090504: Reflections on Post poll scenario

Now that most of the election process is over, and all that separates us from the verdict is the last phase and then the waiting period for Counting Day, it is time to reflect, let fly one's imagination, our analytical acumen, to speculate into the endless skies.... and give vent to our ability to predict on what's in store... ....on which way did the voter mind sway? ....on what now the fate of the contesting parties? ....on who sent into oblivion and in whom has fresh trust been reposed? .....on who forms the government; ...and on what is the common citizen's fate in the hands of the new government?
All the TV channels are at it - doing just the very same thing in full steam; and there is no dirth of cacophony on this score.... albeit accompanied by the rare intellectual fare too.
As for me, ...well to be honest, one tends to not delve much on our laudable democracy and our democratic institutions, ....no less the elections to it and its results. As a friend put it, "....the amount of money being spent on every party candidate throws the election law into undemocratic territory". So there abounding cynicism all round...
As I see it, whatever be the result, by and large the common man wil still continue to get to wherever it is he has to, to earn his daily bread - irrespective of what politically happens around him, which in academic sense in any case would be an additional labour of love which we'll profess to enjoy "because it is our birth right" being citizens of our great country.
However, and despite the fact that the firmly entrenched era of coalitions is here to stay and has rendered the scenario at the centre totally dismal, and despite the fact that political dispensation after elections is by and large autocratic, especially in the states, .....it is also the one strand of strength that provides hope and confidence to cope with or capitalise on whatever happens as a consequence of such things - including the election.
That having said, and having digested dozens of discussions and debates on the idiot box on this very issue over past few days, i do find the need now to give some serious thought to the post poll scenario - on what entails and what it portends. In this exercise I have been helped by a revered friend, former Justice David Annousamy, whose analysis and reflections on this I find worthy to share...

Reflections on Post poll scenario
Factors in play
Every one finds the election process too long and is impatient to know the results. Of course the candidates and their supporters are very anxious; they wait with hope mixed with apprehension. The common citizen is simply curious. He knows that nothing is going to change substantially. Yet there is a ray of hope for a government more responsive to the feelings of the people and less tainted by corruption.
It is almost certain that results are not going to be akin to those of the precedent election, for various reasons: the new delimitation of constituencies has afforded the urban population a greater say; on account of a new batch of young people joining the electorate, the ratio of literates in the electorate has increased; the percentage of votes has come down showing the fall in the participation of non committed voters, who usually play an important role in tilting the scale.
In fact the bulk of voters are already decided even before elections are announced because they are committed to a particular party. For others considerations weighing in their mind are of various sorts: purchasing power, unemployment, availability of water especially in this dry season, security, direct tax, reservations, caste, religion, new face, seasoned performer, performance of the party at the helm of affairs in the State or Union. One or more of these factors determine their choice.
What are the steps taken by candidates to induce the voters in their favour. The normal way consists of convincing the voter by highlighting in the manifesto their position on vital issues. All parties have equally failed in this respect. First in including in manifestoes items blatantly impracticable, they have stripped them of credibility. Secondly the manifestoes do not disclose any information regarding what the party in power has achieved during the past five years. Those who were in the opposition have missed the opportunity of listing the controversial laws they opposed and the objectionable steps of the government they prevented.
Candidates have instead preferred to entertain, to impress, to condition and even to corrupt the voters with the aim of drowsing the reason of voters and inducing them to act on feelings aroused. This naturally involved a showy and noisy campaign entailing wasteful expenses and nuisance to citizens. However this operation will not have a big impact on the ultimate result since the performance of candidates in this field is almost equal. If all parties sincerely agree not to indulge in such onerous campaign it could be avoided. But they will not agree, each one nurturing the apprehension that the others may covertly influence the elector. This kind of disparaging election campaign will disappear only if a large chunk of the electorate expresses publicly its repulsion to it. The Election Commission has already brought down these crude forms of campaign; its action is expected to go further.
The last factor which has a heavy bearing on the results consists of alliances. In our antiquated electoral system, alliances allow parties to get more seats than the overall number of votes secured by each of them would warrant. In the present election the fight is mostly triangular instead of the bipolar competition which prevailed in 2004, so the number of parties in each alliance is less and the effect of alliance will be lesser though not negligible.
Possibilities
The determining factors having considerably changed, the final outcome is anybody’s guess. One thing is almost certain, the government will be a coalition one. Three possibilities exist: the leader of the coalition may be from the Congress, the BJP or another party. In the last election the percentage of votes secured by the Congress and the BJP put together was only 48.65 % as against 51.35% for all other parties. So the third possibility is not to be brushed aside lightly. The difficulty for this third combination resides in finding a leader acceptable to all the members of the coalition and able to keep them together till the end of the legislature. He has to synthesize in his mind all hues of opinion of the coalition and shed his personal preferences.
Whatever the emerging coalition, its composition is not also easy to predict. Almost all parties expect a realignment of political forces after the announcement of results. Some parties are keeping their option open. Some others anticipating more or less the results have already given thought to the combinations possible. They are making contacts with other parties secretly or expressing publicly their preferences. What they are saying and doing during this long period of incubation of results may change completely at their announcement, which may spring surprises to all. Ultimately the arithmetic of seats secured by various parties will be determinant.
