• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

Ranabir Ray Choudhury

THERE is little doubt that for a liberal, parliamentary democracy to succeed and flourish, the political life of the society concerned will have to be rich and fulfilling. In other words, the primacy of politics will have to be an established factor in such a society if it is to have a healthy parliamentary form of democracy. Briefly, is this the case in India?

There is no question that political activity is rife in the country, but it is more difficult to answer the question whether this phenomenon has led to a healthy parliamentary form of democracy being practised. Now, what exactly is meant by a "'healthy parliamentary form of democracy"'? Briefly, a system of democratic government which leads to governance that not only reflects the will and choice of the electorate concerned but also results in a political, economic and social structure which yields the most optimum results in terms of an acceptable standard of living in all its facets. Is this what is happening in India?

Certainly, Parliament and the State Assemblies are filled with people who have been freely and fairly elected by the citizens of the republic (barring a handful of cases which, nearly in every instance, has to pass through the legal process for reconfirmation). But has this resulted in good governance for the country?

Alternatively, could the governance of the nation have been better under an amended system of government, amendments that would have retained the basic structure of the present form of parliamentary democracy but would have improved the quality of the governance flowing from it?

It is here that the present process of electoral reforms comes in, for it is nothing but an effort to amend and fine-tune the existing democratic structure of governance without in any way affecting its basic content, which was laid down by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution.

But before one goes into the specifics of the reforms being contemplated — with the aid of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission — there is one fundamental question that needs to be answered — whether the destiny of a developing nation should be left in the hands of representatives of the people, freely and fairly elected, who carry with them into the confines of the legislature the imperfections of a society that is struggling with the debilitating effects of poverty, in some cases even losing the battle for progress and development.

Indeed, what is the meaning of the word `fair' elections in the context of the `nation', facilitating the future progress of which should be the bounden duty of responsible citizens living in the present?

In other words, cutting a long story short, should the legislature be a faithful mirror image of the society which it represents or should there be some sifting involved which would enable legislative representation to correspondent more closely to the `ideal' which is the longer term target for the society involved? After all, the administration is the executive arm of the state entrusted with the execution of policy framed by the government, which is by the people, for the people and of the people.

Similarly, the courts comprise the legislative wing of the state which ensures that the law of the land is faithfully followed and interpreted according to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

The issue is rather simple. If the three wings of the state drawing their legitimacy and sustenance from the Constitution, — the legislative, the executive and the judiciary — are to function on an equal footing, the principle of screening should be applied equally to the three categories.

Neither the executive nor the judiciary is `screened' by the electorate in the sense that the members of these tribes are not `voted' to office.

Broadly speaking, there is a professional benchmark that has to be attained before one can aspire to become a member of the executive or the judiciary, which is not the case with the legislature.

The `professional' benchmark of a legislator (whether in a state or at the Centre) should be qualities that mark him out to be closer to the ''ideal'' Indian citizen that should be the target for development of each and every responsible Indian. Since universal education is a declared objective of the Constitution, the completion of college-level education could be a `benchmark' for aspiring politicians whose sole objective is to get into the legislature, where they can influence the framing of the laws of the land.

Since the Constitution itself is a legal document, the effort to abide by the laws of the land can be treated as being one of the objectives of an `ideal' Indian citizen, from which it can be argued that no citizen with a legal `black mark' should be allowed to become a member of legislature.

It is unfortunate that these stipulations for legislature-membership were not included in the Constitution from the very beginning, which has resulted in the present controversy on electoral reforms acquiring a shape and character which is doing no credit to the nation in the eyes of the world at large.

Indeed, the entire issue of poll reforms is now being made to look as if it is actually a problem relating to the `separation of powers' principle, the specific allegation being that the judiciary is trespassing into the sphere set aside for the legislature by the Constitution itself.

The central point is whether the country's politicians agree with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court relating to eligibility for legislature membership. If they do, the rectification of the present `problem' should be rather simple — let Parliament pass a law on electoral reform which will incorporate all the points made by the court.

The suspicion, of course, is that the law will be passed but the Supreme Court's guidelines will not be incorporated in their present shape thus making them weak and ineffective.

The primacy of politics, therefore, will have once more reared its ugly head and struck a lethal blow against the prospects of the nation's future development.

Does the nation deserve this? If it does not, why does it elect such representatives to the State Assemblies and Parliament? A vicious circle no doubt. But where does one break it?

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section
RBI's call

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line