse vested interests pulling them in opposite
directions, any objective, principled or fruitful deliberation may
hardly be possible. Also, many of the participants may have their
own partisan compulsions and constraints to take particular
postures. Even the Governors may not to speak freely before the
party leaders. It is well-known that privately held views and
convictions are often at variance with the public faces of many of
our dignitaries.
Perhaps the President could still consider dividing the conference
in two parts - one closed door meeting for a frank exchange of
views among heads of States only and then a second larger gathering
with party leaders included .
So far as the constitutional problem itself is concerned, it would
be seen to be a non-issue if only we do not always pander to our
short-sighted needs of the immediacy and show a little political
will to do the right thing in accordance with some constitutional
principles and without looking at the colour or the face of the
political party or the leader likely to suffer or gain thereby.
The first thing to be remembered is that no purpose is served by
the politicians or academics trying to establish their scholarly
credentials by citing British authors and precedents. These are not
relevant in our situation. For, we do not have a two party system,
our Parliament is neither sovereign nor supreme, we have a written
Constitution and our polity is federal.
With the large number of mini-parties, many independent candidates
and the first-past-the-post electoral system, we find that majority
of members of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies are elected by a
minority of votes.
Under our electoral philosophy, one who secures the largest number
- even if not necessarily clear majority-of votes, is supposed to
have received the mandate of the people. If that be so, the party
that gets the largest number of seats in the House should be
presumed to have received the best mandate of the people and on
that basis entitled to be straightaway called to form the
Government by itself or in cooperation with others.
In any case, if this does not work or if this does not find favour
at all, there is the other alternative of the Head of the State, in
exercise of the powers given to him by the Constitution, sending a
message to the House to elect its own leader so that that person
may be invited to form the Government. his would have the advantage
of keeping the Head of the State above partisan; controversies,
decision would be on the floor of the House, it would be in keeping
with the spirit of the Sarkaria Commission Report and the Supreme
Court judgement in the Bommai case and it would obviate any need of
the Head of the State asking for a confidence vote being taken. In
the interest of ensuring further stability, this could be combined
with the system of constructive vote of confidence.
It is to be hoped that the initiative taken by the President would
prove fruitful and some transparent guidelines would be evolved to
guide our constitutional heads of States. As at present, leaving it
to the House to decide the question of majority support on the
floor of the House and elect its leader seems to be the most
unexceptionable alternative to the present confusion.
Back
Top
|
