Lok Sabha Polls 2014: philosophy of right structure and selection of the Government
By Girish Srivastava
Starting from April 7, over 81 crore citizens of India are expected to exercise their voting power with a hope that new government will provide them an equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. They all wish for a leader who can focus on overall socio-economic development and identify himself with millions still living below poverty line and are generally deprived of basics needs of life.
Based on the feedback and media speculations on election results, one can say that we are probably heading to one of the two most probable options: option one talks about a large national party coming to power after winning reasonable number of seats on their own with required support from close partners and allies and the second option relates to possibility of a third front formation with group of parties supporting even from outside. In case of the first option, I don’t see any major resistance or worries among citizens but just in case mandate swings towards third front, we may have to seriously examine the overall structure of the group and its combined socio-economic policies. Our recent history has been witness to several instances wherein there were serious differences among allies giving birth to political instability, slow pace of investments and declining business confidence all over the country.
In case of pure coalition government, it has been generally experienced that the government tends to become less democratic as the balance of power is inescapably held by the group of parties who can barter their support for concessions from the main groups within the coalition. In such a situation, even a party having small support base can impose its policy decisions upon the major one by a process of political blackmail. Another issue that arises in a weak coalition is the issue of transparency. It happens because of the fact that manifestoes presented to the public during the election become irrelevant. Actual decisions about the political programmes are made after the election, in a process of secretive backroom negotiation from which the public is excluded. This undermines accountability, as voters cannot expect individual parties in a coalition to deliver upon their particular manifesto promises, unlike the single-party governments. Accountability is also absent when a coalition government falls, either after an election or through the defection of some of its supporters. Another serious issue with a fragile coalition government is its inability to take a long-term view on socio-economic and political matters.
Looking at the basic methodology being followed for the current third front formation, I personally feel that the model is flawed in deriving a binding force to combine all members at one common platform. Instead of choosing charismatic personalities within the group to act as a binding force, they should rather focus on identifying external resources to bring neutrality and fairness. Ideally, a Governing Council should be constituted inviting eminent citizens from the diverse fields to draft a common manifesto and provide guidance on a continuous basis to run the Government. Chairman of the council should be elected by all members of the third front and governing council members for a period of two years with a provision of maximum one term of re-election. Similarly, all eligible members of the third front should elect their President on a rotation basis. For the success of the model, all members of the third front group should attach a high mark of respect to the Governing Council to seek advice and directions to better serve the system. In this approach, citizens will not have general fear of the government falling in an undesirable time frame and will have better sense of confidence including business houses and potential investors from India and overseas.
India is considered as one of the largest democracies in the world with a parliamentary form of the Government. India’s model of democracy and its style of functioning are cited all over the world by leading historians, politicians and other important people of our connected global society. Its uniqueness lies in the stability, operational philosophy amidst radical ethnic and religious diversity and robustness in an environment with deep-rooted inequalities, markedly those of caste and gender. Given our growing strengths and global commitments, I have a firm belief that either of the options would be acceptable to our dear citizens provided there is a sense of collective commitment and seamless integrity among leaders chosen for various roles.
(Views are personal. Author is public policy expert and currently Founder & CEO, GnS Advisory Services. He can be reached at [email protected])
.
