Democracy and the Karnataka drama
It is difficult to say as to who rules the State of Karnataka today. In other words, there can be as many correct answers to such a question; one could say that it is B.S.Yediyurappa; another could argue that it is any one of the Reddy brothers; and a third could argue that it is the Governor, Hans Raj Bhardwaj; and yet another argue that it is the full bench of the Karnataka High Court; and someone there could insist that the correct answer is none-of-the-above. If I am to decide as to which one is the right answer, I will have to say all-the-above!
For a month now there is nothing that has been happening there in the name of governance. And all that one is seeing is the unseemly sight of MLAs moving around in airport lounges and holiday resorts; they have been in Goa, Mumbai and our own Chennai in these couple of weeks that went by. The MLAs have not been to their constituencies at any time in the past month. So much for their respect to democracy! The people who elected them, whether as independents, BJP nominees, Janata Dal (Secular) or Congress, have no say as to which way should they vote in the assembly!
Well. There is nothing in the law, even in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution to ensure that the people determine the political course that the elected representatives take between the time they won the elections and their term as the representative of the peoples is over. And where there is no clear provision in the statute, there is no way that we can try ensuring such accountability. Or is it that I am being too pessimistic that articles of faith are not enforceable. In the post-Lucknow bench verdict of September 30, 2010, do I have the right to seek a judicial order based on faith in democracy and the illusion that the people are the masters in a democracy of our kind? Someone there may try approaching the Karnataka High Court, seeking a direction, under Article 226 of the Constitution, that the MLAs decided any which way they want to go after taking the people of their constituency into confidence.
It is possible, going by the precedent set by the Lucknow Bench, for the High Court in Bangalore to direct the MLAs to behave as per the faith in democracy and either affirm their support to one of the sides or to apportion the MLAs between the BJP, the Congress and the Janata Dal (secular); one third to each of the three parties! It is for the court to decide then as to whether the division on such lines must be on a day to day basis or on a weekly basis or on some other basis.
The MLAs will love if it is on an hourly basis so that they can have different chief ministers by the minute or the hour. Imagine a Karnataka with no one as Chief Minister and everyone as Chief Minister. A blissful state of affairs that will be far more advanced than Jharkand where an independent MLA remained Chief Minister and managed to amass wealth and even after raids at some stage is living happily with all the money he made. Madhu Koda is not in the news any longer and he must be living happily like any other political thief that we have seen in the past.
With all due respects, one is aghast over the reasoning by Justice N.Kumar when he held that the MLAs right to dissent must not be curtailed by invoking the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The learned judge simply erred when he sought to enforce the right to dissent without reference to the specific context. The fact that the MLAs did not dissent within the party fora but simply played along in the game of defection was evident when they showed up in Goa, Chennai and elsewhere, pushing strolleys, must have conveyed to the judge that this was not democracy. But then, he sought to make an ideal situation out of a dirty game of opportunism and greed. Justice N.Kumar ought to have seen the picture in all its dimensions. The plain and simple fact is that the rebel MLAs did not represent a democratic cause and the revolt was driven by greed and opportunism.
In this context, all that can be said is that the political establishment as well as the judiciary have failed the cause of democracy so badly in Karnataka. The mafia that has been at the helm in Karnataka (as in many other parts of the country) must be having it great now and even the Governor, H.R.Bharadwaj is guilty of playing partisan games as have many Governors in the past. The people of Karnataka deserve better things and better persons as their representatives. But then, in the larger context of a democratic structure being infested by un-democratic leaders to whom all is well as long as they make money for themselves, their sons and daughters and for a few generations down the line, do the people have a choice at the time of elections? I find it difficult to answer this question.
It is difficult to say as to who rules the State of Karnataka today. In other words, there can be as many correct answers to such a question; one could say that it is B.S.Yediyurappa; another could argue that it is any one of the Reddy brothers; and a third could argue that it is the Governor, Hans Raj Bhardwaj; and yet another argue that it is the full bench of the Karnataka High Court; and someone there could insist that the correct answer is none-of-the-above. If I am to decide as to which one is the right answer, I will have to say all-the-above!
