The Hindu : Reforming politics

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Dec 29, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Reforming politics

By P.P. Rao

The latest amendment to the Constitution (on defections) should be the beginning of serious reform and not the end.

THE NATIONAL Democratic Alliance Government and the Opposition deserve a pat on their back for passing unanimously the Constitution Amendment Bill with respect to defections and the size of the Council of Ministers. Such constructive cooperation is needed for carrying out other necessary reforms.

The NDA promised two significant things in its election manifesto in 1990: (i) to appoint a Commission to Review the Constitution of India and (ii) to introduce necessary electoral reforms on the basis of the recommendations of the Dinesh Goswami Committee, the Inderjit Gupta Committee and the Law Commission Report.

The Government fulfilled the first promise by constituting a Commission headed by Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah in 2000. The Commission in its report dated March 31, 2002 noticed serious deficiencies in the working of our democracy and suggested remedial measures. After a lapse of over 20 months, the Government took the first step towards implementing the recommendations by amending the Constitution to curb defections and limit the size of the Council of Ministers. As a result of this amendment, in future, any Member of Parliament or of a State Legislature who defects to another party will lose his seat. He will have to get re-elected to enter the House irrespective of whether he defects singly or as a member of a group consisting of not less than one-third members of the legislature party concerned. Till now, in the name of split, a faction comprising one-third or more members of a legislature party could desert the parent body en bloc and join another political party without losing membership of the House. This gave rise to large-scale corruption and horse-trading. Ministerships used to be bartered away for defections. The voters had no say in the matter. Hereafter, the members of a legislature party cannot play such games. The power to decide disputes regarding defection remains with the Speakers. It ought to have been transferred to the Election Commission as suggested by experts.

Curtailing the size of the Council of Ministers is another step in the right direction. In future, no Council of Ministers can have more than 15 per cent of the strength of the Assembly or the Lok Sabha as Ministers. There is no need for even 15 per cent. A handful of clean and competent Ministers is enough to run the affairs of the country.

But limiting the size of the Council of Ministers will definitely save public money though it will not necessarily mean better governance. The present state of affairs is not at all satisfactory. As Nani Palkhivala pointed out, a person needs years of training to attend to a boiler or to mind a machine, to supervise at shop floor or to build a bridge, to argue a case in a law court or to operate upon a human body, but to steer the lives and destinies of 1000 million of our fellowmen, no education or equipment is required at all. To provide clean and efficient governance, eminent jurists have suggested making a provision in the Constitution enabling the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers to appoint experts from outside the Legislature as Ministers for handling key portfolios. They could be made ex-officio members for the period they hold office. Another way of improving the quality of Ministers is to lay down appropriate conditions of eligibility for each post insisting on requisite equipment and experience for handling a portfolio with competence. Such a reform will make the post of Minister accessible only to deserving persons.

The NDA Government is yet to get down to dealing with corruption, criminalisation of politics and prevention of electoral malpractices. This is the best time to make all necessary amendments to the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to purify the electoral process, ridding it of corruption, criminalisation and caste and community hold. As suggested by the Law Commission, it should undertake legislation for regulation of political parties to ensure inner party democracy, maintenance of regular accounts of income and expenditure and their periodic audit.

Too many political parties impede the smooth functioning of democracy. A two-party system at the national level to begin with will help make parliamentary democracy a success. The Election Symbols Order should be replaced by an Act of Parliament, raising the norms for recognition of political parties and their classification. The criteria laid down by the Election Commission needs upward revision to an extent that it will result in recognition of only two national parties, on the one hand, and drastic reduction in the number of State parties, on the other. It would be more rational to have a three-fold classification of political parties — national parties, State parties and multi-State parties. The Law Commission's suggestion not to allow independent candidates to contest is sound. Partial state funding in kind is desirable.

The recent elections in five States have shown that the Supreme Court judgment upholding the voters' right to know the antecedents of candidates has made considerable impact. The right to reject all the candidates, if they are not acceptable to a majority of the voters in a constituency, and demand a fresh election will go a long way. Such a measure would transform the voters into masters instead of being helpless vote givers. The latest amendment to the Constitution should be the beginning of serious reform and not the end.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

IRAN'S CALAMITY AND ITS LESSONS

END TO TELECOM TUSSLE

Securing South Asia

Reforming politics

An unrealistic approach?