Should there be early elections?

The ruling class needs to be taught a lesson for its policy paralysis but the UPA is stable and still enjoys a majority in the Lok Sabha

JAGDEEP S CHHOKAR
Former Professor, Dean, and Director In-charge of IIM, Ahmedabad

“An early election will definitely serve as a salutary warning to the political establishment that the electorate will no longer tolerate inaction, lack of governance, unbridled corruption and inefficiency from any political grouping”

The topic of this debate is actually redundant. There will not be early elections, for the simple reason that no MP wants them. But putting that aside, should there be early elections?

We all know that elections cost a lot of money. The Center for Media Studies (CMS) estimated the cost of the 2009 Lok Sabha election at Rs 10,000 crore, not including “productivity losses involved in the process and, more importantly, ‘betting money’ in some parts of the country on the winning chances of candidates and parties”. According to CMS, the 2004 Lok Sabha election had cost the country Rs 4,500 crore against about Rs 3,200 crore and Rs 2100-2200 crore in the 1998 and 1996 Lok Sabha elections. Given the order of these costs, it is not difficult to guess the range of expenditure on a possible 2012 or 2013 Lok Sabha election.

Whether this expenditure is worth it or not depends on what is the nation likely to gain from an early election. It is not easy to think of any definitive gains but let us look at the possible gains. First, since the stated reasons for considering an early election are ongoing allegations of scams, corruption and economic policy decisions recently taken by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, will these go away?

The underlying assumption seems to be that there will, or might, be a change of the party or coalition in power. While this assumption is debatable, but even taking it to be true, does one expect anything different from a different coalition? The only possible coalitions, other than the current one, are the National Democratic Alliance and the so-called Third Front. Given the probable compositions of these two, as well as the UPA, the choice seems to be between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

The more serious issue is fragmentation of the polity, which leads to what has come to be called policy paralysis and adversarial politics. What impact might an early election have on these?

While trying to predict the outcome of elections is obviously a foolhardy activity, yet according to most estimates, the composition of the Lok Sabha is not likely to be radically different if elections are held in the next few months. Obviously, there will be some changes in the number of MPs belonging to different political formations, but the fractured verdict, with no single party getting a majority, is an unquestionable given. There is not expected to be a radical increase, or even a decrease, in the seats for the two leading national parties. The result would be another shaky and unstable coalition, little different from what we have today. So, something like a policy paralysis or at least an absence of bold actions is likely to remain the flavour of the week.

Now, to adversarial politics. This remains the bane of governance. The real cause of this lies in the structure of political parties as they exist today. Expediency, partisanship, and crass opportunism are the only ideology that our political parties know and follow. Every political party is controlled by one or a small group of people and it is the interest of this group that prevails and determines all strategies and actions of the party. With each political party, group, formation working in its own, narrow self-interest, it is quite clear what suffers. Parliament being non-functional for two sessions is a stark example. The only way out is to have political parties function in a democratic manner in their internal functioning, which should normally be the sine qua non for all political parties in a representative democracy such as ours but is not even on the horizon of the political establishment of the country.

So, although there is unlikely to be a significant change in the functioning of the ruling dispensation after an early election, it will definitely serve as a salutary warning to the entire political establishment that the electorate will no longer tolerate inaction, lack of governance, rampant and unbridled corruption, and inefficiency from any political grouping.

A Rs 10,00-crore lesson is certainly expensive but if it can help put our political establishment on the path of doing things that are “right or just”, it might be worth it. The country, then, can log the expense to an investment in developing an effective and responsive democracy.

 

RASHID ALVI
Congress spokesperson

“Our government is stable. I want to assure the Opposition that elections will be held in 2014 on schedule and I want to assure the Bharatiya Janata Party that the Leader of the Opposition's chair in the Lok Sabha will be reserved for them after 2014 as well”

I definitely do not agree with this view. It should be noted that according to our Constitution, the term of the Lok Sabha is for five years and there are still approximately two years to go for the 15th Lok Sabha to complete its tenure in 2014. I am unable to understand why the Opposition is raising the bogey of mid-term elections.

After all, the prime minister may continue in his post as long as he enjoys majority support in the Lok Sabha. It is beyond doubt that Dr Manmohan Singh’s government has a majority in the Lower House. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), too, has admitted this fact and that is why it does not want to move a no-confidence motion. The Opposition also agrees that ours is a stable government. So where, then, is the question of mid-term polls?

Both the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) are supporting the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) from outside. Laloo Prasad’s Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and H D Deve Gowda’s Janata Dal (Secular), or JD(S), are also extending outside support to the government. If you do the math, it is obvious and clear that the UPA-II is not a minority government. In total, we have the support of more than 300 seats, while the minimum requirement is 272.

It is unfortunate that the Trinamool Congress (TMC) has withdrawn its support but all our other allies are firmly with us. All speculation about political uncertainty is unfounded.

We assure everyone that the UPA government is staunchly against corruption and has not even spared its Cabinet ministers, if need be. The Central Bureau of Investigation is investigating the 2G telecom spectrum and the Coalgate issues in an unbiased manner and whoever is responsible will be brought to book.

As for the recent economic steps that the government has taken, they are in the interest of the people, although the Opposition has been conveying an incorrect impression by saying these measures are against the people. The BJP should realise that what is in “people’s interest” is decided by voters during elections and not by political parties. This baseless allegation by the BJP is not going to force the UPA to resign before the end of its term.

As for raising diesel prices, I would like to ask the BJP why it resorted to raising the price of petrol and diesel as well. During the tenure of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance, fuel prices were raised as many as 13 times. The price of fuel is dictated by international market prices. When the National Democratic Alliance took over, the price of crude oil was $31 per barrel; today the price of crude is $116 to $ 117 per barrel. I think this argument explains why the government has to raise prices. Despite this, the government is still bearing a subsidy of Rs 12 per litre for diesel.

During the National Democratic Alliance regime, the government’s attempt then was to reduce the subsidies on fuel and the public distribution system. The then food minister had even said on the floor of Parliament, “Sometimes in the interest of the country, the government has to take hard decisions.”

The prime minister wants to improve the economy and foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail is an important decision in this direction. It may be recalled that the BJP in its 2004 election manifesto had promised to allow FDI in retail. Now the tables are turned. The BJP and its allies like the Janata Dal (United), or JDU (U), want to rake in the political advantage and benefit from opposing this decision.

The Congress-led UPA government is for the aam aadmi. We are not bothered whether we remain in power or not; but as long as we are here we will continue to take decisions for the benefit of the aam aadmi.

Our government is stable although the BJP is trying its best to destabilise it. But I want to assure the Opposition that elections will be held in 2014 on schedule and I want to assure the BJP that the Leader of the Opposition’s chair in the Lok Sabha will be reserved for them after 2014 as well.

As told to Kavita Chowdhury