One disturbing feature is that parties do not feel bound by the ties of the pre-electoral alliances. In their calculations alliances were meant only for the purpose of securing the maximum number of seats in order to be able to have a good bargaining position in the post poll scenario. This is quite unfair to electors and even undemocratic. Participation in a coalition against the alliance would amount to violation of the electorate mandate. A member of the party who voted for a candidate of another party on the basis of the pre-electoral alliance would legitimately feel deceived if the candidate for whom he voted goes in a coalition against his party.
Though many combinations are possible there are some incompatibilities. For instance the DMK and the AIDMK will not accept to be in the same boat on account of the personal differences of the leaders; similarly the Congress and the BJP will not come together on account of ideological difference on the religious issue.
Whatever the combination, there will be much parley about the number and the nature or ministerial portfolios which each party would get. The Prime minister would be wise in allotting to each party the portfolios relating to matters which the party highlighted most in its manifesto.
One error which is often made at the time government making and which proves deceptive sooner or later is the fact of one party coming forth to support he government from outside. There is no room for this category in the system. Either you are in the government, you participate to its decisions and you are collectively responsible for them or you are in the opposition. A party saying that it will support the government form outside, is only deceiving the government in order to get some benefits, since such a stand does not carry any firm undertaking and the party is free to disapprove the government at any time on any issue.
The proper course for a party opting out of the government is to sit in the opposition and play its role as such. Being in the opposition does not mean rejecting all steps taken by the government. The opposition has to be selective, taking a stand according the merits of the issue and proposing welcome amendments to government bills. Further for the purpose of taking important measures the government would require the support of at least part of the opposition, if it does not enjoy the majority in the Rajya Sabha. That will become indispensable for constitutional amendments. Such support to the government is expected from the opposition for all measures in the interest of the nation, which does not run counter to the manifesto of the party.
Norms for the appointment of government
If no party or alliance gets a clear majority, the President has to display sagacity and to follow the accepted norms. There is no rule like asking the largest party to form the government. Such party may have all the others against it and not be able to survive. The task of the President is to find out the leader able to muster the majority in the Parliament and to provide a stable government. For that purpose she may take all rightful and straightforward steps in consonance with the dignity of the office. She may hold consultation with any one likely to enlighten her; she may consult the head of parties, individually or in groups. She may also use her secretariat to get the information she requires. She should not ask the political leaders to provide any proof of their statements. That would be unbecoming of the President and an insult to leaders. If the President is not convinced of anything reported to her, she has other ways to check the input he receives.
In our country a disgraceful practice has taken shape namely the fact of political leaders thronging the Rashtrapathi Bhavan staking a claim to form a government, which discloses greed for power. Any one desirous only to serve would wait till he is invited by the President to form a government. It is obvious that any person capable to muster a majority in the Parliament will necessarily be consulted by the President. In the process of the formation of the government it is the President who will prove active because it is her concern in our system. The political leaders have only to provide her with necessary information.
Once the President has chosen her Prime Minister she should not ask him to prove his majority within a stipulated period. That will show that she herself is not sure having made the right choice. Further such a step would amount to a conditional appointment of the Prime Minister which does not find a place in our scheme of governance. Once the appointment is made the president’s role comes to a halt. She has no power to take any action against a Prime minister who does not seek the vote of confidence as prescribed. Further a minority government is an accepted possibility to a certain extent. It is for the Prime minister to seek a vote of confidence as and when he requires it. It is for the opposition to table a motion of no confidence at the time it feels opportune.
Common minimum programme
Whoever is appointed as Prime minister, the stability of the government would depend mostly on the way the common minimum programme is adopted by the parties forming the coalition. Parties so far were inclined to divert their energy on the allocation of portfolios and to consider the CMP as a mere power sharing formality. Each minister pursued the programme of his own party as if that party was in the saddle by itself. Contradictions in speeches and actions of various ministers were surfacing and coalitions collapsed. Common exercise of power implies confluence of minds. Parties in coalition will have to share an integral vision of India with its diversity in all respects, for five years. They should pay their utmost attention to the elaboration of the CMP. No item should be accepted by the partners half heartedly. The CMP so cobbled should be submitted to the Parliament and get wide publicity. That will become the post poll manifesto binding all the members of the majority, who will have to reconcile themselves with keeping in abeyance their respective opinions.
The CMP will be the common denominator of the manifestoes of the parties composing the coalition. No party can reasonably accept in the CMP any item clearly contrary to the manifesto professed by it; that will be contrary to the mandate received from the people. The elaboration of the CMP would prove easy if party manifestoes have been prepared seriously. The reading of manifestoes in this election leaves the impression that they are not schemes of governance intended to be implemented but tools to get votes by making promises alluring each segment of population, often with deceitful intentions. The manifesto has to be realistic, based on the possibility in the best circumstances, taking into account the finance, the technology and the quality of manpower required.
It is therefore imperative to move to a position consisting of considering the manifesto as a contract between the electorate and the elected members. Any member acting blatantly against any item of the manifesto through his vote or his action should be liable to be disqualified by an independent Authority. It would be advisable that the manifesto contains a preamble embodying the political philosophy of the party which will disclose the approach to problems susceptible to arise. That is to be followed by the list of important steps taken during the past legislature and the programme proposed to be achieved in the subsequent years ,which will be the a kind of five year plan binding all the members elected under its banner.
Democracy which means government by the people implies a carefully crafted manifesto, an electoral campaign explaining the manifesto and a governance in accordance with the manifesto.