After having witnessed the political developments in various regions across my country, I do not really think twice before concluding that a hung verdict in an election that eventually leads to the formation of coalition governments, is almost synonymous to the halting of progressive activities in the region. The exercises that the political parties indulge in, at the time of formation of the coalition government is quite likely to leave any responsible citizen of the country, disturbed. The steady decline in the ethical values among the parties, both national and regional, could be directly attributed to this. The parties involved in the formation of a coalition government are always loosely bound to each other as one party always expects to have its word being honored by the other. Also, the parties are often plagued by a perception of being correct all the time, because of which there is ample scope for in-fighting among the members of the cabinet. The threat of the government collapsing always persists in a coalition government as parties are likely to withdraw their support to the government as and when they feel that 'improper treatment' is being meted out to their candidates (though in most of the cases, members of both the parties are no where closer to being morally correct). Collapsing or the untimely dissolving of a government for any reason, calls for a re-election or the "Switching of Loyalties" by the elected representatives, calls for by-elections so on and so forth ; the after-events of a coalition government are never pleasant in most of the cases, because of which spending huge sums of money in the name of elections, has turned inevitable. The problems associated with a coalition government are plenty and it is this aspect that prompts one to find an alternative it.
The motive behind the framers of the constitution, while incorporating the concept of a coalition government in the governance of the country, was a noble one. The reason was that people from a considerable (2/3rds the total) number of constituencies in a given region, must be represented in the government. The representatives of the remaining constituencies, which have not been represented in the government would be seated in the opposition, which plays an extremely important role in a democracy ; these representatives would demand the legitimate share of funds for the progressive activities to be taken up in their constituencies and duly oppose any wrong policies of the government. However, in the case of a hung verdict where-in one party secures more seats than the others but not enough to form a government on its own, the party is forced to poach in the representatives from different parties (either to join their own or to form a coalition government) or the independent candidates who often demand a heavy price to support the government. In the case of coalition government, the members of the supporting party usually demand "plum" portfolios, meaning the ones which offer adequate scope for making money for themselves. The party which had called for support has no choice but to comply with the demands of the supporting party, which has only made a cheap bargain. Though the party which won the greater number of seats appears to be the one forming the government, the supporting party plays a key role in the formation process, as it is instrumental in meeting the required numbers, without which it is impossible to form the government. Needless to say, these governments are always unstable. Garnering the support of a minimum number of representatives to form the government has been spurring the business of horse trading, where in the politicians strike bargains amongst themselves, with the sole intention of increasing their personal assets. An end has to be put to this and what follows is a suggestion from my end.
As far as I can think, there are 2 ways in which the problem can be tackled. One, allowing the party which has singly obtained the largest number of seats, to form the government. As for the regions which are not represented, the government can think of nominating one person from the corresponding region, based on his contribution to Arts / Science / Literature / Social Work / Sports / Education etc. to the Governor. This is similar to the nomination of the members of Rajya Sabha or the Members of the Legislative Council. This person would assess the needs and requirements of the region in various fields and inform the government, the same on a regular basis, so that the needs could be addressed. No portfolio as such would be given to him though in practice, he would be holding all the portfolios for that particular region. The government on its part would be mandated to accord special priority to the recommendations of this person, based on the review of the same by the Governor.
The other means of addressing the problem is to allow the party with the largest number of seats to form the government. The elected representatives of the regions in which the ruling party has lost, would be joining the government, as it is necessary to presume that the progress of their constituencies is of prime importance to them, for which they are prepared for a 'sacrifice' as small as switching the party. This would mean a greater honor to the decision of the people belonging to that region for whose progress, the government is expected to rise above party-level politics. There is little scope for lobbying by the 'outsider' for the portfolios as he is bound to join the government to live up to the expectations of the people who elected him to power. In case, the 'outsiders' demand 'plum' portfolios, the demands could be accepted or rejected. In case, the person declines to support the government, the MLC's or other persons of eminence, who may be nominated from that region, may function as development supervisors. Their duty is to make sure that the government takes up projects in the corresponding region based on the needs and consent of the people and not out of favoritism. In short, the departure of elected representatives should mean no threat to the government as long as the number existing within it is greater than that of the departed. The outsiders would be free to join any party after the completion of their term office.
