Sadly, the Government formation in Karnataka reflected anything but the will of its voters. In the eventuality of fractured mandates, the winners do not take it all but the losers stand tall
Before the altar of democracy, all vanity must necessarily burn itself, bowing to the will of the people. Sadly, Government formation in Karnataka reflected anything but the will of the voters. In the eventuality of fractured mandates, the winners do not take it all but the losers stand tall.
When “We the People” vote for ‘a party with a difference’, expectations are high and its leaders uphold the highest principles of personal and Constitutional morality in governance, judiciary, civil society and media. And most importantly, these separate functionaries adhere to the ‘separation of powers doctrine’, as laid down in the Constitution.
When that fails to happen, there is an erosion of trust in ruling regimes when they are seen to overpower democratic institutions which are best insulated from political power. like the Election Commission, the judiciary, the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), and most importantly in the recent event of yet another hung assemblies, the office of the Governor. An anachronism in today's democracy, the post of the Governor only assumes importance as political ombudsman, albeit a very crucial function, in such eventualities.
There are multiple observations post-Karnataka, which in hindsight was a half-victory for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP); an immoral victory for the Congress in retaining power by propping up the Janata Dal (Secular) (JDS); and a piggyback-victory for HD Kumaraswamy's party, which was not the mandate given by the people to the party. That leaves the voter bewildered because his choice of franchise is not reflected in the opportunistic coalition that elbowed its way to power.
Secondly, gubernatorial options now need to be clearly codified to avoid ambiguity by defining a descending order of hierarchy which the Governor must adhere to, in repeated instances of fractured verdicts. Doing so would minimise the scope of discretionary powers or subjective interpretation of poll verdicts.
On this score, the worst precedence was set by the Congress which repeatedly invoked Article 356 at whim to impose Central rule, sacked 88 State Governments since 1952, and was the most complicit in misusing its appointee-governors who acted at the behest of the Central high command in repeated instances. A ready reckoner was formatted by the Sarkaria Commission which listed out a protocol for the Governor to follow when an absolute majority eluded.
While the Constitution allows the President or for the Governor to use his discretion to decide whom to invite to become the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister in the event of a fractured mandate, the Sarkaria Commission's recommendations are yet to be transformed to conventions.
In its impetuousness to wrest power, the BJP no longer retains its patent of principled politics post-Karnataka, especially after including the tainted Reddy brothers, the Governor's partisan role, or the foiled attempt at buying time and support to prove a majority before the floor test.
As BJP will be incumbent in national elections and the three State elections in December, Prime Minister Narendra Modi goes into battle with the cynical tag that “all political parties are the same”, making corruption a non-issue with the voter but handing a huge talking point for the Opposition to trumpet.
With a tally of 104 seats, the BJP could have only won a majority on the floor of the House through money power. And, this in itself annihilates Prime Minister Modi's signature reform of demonetisation intended to weed out corruption and the parallel economy. Because either way, wresting power in the absence of a simple majority, whether through the office of governor or through horse-trading, is an act of political impropriety.
When governors display partisan preferences, while it is not corruption in the popular sense of the word, it is an act of nepotism and an aberration from constitutional morality. This was seen post-Goa and Manipur elections when the Governor swore in post-election coalitions organised by the BJP in preference to the largest single party in hung assemblies and, thereafter, rejigged their stance in Karnataka.
The post-Karnataka effect definitely galvanises an unwieldy Federal Front coalescing with the Congress as its partner, though averse to accepting Congress president Rahul Gandhi as its natural leader, even as it gives a fillip to State-level pre-poll alliances. The most formidable one in the offing is Samajwadi Party-Bahujan Samaj Party-Congress (SP-BSP-Congress) combine in Uttar Pradesh.
With a higher Index of Opposition Unity, the projected loss to the BJP in the Hindi heartland itself could shrink its strength from 73 seats to as low as 24 to 37 seats. The other ‘high- denomination’ States that pose a challenge to the BJP are West Bengal with 42 seats, Bihar with 40 seats where the Front will ally with the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Maharashtra where the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) would join the bandwagon. As history would tell, power- sharing formulae are opportunistic bonhomies which are short-lived, founded as they are on ideological dissimilarities.
However, with bipolar series in the offing in the BJP-ruled States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, though the party is incumbent, the task is equally challenging for the Congress in the absence of a third player in these States with whom they can form pre or post-poll alliance. Because Congress’s political model has now become increasingly dependent on local parties or local leaders, as the Grand Old Party agrees to cede political space to regional players as they did in Gujarat by clubbing issues with local leaders or playing second fiddle to JDS in Karnataka, JD (U) in Bihar and SP in Uttar Pradesh.
On the other hand, the BJP had peaked nationally in 2014 and has been serially peaking in State elections, ruling 67 per cent of India. To make up for the potential losses in the BJP-ruled States by making inroads into politically virgin territories in the South, Odisha and West Bengal are indeed huge challenges.
Besides, historically, no Prime Minister has been able to repeat thumping mandates as “India now has the highest anti-incumbency voting trend amongst democracies”. That’s because ‘waves’ don’t recur with the same intensity and fervour after their initial ‘crest’ and the novelty of personal charisma wanes with time. However, hardcore Hindutva and the Modi appeal have continued to deliver incremental votes upto a point, as it always has, when the star campaigner Narendra Modi descends in the last lap of campaigning. Besides, the Central Government is expected to improve its performance by the time these States go to polls in December through increased Goods and Services Tax (GST) collections and the rollout of its ambitious Modicare health scheme, which could be a vantage to the BJP.
For now, what all this means is BJP president Amit Shah going back to the drawing board to reassess and revise “Mission 350” that seemed within striking range in 2017. Because in 2019 it will be “BJP vs Congress, CPI, SP, BSP, NCP, RJD, TMC, JDS, DMK, AAP, liberals, Activists, Pidis...” And if the BJP gets even one seat less than 272 in 2019, a Sonia Gandhi-driven proxy Government will be back. Pledge that it doesn’t happen!”
Post script: Unapologetically, I put my neck on the block in penning two of the likeliest happenings: Expect Modi to be back with a diminished majority for a second term. And secondly, get geared for General Elections end 2019. Modi never fails to stun with the unexpected.
(The writer is an author and columnist)