Indian Politics Needs Far-Reaching Reforms, Not Whimsical Fixes
· Free Press Journal
The Supreme Court Bench hearing the dispute between Shiv Sena factions in Maharashtra has made certain observations regarding the relationship between elected legislators and the political party which nominated them as candidates for elective office. According to media reports, the bench commented that a group of legislators cannot override the official directives of the parent political party merely because they hold a majority among the elected members. The bench also expressed the view that the maturity of a democracy is measured by the constancy of political parties and their members to their ideology.
Visit casino-promo.biz for more information.
Let us carefully examine the implications of these comments, particularly in the context of the evolution of the party system and the functioning of our democracy in the past 75 years. Undoubtedly, the conduct and functioning of many elected legislators are well below desired standards. We, as a people, are not getting the best out of our governance and politics. The sacred trust reposed in the elected legislators is often betrayed. I have always argued for several far-reaching political and governance reforms to make our democracy work for our people, not for a few people seeking power. Electoral system, rule of law, local governments, self-correcting mechanisms, legislative functioning—all require a major overhaul. But the assumption that strengthening the autocracy of the already unelected oligarchs and coteries that control most parties will make democracy better is a dangerous delusion. Such a view betrays the widely prevalent contempt for the electoral process and elected legislators.
Michael Dummett (1925-2011), the distinguished Oxford philosopher and a leading authority on electoral reform, succinctly summarised the problem with political parties—even in the best-case scenario of democratic, member-centric parties—as follows:
"We are so used to political parties that we tend to think of them as integral to the functioning of a democratic system; some of their members feel towards them a loyalty more appropriate to a religious body. Yet in fact their very existence infringes the ideal of democracy. They are in essence conspiracies in accordance with which their parliamentary representatives agree to vote in unison….., contrary to the (legislators’) opinions. Such collusion (though detrimental to public good) may nevertheless be advantageous to the legislators who engage in it; that is a large part of the purpose of political parties ...
“Nevertheless, the existence of political parties is probably an inescapable evil... the power of a political party to dictate, to influence, or to interfere with the selection of candidates for parliament is more inimical to democracy the more centralised it is....”
In our parties, as a celebrated global magazine put it, "the man who wears the crown is the king". In the absence of internal democratic norms, parties are often controlled by an individual, a dynasty, an oligarchy, or a coterie. There is no genuine election, and once an individual or family gains control, power is perpetuated by complete domination of nominations of favoured candidates for elective office, arbitrary expulsion of members who might pose a threat to the "leadership", and total control over unaccounted funds. In our first-past-the-post electoral system, there is very little prospect of getting elected unless a person is nominated for the elective office by a major party which commands a high share of votes. The party system and its functioning make it very difficult for competing political parties to rise; they do not embrace new ideas or policies, do not allow genuine, reasoned public debate in legislatures, do not facilitate the emergence of a consensus to address real challenges confronting society, and make legislatures dysfunctional. In our system, the legislature is the only body that has the legitimacy of people's consent, and by emasculating the legislature at the altar of political parties, we made democracy weak, discredited, and dysfunctional.
Time and again, party oligarchies acted in pursuit of a narrow political interest or individual interest at the cost of the public good. PV Narasimha Rao's government was sought to be brought down in Parliament by the unlikely alliance of the BJP, which strongly favoured economic liberalisation, and leftists, who staunchly opposed economic freedom. Similarly, the Manmohan Singh government’s Indo-American Nuclear Agreement was opposed jointly by the BJP, which favoured strategic engagement with the US, and Communists, who were dead set against any such engagement. Rajiv Gandhi's Congress forced the reluctant MPs to vote for the infamous and regressive Muslim Women's Bill in the wake of the Supreme Court judgement in the Shah Bano case; a principled opponent of the Bill, like Arif Mohammad Khan, had no choice but to quit the government and party and embrace political oblivion.
In the Shiv Sena case, being heard by the Supreme Court, the problem arose because of unaccountable, arbitrary, and autocratic decisions of an entitled dynastic ‘leadership’. From 2014 to 2019, Maharashtra had a coalition government of the BJP and the Shiv Sena. Both parties, as alliance partners, went to the people in 2019, seeking a renewed mandate for the coalition based on their performance and agenda placed before the electorate. After receiving the mandate as an alliance, Shiv Sena leadership promptly broke the alliance and formed a coalition government with the Congress and the NCP, against whom they won the election! The legislature party eventually split on the alliance issue, and the Shinde faction, which split the party, emerged as the people's choice in the 2024 election.
The circumstances clearly show that what we need are internal party democracy and greater freedom for elected legislators to voice their opinions and vote according to their best judgement. If party ‘leadership’ and whips, particularly in the context of autocratic, nominally elected, entitled leadership of parties, always prevail, irrespective of the judgement and will of elected legislators, then legislatures become irrelevant, and Parliament becomes some form of tribal council like the Loya Jirga in Afghanistan. Democracy dies when citizens, members of parties, leaders or legislators refuse to listen to each other and can no longer persuade or be persuaded by others. The very essence of democracy is peaceful and harmonious resolution of conflicting ideas, opinions, and interests. If the hyper-partisan, autocratic and entitled leadership of political parties dictates political and legislative outcomes, it will be a death knell of democracy. We need far-reaching democratic reforms, not quixotic, whimsical fixes.
The author is the founder of Lok Satta movement and Foundation for Democratic Reforms. Email: [email protected] / Twitter@jp_loksatta.