It is an established fact of political science that the proximity of elections and responsible behaviour by political parties are inversely related. Thus, the closer fresh elections appear to be, the more irresponsible a political party becomes. Likewise, it is also a truth that the more competitive politics becomes, the less responsible political parties become. A combination of intensively competitive politics and looming elections is therefore fatal to the cause of responsible behaviour. India has been taught these lessons repeatedly since the general elections of 1980, but these are global truths "" witness, for example, Italy, from where we borrow other things as well. The variation is only in the degrees of irresponsibility "" one party promises free electricity, another promises virtually free rice, and so on. Thus, if one were to construct a scale that runs from one to 10 for measuring irresponsibility, where scoring 10 is total irresponsibility, Indian political parties would score close to it. For that reason, the call for a bandh (or state-wide shutdown) by the state government "" mind, not the Opposition "" of Tamil Nadu and its flouting of a Supreme Court order that it should not go ahead with the bandh, does not come as a surprise. Indeed, responsible behaviour (obeying the Court) would have been a pleasant surprise "" though that too has been in evidence in a couple of other states where the courts came down hard on government-sponsored shutdowns. | |
| The technique of state governments inconveniencing citizens in order to make a political point, or to flex political muscles, or to hold the flock together, or to pander to the Supremo's ego "" the reasons can be many "" was first invented by the self-styled custodians of political morality in India, the Left "" who thus distorted the Mahatma Gandhi's Satyagraha campaigns during the freedom struggle. In Kerala and West Bengal, where the Left is in power, the government would routinely bring normal life to a halt by organising what in the old days was called a general strike. The proffered reason was that the principle was more important. Other state governments have followed suit because it is so easy for a government to stop everything dead in its tracks "" as seen in Tamil Nadu, where the government, which owns the transport companies, simply kept all but 61 buses off the road. This, despite the fact that the Court had said in no uncertain terms that there was to be no bandh. Technically, as the state's chief secretary has pointed out, the Tamil Nadu government has obeyed the order. The practical effect of not running the buses is, of course, a different matter altogether. |
| |
| Incensed, the Court has said that "if there is no compliance with our order, it is a complete breakdown of Constitutional machinery. We will then have to direct the government to impose President's rule ... If this is the attitude of the DMK government, the UPA government should not feel shy of dismissing it and imposing President rule." One cannot help wondering if such action would be Constitutional because the power to make such a recommendation is vested solely in governors of states. In this way, the entirely commendable ruling of Sunday has been diluted by a show of anger on Monday. It is likely now that the focus of attention will shift from the DMK's defiance of the Supreme Court's order to the Court's response. The country can only watch in astonished silence as major institutions of governance skirmish with one another. |
| |
|
| |
