India is no Germany

Obviously, the main purpose of a no-confidence motion is not so much to topple the government as to give the Opposition a chance to say what it finds wrong with the official policies. The voters can, thus, see what the alternative to the government is.

The machinery for a constructive vote of no-confidence8217; is contained in Article 67 of the German Constitution which reads: 8220;The Bundestag Parliament may express lack of confidence in the Federal Chancellor Prime Minister only by electing a successor with the majority of its members and requesting the Federal President to dismiss the incumbent. The Federal President must comply with the request and appoint the person elected.8221;This article must be read along with Article 66 which provides: 8220;Where a motion against the Federal Chancellor for a lack of confidence is not carried by a majority of the members of the Bundestag, the federal President may upon the proposal of Federal Chancellor dissolve the Bundestag.8221;

The vote of no-confidence has been attempted twice and only once in the last 50 has it succeeded. In April 1972, use was made of this proviso to present a new government. However, the Opposition lacked two votes to get its motion through. The proviso does not prevent defection because abstention in such circumstances is nothing but defection.

The government that continued was a government paralysed because the parliament had practically expressed no confidence in it. We had such a non-government after the fall of Charan Singh and Vajpayee. A developing country like India cannot afford paralysed governments. Article 66, which provides for dissolution of the parliament if an alternative chancellor has not been elected, has been misused. When the chancellor desires dissolution of the parliament, he cannot get it done through the president on his recommendation. All he has to do is to move a vote of confidence and see that it is defeated.

The president would then have no option but to dissolve the parliament. Thus political trickery is solemnly sanctioned by the constitution itself. The only time the device succeeded was in 1976, not so much because of Article 67 but because public opinion had gone against the government on the issue of Ostpolitik, the policy of normalisation of relations with the erstwhile Soviet Union and its allies.

There is a world of difference between German politics and Indian politics. In Germany, the chancellor is elected by the parliament but the other ministers are not. German public opinion does not like single-party governments. Even when a single party obtained an absolute majority in 1957, a coalition government was formed. Coalitions in Germany are based on agreements between parties. These are in writing and are published.

An important factor leading to political instability in a multi-party system is the existence of a large number of small parties leading to factionalism. The German system is plural but not multi-party because the law provides that no political party is recognised in the parliament with less than five per cent of the popular vote. India lacks all these factors, particularly the political culture of coalitions.

The Sangh Parivar is obsessed with the problem of India8217;s unity, and rightly so. L.K. Advani assures us that no changes are necessary in our Constitution for this. In his remarkable pamphlet, The Constitution of India and National Unity, published by the BJP in 1997, he states that if, after five decades, we find this unity gravely threatened by separation, subversion and violence, the fault lies not with the Constitution, but with the way those at the helm of affairs have been operating the Constitution.

If these are the views of the Home Minister, why appoint a Constitution Review Commission? The only possible answer is that the Parivar wants it and neither Vajpayee nor Advani any longer represents the views of the Parivar8217;s younger generation. The hidden agenda is, therefore, to be found in a pamphlet published by the ABVP, Constitution of Bharat.

The amendments proposed, some of which are very strange, include: practical abolition of adult suffrage; deletion of the words socialism8217; and secularism8217;; religious freedom to explicitly exclude freedom to propagate religion; Parliament8217;s empowerment to modify fundamental rights; abolition of the Rajya Sabha and its replacement with a Guru Sabha and creation of a new institution called the Raksha Sabha; election of the vice-president by the Guru Sabha; appointment of the Supreme Court and High Court judges by the vice-president; introduction of all Bills including money Bills in the Guru Sabha; election of the prime minister by the Lok Sabha; election of the 300 members of the Guru Sabha by teachers right from the primary school to the university level; the Raksha Sabha to consist of the chiefs of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force and one person to be recommended by each of them; and the president8217;s empowerment to deal with defence matters in consultation with the Raksha Sabha. The BJP-led governmentcannot get any of such a hidden agenda passed. The Parivar needs time to gain the necessary strength.

Its aim is not political stability but at least a 10-year stay in power. Hence the proposals for a fixed Lok Sabha term, the constructive vote of no-confidence8217; and all manner of concessions to the BJP8217;s allies.

8212; The writer is a former union minister