Guilt of passivism — The President’s role

No principles, ideologies or welfare programmes for the people were involved on either side. It was a naked struggle for power and self-survival on both sides. It was claimed by some that those in power were selective in ordering police inquiries, CBI investigations and court cases against their rivals and were, in fact, indulging in witch-hunting and official blackmail. This was sought to be met by counter-blackmail of support withdrawal.

What happened thereafter was even more bizarre. The Gowda Government lost on a confidence vote on the floor of the House by a massive majority on April 11. As per the usual practice, the President asked Gowda to continue until alternative arrangements were made. Normally, one would have expected the President to act immediately to start the process of alternative government formation. But, in a masterly demonstration of Presidential passivism, no steps were taken by the President to even start the process of government formation for a week. He kept waiting and watching, meanwhile leaving it, almost in U.P. style, to the parties, petty manipulators and power-brokers to get their act together and somehow cobble another coalition of disparate elements.

It seems the President had decided in his wisdom to have the financial business Vote on Account or Budget passed under the stewardship of the defeated Gowda Government itself and think of the new government etc. only afterwards. The Houses of Parliament were required to meet on April 21-23 to complete the financial business.

He was later reported to have asked three prominent leaders to find out a solution of the impasse by April 21, as if it was their duty to form a government and not the clear constitutional responsibility of the President himself. For the first time, the President seemed to be putting himself on the wrong side of strict propriety by giving a clear impression that he would like a Congress-UF patch-up in order to be able to install another Front Government. But the Front leaders could not be allowed to behave like a private limited company and take the nation for granted. Democracy is said to be government by the people and we call our system representative parliamentary democracy or participatory democracy. But, in the whole process of government formation, the people seemed to have had no role and no voice.

Finally, the President got into action after the United Front succeeded in electing a leader and arriving at a fresh understanding with the Congress. Soon, the earlier directive of transacting financial business was substituted by seeking the confidence for the new government.

Once again, the President missed an opportunity to send a Message to the House under Article 862 asking it to elect its leader just as it elects the Speaker. The person so elected could be appointed the Prime Minister.

This procedure would have been in keeping with the spirit of the Supreme Court judgment in the Bommai case, the Sarkaria Commission Report and the latest Allahabad High Court judgment in the UP case. The decision would have been entirely on the floor of the House and the President would have stayed above controversy. Also, the whole thing would have been entirely constitutional and one leading to a more stable government. In any case, it was a better option than asking three or 13 leaders to work out a solution.

Two positive results of the installation of the new’ government are that the 11th Lok Sabha continues and that the elections for the office of the President can be held and completed on time with the present members participating therein.

The option of fresh polls has been discarded in the name of the people. But everybody knows that the sole consideration was the vested interest of the members themselves who were afraid of going to the people and of losing all the benefits and the perks of office, including the Rs 1 crore per year development fund at their disposal.

The question that is now being asked is, how long will the United Front Government last? Can the decent’ man survive in the snakepit of today’s politics without compromising on decency and principles? While withdrawing support Kesri had given nine grounds for the Congress decision on principles’. Not a word has been said or heard in regard to any change in the matter of those principles or grounds of disagreement with the UF.

Constitution of a Coordination Committee is said to be the new panacea to resolve all possible conflicts and ensure stability of the government. But, what would happen if there is no agreement in the Coordination Committee after some party or group with adequate numbers decides to pull down the government? The public face of differences in the committee would perhaps again be different from the real issues of personal or party interests.

The minimum that the people should be demanding is that the understanding made between the leaders must be transparent and openly declared. They would like to know what has changed in the policies and programmes of the Front which once again made Congress offer unconditional support. Was the country held to ransom for three weeks or more only due to the personal incompatibilities of two leaders or have there been some behind-the-scene dealings on CBI investigations, withdrawal or soft-pedalling of court cases etc? Are issues of crime and corruption in politics going to be buried and if so, were they being used so far only for witch-hunting and as official blackmail in power games for achieving personal and partisan ends?

The writer is a former secretary-general of the Lok Sabha