The role of the opposition party would continue to be the same. Every member of the opposition party would be in his rights to protest against the injustice, if any, being meted out to people, in any region in the state / country. Measures such as these would not only prevent corruption within the ministers forming the coalition government but also spare the country of several unnecessary expenses due to mid-term and other untimely elections, though it may not root out corruption in its entirety.
The motive behind the framers of the constitution, while incorporating the concept of a coalition government in the governance of the country, was a noble one. The reason was that people from a considerable (2/3rds the total) number of constituencies in a given region, must be represented in the government. The representatives of the remaining constituencies, which have not been represented in the government would be seated in the opposition, which plays an extremely important role in a democracy ; these representatives would demand the legitimate share of funds for the progressive activities to be taken up in their constituencies and duly oppose any wrong policies of the government. However, in the case of a hung verdict where-in one party secures more seats than the others but not enough to form a government on its own, the party is forced to poach in the representatives from different parties (either to join their own or to form a coalition government) or the independent candidates who often demand a heavy price to support the government. In the case of coalition government, the members of the supporting party usually demand "plum" portfolios, meaning the ones which offer adequate scope for making money for themselves. The party which had called for support has no choice but to comply with the demands of the supporting party, which has only made a cheap bargain. Though the party which won the greater number of seats appears to be the one forming the government, the supporting party plays a key role in the formation process, as it is instrumental in meeting the required numbers, without which it is impossible to form the government. Needless to say, these governments are always unstable. Garnering the support of a minimum number of representatives to form the government has been spurring the business of horse trading, where in the politicians strike bargains amongst themselves, with the sole intention of increasing their personal assets. An end has to be put to this and what follows is a suggestion from my end.
As far as I can think, there are 2 ways in which the problem can be tackled. One, allowing the party which has singly obtained the largest number of seats, to form the government. As for the regions which are not represented, the government can think of nominating one person from the corresponding region, based on his contribution to Arts / Science / Literature / Social Work / Sports / Education etc. to the Governor. This is similar to the nomination of the members of Rajya Sabha or the Members of the Legislative Council. This person would assess the needs and requirements of the region in various fields and inform the government, the same on a regular basis, so that the needs could be addressed. No portfolio as such would be given to him though in practice, he would be holding all the portfolios for that particular region. The government on its part would be mandated to accord special priority to the recommendations of this person, based on the review of the same by the Governor.
The other means of addressing the problem is to allow the party with the largest number of seats to form the government. The elected representatives of the regions in which the ruling party has lost, would be joining the government, as it is necessary to presume that the progress of their constituencies is of prime importance to them, for which they are prepared for a 'sacrifice' as small as switching the party. This would mean a greater honor to the decision of the people belonging to that region for whose progress, the government is expected to rise above party-level politics. There is little scope for lobbying by the 'outsider' for the portfolios as he is bound to join the government to live up to the expectations of the people who elected him to power. In case, the 'outsiders' demand 'plum' portfolios, the demands could be accepted or rejected. In case, the person declines to support the government, the MLC's or other persons of eminence, who may be nominated from that region, may function as development supervisors. Their duty is to make sure that the government takes up projects in the corresponding region based on the needs and consent of the people and not out of favoritism. In short, the departure of elected representatives should mean no threat to the government as long as the number existing within it is greater than that of the departed. The outsiders would be free to join any party after the completion of their term office.
The role of the opposition party would continue to be the same. Every member of the opposition party would be in his rights to protest against the injustice, if any, being meted out to people, in any region in the state / country. Measures such as these would not only prevent corruption within the ministers forming the coalition government but also spare the country of several unnecessary expenses due to mid-term and other untimely elections, though it may not root out corruption in its entirety.
No comments:
Post a Comment