02-16-2007, 01:56 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Turncoats are bad
The Pioneer Edit Desk
But what if verdict is fractured?
In disqualifying 13 BSP MLAs who claimed to have "split" from their party in Uttar Pradesh in 2003 and joined hands with the Samajwadi Party to help Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav form a Government, the Supreme Court has brought clarity to a messy constitutional situation. The 13 MLAs constituted an eighth of the BSP's Assembly strength of 109 and were well below the one-third threshold. Yet the Governor accepted their claim generously and, over the following weeks, 24 other MLAs met him in bits and pieces. Finally, the Speaker recognised all 37 as a separate group. On the basis of this legally validated "separation", the Mulayam Singh Yadav Government has ruled almost a full term. Welcome as the Supreme Court judgement is in theory, it is so delayed as to have zero impact on practical politics. The horse has bolted. However, many issues still remain to be ironed out. Should Uttar Pradesh's voters, in their infinite wisdom, return another horribly hung Assembly in this year's election, a re-enactment of this "defection versus split" drama can be reasonably guaranteed.
For a start, while the Speaker will get the brunt of the blame after the apex court verdict, the original error - for lack of a stronger word - was probably that of the then Governor. Once a Government has been sworn in, facilitated by an assumed split in a non-supportive party, given the reality of Indian politics, it is reasonably easy for the ruling party to "induce" more support and render a defection the post facto legitimacy of a split simply by breaking away enough members of the targetted party. In this situation no Speaker will want to risk embarrassment and unpopularity by unilaterally toppling the Government, notwithstanding its awkward conception. This is exactly what happened in Uttar Pradesh in 2003 - or at the Centre in the mid-1990s when, <b>as Lok Sabha speaker, Mr Shivraj Patil, safeguarded the PV Narasimha Rao Government </b>by the innovative recognition of a <b>"continuous split"</b> in the Janata Dal, spread over several months.
While the Supreme Court's verdict would satisfy a purist and while the constitutional amendment to the anti-defection law pushed through by the NDA Government later in 2003 has effectively raised the floor for a split from one-third to two-thirds of legislative strength, the fact is, in times of fractured mandates and coalition Governments, the constitutional and moral dilemma that confronted the Uttar Pradesh Speaker is bound to recur. This year itself, aside from Uttar Pradesh, Goa, is likely to see Government formation reduced to mergers and acquisitions after results are declared. To take a textbook view of post-poll tie-ups would be to, in an extreme situation, render Governments impossible. It would see the 2005 Bihar phenomenon - when the Assembly election process had to be repeated - becoming a template. It is worth asking if the rules as they exist militate against democratic functioning in such situations or actually bolster it. Should alternative mechanisms be tried in case of an impossibly hung Assembly? How about the election of the leader of the House - and thereby the Chief Minister - by the MLAs? The Supreme Court tried this mechanism, admittedly in an ad hoc situation, when Mr Kalyan Singh and Mr Jagadambika Pal were rival claimants for power in Uttar Pradesh in 1998. Should it be institutionalised? It is time for the political class to take a call - or wait for a replay of what happened in Lucknow.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Pioneer Edit Desk
But what if verdict is fractured?
In disqualifying 13 BSP MLAs who claimed to have "split" from their party in Uttar Pradesh in 2003 and joined hands with the Samajwadi Party to help Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav form a Government, the Supreme Court has brought clarity to a messy constitutional situation. The 13 MLAs constituted an eighth of the BSP's Assembly strength of 109 and were well below the one-third threshold. Yet the Governor accepted their claim generously and, over the following weeks, 24 other MLAs met him in bits and pieces. Finally, the Speaker recognised all 37 as a separate group. On the basis of this legally validated "separation", the Mulayam Singh Yadav Government has ruled almost a full term. Welcome as the Supreme Court judgement is in theory, it is so delayed as to have zero impact on practical politics. The horse has bolted. However, many issues still remain to be ironed out. Should Uttar Pradesh's voters, in their infinite wisdom, return another horribly hung Assembly in this year's election, a re-enactment of this "defection versus split" drama can be reasonably guaranteed.
For a start, while the Speaker will get the brunt of the blame after the apex court verdict, the original error - for lack of a stronger word - was probably that of the then Governor. Once a Government has been sworn in, facilitated by an assumed split in a non-supportive party, given the reality of Indian politics, it is reasonably easy for the ruling party to "induce" more support and render a defection the post facto legitimacy of a split simply by breaking away enough members of the targetted party. In this situation no Speaker will want to risk embarrassment and unpopularity by unilaterally toppling the Government, notwithstanding its awkward conception. This is exactly what happened in Uttar Pradesh in 2003 - or at the Centre in the mid-1990s when, <b>as Lok Sabha speaker, Mr Shivraj Patil, safeguarded the PV Narasimha Rao Government </b>by the innovative recognition of a <b>"continuous split"</b> in the Janata Dal, spread over several months.
While the Supreme Court's verdict would satisfy a purist and while the constitutional amendment to the anti-defection law pushed through by the NDA Government later in 2003 has effectively raised the floor for a split from one-third to two-thirds of legislative strength, the fact is, in times of fractured mandates and coalition Governments, the constitutional and moral dilemma that confronted the Uttar Pradesh Speaker is bound to recur. This year itself, aside from Uttar Pradesh, Goa, is likely to see Government formation reduced to mergers and acquisitions after results are declared. To take a textbook view of post-poll tie-ups would be to, in an extreme situation, render Governments impossible. It would see the 2005 Bihar phenomenon - when the Assembly election process had to be repeated - becoming a template. It is worth asking if the rules as they exist militate against democratic functioning in such situations or actually bolster it. Should alternative mechanisms be tried in case of an impossibly hung Assembly? How about the election of the leader of the House - and thereby the Chief Minister - by the MLAs? The Supreme Court tried this mechanism, admittedly in an ad hoc situation, when Mr Kalyan Singh and Mr Jagadambika Pal were rival claimants for power in Uttar Pradesh in 1998. Should it be institutionalised? It is time for the political class to take a call - or wait for a replay of what happened in Lucknow.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->