- News>
- Newspapers
Babu as a wannabe hero: The Pioneer
New Delhi, Aug 10: There is something about India (with characteristic humour, our erstwhile colonial rulers used to call it the `touch of the sun`) that presents ordinary, otherwise decent, individuals with complex psychological conditions.
New Delhi, Aug 10: There is something about India (with characteristic humour, our erstwhile colonial rulers used to call it the "touch of the sun") that presents ordinary, otherwise decent, individuals with complex psychological conditions.
For the past few years, our political class has been agitated by a growing affliction. What, they ask in nervous, subterranean whispers, explains the remarkable transformation of those occupying constitutional posts from self-effacing file-pushers into flamboyant and, occasionally, monstrous crusaders? Why are yesterday's civil servants - nurtured on the Whitehall tradition of a nameless and faceless bureaucracy - suddenly overcome by an insatiable craving for media exposure on assuming loftier constitutional responsibilities? Why are they so prone to grandstanding?
These questions were resurrected last week in the wake of Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani floating two trial balloons. First, he suggested, as an alternative to unending bouts of election mania, the synchronisation of Assembly and Lok Sabha elections. It is a radical proposal that would involve political turbulence and sweeping constitutional changes. Second, he has argued for the premature dissolution of Lok Sabha and a General Election simultaneously with the five Assembly polls in November or December.
Regardless of the merits or otherwise of Advani's first proposal, it is clear that synchronisation of all State and national polls is ruled out by the Constitution as it stands. His second suggestion, however, is more significant and, predictably, has created a flutter in political circles. In constitutional terms, a Government is obliged to seek a popular mandate every five years. Within this broad framework, however, the Government has the inalienable right to determine the timing of a poll. In theory, the Cabinet can recommend dissolution of Lok Sabha at any time within five years, regardless of a majority. Of course, the decision must be ratified by the President. Indira Gandhi, for example, had a working majority in 1971. Yet, she chose to dissolve the Lok Sabha a year ahead of schedule because she rightly felt the timing was politically advantageous. India has followed the Westminster convention of according a notional, seasonal advantage to the incumbent. Although it is a prerogative that can't be used recklessly, the role of discretion has never compromised parliamentary democracy.
Under the circumstances, the Vajpayee Government will hardly be breaking new ground if it chooses to dissolve Parliament at the end of the Monsoon Session. Since the electoral rolls have been updated, there is also no reason why the EC would want six months to prepare, as it did in Gujarat last year.
Chief Election Commissioner J M Lyngdoh (Narendra Modi has made it politically incorrect to spell out his full name) knows it too. Yet, what explains his gratuitous concern for MPs who will find their present tenure cut short by a year? Lyngdoh's job is to organise elections and be constantly prepared for that eventuality. He is democracy's facilitator, not the regulator of parliamentary pensions. Nor does it behove him to raise fears of mass-scale "cheating". It is his job to see that the conduct of polls is free and fair and tackle all possible threats. It does not behove the EC to indicate that he needs six months to play around with so that he becomes the chief arbiter of a prolonged, draconian code of conduct.
There was absolutely no need, at least not before the Cabinet has made up its mind, for Lyngdoh to proffer to the public (via the media) his considered views on Indian democracy. He holds a constitutional position with a defined brief. He is not an editorial page columnist. He may not like this Government but, at least, he should not make it apparent.
For too long watchdogs of democracy have focussed on a code of conduct for politicians. It is time to consider a code of conduct for unelected holders of constitutional posts. Democracy can do with less arrogance and less flights of whimsy.
These questions were resurrected last week in the wake of Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani floating two trial balloons. First, he suggested, as an alternative to unending bouts of election mania, the synchronisation of Assembly and Lok Sabha elections. It is a radical proposal that would involve political turbulence and sweeping constitutional changes. Second, he has argued for the premature dissolution of Lok Sabha and a General Election simultaneously with the five Assembly polls in November or December.
Regardless of the merits or otherwise of Advani's first proposal, it is clear that synchronisation of all State and national polls is ruled out by the Constitution as it stands. His second suggestion, however, is more significant and, predictably, has created a flutter in political circles. In constitutional terms, a Government is obliged to seek a popular mandate every five years. Within this broad framework, however, the Government has the inalienable right to determine the timing of a poll. In theory, the Cabinet can recommend dissolution of Lok Sabha at any time within five years, regardless of a majority. Of course, the decision must be ratified by the President. Indira Gandhi, for example, had a working majority in 1971. Yet, she chose to dissolve the Lok Sabha a year ahead of schedule because she rightly felt the timing was politically advantageous. India has followed the Westminster convention of according a notional, seasonal advantage to the incumbent. Although it is a prerogative that can't be used recklessly, the role of discretion has never compromised parliamentary democracy.
Under the circumstances, the Vajpayee Government will hardly be breaking new ground if it chooses to dissolve Parliament at the end of the Monsoon Session. Since the electoral rolls have been updated, there is also no reason why the EC would want six months to prepare, as it did in Gujarat last year.
Chief Election Commissioner J M Lyngdoh (Narendra Modi has made it politically incorrect to spell out his full name) knows it too. Yet, what explains his gratuitous concern for MPs who will find their present tenure cut short by a year? Lyngdoh's job is to organise elections and be constantly prepared for that eventuality. He is democracy's facilitator, not the regulator of parliamentary pensions. Nor does it behove him to raise fears of mass-scale "cheating". It is his job to see that the conduct of polls is free and fair and tackle all possible threats. It does not behove the EC to indicate that he needs six months to play around with so that he becomes the chief arbiter of a prolonged, draconian code of conduct.
There was absolutely no need, at least not before the Cabinet has made up its mind, for Lyngdoh to proffer to the public (via the media) his considered views on Indian democracy. He holds a constitutional position with a defined brief. He is not an editorial page columnist. He may not like this Government but, at least, he should not make it apparent.
For too long watchdogs of democracy have focussed on a code of conduct for politicians. It is time to consider a code of conduct for unelected holders of constitutional posts. Democracy can do with less arrogance and less flights of whimsy.