For a month now there is nothing that has been happening there in the name of governance. And all that one is seeing is the unseemly sight of MLAs moving around in airport lounges and holiday resorts; they have been in Goa, Mumbai and our own Chennai in these couple of weeks that went by. The MLAs have not been to their constituencies at any time in the past month. So much for their respect to democracy! The people who elected them, whether as independents, BJP nominees, Janata Dal (Secular) or Congress, have no say as to which way should they vote in the assembly!
Well. There is nothing in the law, even in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution to ensure that the people determine the political course that the elected representatives take between the time they won the elections and their term as the representative of the peoples is over. And where there is no clear provision in the statute, there is no way that we can try ensuring such accountability. Or is it that I am being too pessimistic that articles of faith are not enforceable. In the post-Lucknow bench verdict of September 30, 2010, do I have the right to seek a judicial order based on faith in democracy and the illusion that the people are the masters in a democracy of our kind? Someone there may try approaching the Karnataka High Court, seeking a direction, under Article 226 of the Constitution, that the MLAs decided any which way they want to go after taking the people of their constituency into confidence.
It is possible, going by the precedent set by the Lucknow Bench, for the High Court in Bangalore to direct the MLAs to behave as per the faith in democracy and either affirm their support to one of the sides or to apportion the MLAs between the BJP, the Congress and the Janata Dal (secular); one third to each of the three parties! It is for the court to decide then as to whether the division on such lines must be on a day to day basis or on a weekly basis or on some other basis.
The MLAs will love if it is on an hourly basis so that they can have different chief ministers by the minute or the hour. Imagine a Karnataka with no one as Chief Minister and everyone as Chief Minister. A blissful state of affairs that will be far more advanced than Jharkand where an independent MLA remained Chief Minister and managed to amass wealth and even after raids at some stage is living happily with all the money he made. Madhu Koda is not in the news any longer and he must be living happily like any other political thief that we have seen in the past.
With all due respects, one is aghast over the reasoning by Justice N.Kumar when he held that the MLAs right to dissent must not be curtailed by invoking the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The learned judge simply erred when he sought to enforce the right to dissent without reference to the specific context. The fact that the MLAs did not dissent within the party fora but simply played along in the game of defection was evident when they showed up in Goa, Chennai and elsewhere, pushing strolleys, must have conveyed to the judge that this was not democracy. But then, he sought to make an ideal situation out of a dirty game of opportunism and greed. Justice N.Kumar ought to have seen the picture in all its dimensions. The plain and simple fact is that the rebel MLAs did not represent a democratic cause and the revolt was driven by greed and opportunism.
In this context, all that can be said is that the political establishment as well as the judiciary have failed the cause of democracy so badly in Karnataka. The mafia that has been at the helm in Karnataka (as in many other parts of the country) must be having it great now and even the Governor, H.R.Bharadwaj is guilty of playing partisan games as have many Governors in the past. The people of Karnataka deserve better things and better persons as their representatives. But then, in the larger context of a democratic structure being infested by un-democratic leaders to whom all is well as long as they make money for themselves, their sons and daughters and for a few generations down the line, do the people have a choice at the time of elections? I find it difficult to answer this question.
posted by Krishna Ananth at
7:17 PM
2 Comments:
The only way to take into account, the opinion of the constituents would be through an open opinion consensus by an MLA. Faith can't be a true handmaiden of democracy. But what good will a write u/Art 226 do? It cannot lead to any change in the process of decision-making in an Assembly or any parliamentarian procedure.
A no confidence or trust vote is different from any regular parliamentary procedure and only legislative reform can ensure such mass inclusion, which you suggest.
Court direction will only create a precedent for court interference, and most such PILs are also (directly or indirectly) influenced by the same people who run the govt. Is empowering a judiciary of questionable morality (read: socialistic) the solution?
Love the sarcasm, perhaps the only way to explain away the mess. For the longest time, and even now, I am confused about what the hell happened. Can a confidence motion be executed through a voice vote? Was the Speaker right/wrong in disqualifying the rebel MLAs? They say, Mr. Bharadwaj is a constitutional expert, yet the State could not follow simple constitutional procedures - corruption, personal gains, deterioration of polity aside. The marshals being beaten was the limit. I had thought Maharashtra had taken the lead in putting a blot on democracy (attack on Abu Azmi in the House). But now that seems like baby stuff. As you have said, do we really have a choice?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home