Shoaib Daniyal asks in Scroll.in why Nitish Kumar should not be subject to the anti-defection law. The answer is, he heads his own political party and his party can ally with who it likes. Prior to 1985, the Constitution did not recognize political parties as separate entities. But, that is no longer the case.
Apart from curbing the influence of money, the other argument for the Anti-Defection Law was that voters vote largely on the basis of a party symbol. This is why a legislator must listen to the order of the party while voting. By itself this was an unusual claim backed by little data. Especially given the fact that voters were, quite literally, voting for a legislator – as is the foundation of a Parliamentary system.
But a lot of the voters were quite literally illiterate. They put their cross against the party symbol.
However, if we take this claim at face value, again: why does this argument not apply to Nitish Kumar? If he has fought elections in a pre-poll coalition, he is breaking the voters’ mandate by switching sides.
In that case parties which have a pre poll pact not to 'spoil' each others chances against a third party would be obliged to form a coalition government or have a common whip.
It is quite probable, for example, that a voter who voted for a Janata Dal (United) candidate was a BJP or RJD supporter. So what happens to her voice when Nitish Kumar flip-flops?
In this case Nitish fought the election as a BJP ally and will probably fight the 2025 Assembly election as their ally.
That the Anti-Defection Law penalises a future Gaya Lal
an infamous legislator of the Sixties who kept changing party every few months
but not a Nitish Kumar is an important pointer to what actually drives the law. While it purports to curb the politics of money and power, what the Anti-Defection Law actually does is push this sort of corruption one level upwards: from the level of the MP and MLA to the party high command.
No. What the Anti-Defection law was to give constitutional recognition to political parties. This reflected the fact that the Party loomed larger in the minds of the voter while the legislator might be wholly unknown or imposed from outside.
Party leaders are free to openly pursue the politics of power and money.
Power, yes. It is illegal for politicians to enrich themselves by virtue of power they wield.
Nitish Kumar could switch as many times as he wants in order to be chief minister but his actions are legal, as are those of the BJP and RJD which also indulge in this game of musical chairs over mandates.
Political parties are free to form alliances or to make pre-poll pacts or to engage in horse-trading such that Bills that are passed have clauses benefiting the clients of different political parties or reflecting their ideological preferences.
In effect then, the Anti-Defection Law has weakened grassroots leaders
They are welcome to set up their own parties or to stand as Independents.
and strengthened a small number of big leaders who head parties. In fact, the law is a significant reason for the strengthening of personality-based politics in India,
Nonsense! Personality-based politics had triumphed in 1937 itself! What changed over the course of the late Fifties and Sixties was that internal democracy withing political parties weakened and there were endless splits and a whole alphabet soup of different Congress and Communist and 'Samajwadi' parties.
where politics – from voting to governance – is concentrated in the personality of a few big leaders such as Narendra Modi or Mamata Banerjee.
Indira was a small leader- right? She would very humbly fetch tea for her legislators and massage their feet.
Grassroots politicians
Mamta's party is called 'Grassroots Congress'.
are increasingly becoming irrelevant as voting now largely takes place on the basis of these prominent names.
Whereas few voters in the Fifties had heard of Jawaharlal Nehru.
In effect, this is a sort of Presidential system where voters are now voting directly for an executive rather than, as is the norm in a Parliamentary system, voting for legislators who then elect a government.
Rubbish! If India had a Presidential system, Modi would get 70 percent of the vote. As things stand, a good pre-poll pact could deprive BJP of its majority.
However, a Presidential system has many checks – an independent legislature,
not if the President's party has a majority in both Houses.
for example, that often places barriers to the executive. However, on this, India is still solidly Parliamentary: the executive still controls the legislature.
No. The legislature creates the executive. The Cabinet only serves so long as it enjoys the confidence of the House.
The end result is a worst-of-both-worlds: a politics of centralised personality with no checks and balances on these powerful leaders.
India has an independent judiciary of an activist type. Moreover, popular agitations- e.g. farmers' protests- create countervailing power.
The long-term effect of this on Indian democracy is, of course, troubling. Weakening grassroots politics is a weakening of democracy itself.
This cretin didn't notice that there was a Dynasty headed by a nice Italian lady which was ruling India prior to 2014.
Voting is a sort of feedback loop, a way for citizens to influence the government. But it is unclear what happens when the constituency is as large as, say, Bihar or, in Modi’s case, the Indian Union itself.
No. It is clear that the Bihari voter will kick out an administration it finds incompetent of excessively criminal. The same is true of the India voter.
Hyper-centralisation means large numbers of issues will simply not be big enough for one, centralised leader to look at.
Which is why disbanding the Planning Commission was a good idea.
This is visible in the way livelihood concerns such as inflation, which could bring down governments till a few decades back, are now rarely electoral issues in India.
The price of onions can still bring tears to the eyes of the PM. Let us see whether Nirmala can contain inflation and if the Viksit Bharat Sankalp Yatra can enrol enough labharti beneficiaries in time for the election.
No comments:
Post a Comment