After the circus: Role of a governor after polls needs clearer definition

In the end, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) gambit to turn a hung assembly in Karnataka into victory failed. The Supreme Court did not allow enough time for the party to peel away members of the other two legislative parties, the Congress and the Janata Dal (Secular). And, in any case, morale in the newly created post-poll coalition seemed high; uncorroborated transcripts of phone calls have been released to the media, and in those newly elected members of the Karnataka legislative assembly appear to refuse massive bribes in order to stay with the party that nominated them for election. Certainly, the BJP’s failed effort, its apparent willingness to engage openly in underhand means, and the Congress’ swiftness in putting together an understanding with the JD(S) mean that the Opposition appears newly energetic and unified as India enters the last year before the general elections. But appearances can be deceptive, and just as the Congress-JD(S) alliance will have to be tested in order to determine its strength, paeans by Congress leaders to a united Opposition in order to defeat the BJP will not necessarily translate into reality unless the Congress has a clear idea of what it is willing to give up to its new partners.

The other consequence of the unholy bargaining and horse-trading in Karnataka is a clear understanding that the role of the governor of a state in such circumstances must be clearly defined. The office of the governor has already been much tarnished by some of its occupants in the past — when the Congress was ascendant at the Centre decades ago, it used to freely misuse the governor’s powers. But that is no justification for the BJP doing the same thing now. It has already been widely pointed out that, depending on the outcome of state elections, various political parties have expected the governor to do different things, and call on different leaders to “prove” their mandate on the floor of the assembly. The Congress wanted the governor to call on it, as the largest-single party, in Goa and Manipur, for example. This kind of inconsistency is not supportive of constitutional morality. What is needed is a clear statement of priority: For example, pre-poll alliances take precedence over post-poll alliances, which, in turn, supersede individual parties in terms of numbers. The role of the governor in appointing speakers and scheduling the vote of confidence also needs to be spelled out.

If politicians do not step in and define a clear set of guidelines for the governor on the occasion of a hung assembly, then the Supreme Court might do so. Yet it would be far better to evolve a proper political consensus on the matter; the Supreme Court has already addressed the subject on occasion, such as in the Bommai judgment, but political parties found enough wiggle room in that verdict. The Karnataka circus was far from edifying, and there should be genuine efforts made by all sides to avoid a repeat of that. The faith of the electorate in the democratic process and in the power of their votes must be restored.