Opinion In the battle for Shiv Sena election symbol, lack of inner party democracy in Uddhav Thackeray faction proved to be its undoing
The Election Commission’s decision to give the bow-and-arrow symbol to the Eknath Shinde faction was determined by its inquiry into intra-party democracy. Thackeray was caught in his own web of singular control over the Sena’s internal dynamics
Shreenath A. Khemka writes: Uddhav Thackeray’s claim to representing the Sena was largely based on his leadership as its Paksha Pramukh (Express) The Election Commission has vindicated Eknath Shinde in the Shiv Sena split. As per the Commission, it is Shinde, and not Uddhav Thackeray, who has demonstrated a better claim to the Sena. Accordingly, his faction has been allotted the “bow-and-arrow” symbol.
The Commission concluded the emergence of two clear factions within the Shiv Sena, both claiming to be the real Sena. Of the three tests formulated by the Supreme Court in the Sadiq Ali case (1972), only one proved conclusive. The first test of aims and objectives was inconclusive as both factions claimed to adhere to the ethos of the Shiv Sena. The second test of the party constitution was discarded since the amended Shiv Sena constitution of 2018 was found lacking in democratic content and the procedure by which it was enacted was found to be flawed. The third test of majority was indeterminable at the organisational level since the party’s organisational bodies had been constituted as per the 2018 constitution, which had been jettisoned by the EC. Though recognising the organisational majority to be of greatest significance, the Commission based its conclusion on the legislative majority, as only legislative numbers were determinable. Because the Shinde faction wielded a clear majority across the state assembly and the Parliament, it was declared as the real Sena.
Thackeray’s claim to representing the Sena was largely based on his leadership as its Paksha Pramukh. Since he was at the helm of the party organisation and was a determinant of party membership, he was deemed to be the Sena. However, this centralisation of power proved to be his undoing.
When the Shiv Sena sought registration under the Representation of Peoples Act, the Commission directed it to inculcate changes to its constitution, including decentralisation of power from the then chief Bal Thackeray. The changes were incorporated and the Shiv Sena was registered. But in 2018, the party’s constitution was amended and the said changes were largely reversed. Absolute power was reconcentrated in the Paksha Pramukh, who appointed members to the Pratinidhi Sabha, which, in turn, would elect him. Not only was the same found to be lacking in democratic content, but it was observed that the changes were never put to the party’s general body, and were, therefore, not enacted as per the Commission’s guidelines.
When the test of organisational majority was to be applied to the apex representative body of the political party, it was revealed that the Paksha Pramukh could unilaterally make appointments to the Pratinidhi Sabha. Further, the test of the party constitution, which was primarily seen as an ability to settle disputes internally, was also muddled by the Paksha Pramukh’s authority to take disciplinary action against any and all without impunity.
Given that Indian elections are a battlefield of grand parties controlled by a minuscule minority of political elites, the Commission’s inquiry into intra-party democracy was a step in the right direction. Opacity, nepotism, and authoritarianism in party leadership can be meaningfully addressed only if political parties are forced to undo the concentration of power and empower democratic councils. Perhaps the Thackeray debacle will rouse grander and older parties from their slumber.
Though the Commission was left with no recourse, except to resort to the test of legislative majority, its reasoning could have been more coherent. It was reasoned that as per the Symbols Order 1968, recognition of a political party was based solely on its electoral performance. However, while consolidating the numbers, the Commission rejected Shinde’s suggestion to limit consideration to elected members of the Lower Houses, and not the unelected members of the Upper Houses. Such refusal was erroneous as recognition under the symbols order was based on electoral performance in “general elections”. Thus the thrust was on directly elected members since this is a measure of how the party is received by the electorate. Notwithstanding, the Shinde faction would still have passed the test.
Both Shinde and Thackeray had moved to disqualify each other on the grounds of defection under the Tenth Schedule. Whilst membership to the party was not dependent on membership to the House, the reverse was not true. It was imperative for the Shinde faction to establish itself as member of Shiv Sena so that none of its MLAs would have to give up party membership or flout the party whip. Similarly, the Thackeray faction needed to demonstrate continuity of membership with the Sena to thwart claims of flouting the party whip in the July 4, 2022 trust vote. However, with the Commission’s decision under the symbols order, the determination under the Tenth Schedule would have to follow suit.
Finally, the litmus test of who has inherited the Sena legacy will be determined by how the two groups perform in elections.
The writer is a lawyer at the Punjab & Haryana and Delhi High Courts
Share
