Stabilization in the hour of need

Stabilization in the hour of need

To understand stabilization, let us contemplate on destabilization of elected government. It is causing unrest of a governing body of the state. This is an interesting phenomenon as the case of Madhya Pradesh in 2020, which has similarities with Karnataka in 2019 and Bihar in 2017. Can you destabilize the elected government? Yes, you can. Did it happen before? Of course. Numerous examples across almost all states since independence. So, the question of 'can you do it?' is answerable with 'yes.' 'Should you do it?' is what leaders and people have to be concerned about.

What is the primary concern of a government? To enact policy, deliver services or keep counting the number of MLAs each morning-afternoon-night (or maybe every second) in their party to ensure the government hasn't succumbed to external or internal forces? Right now, it seems like the only concern is to stay in power and worry about the rest later. Are there bigger problems right now than pushing for destabilizing and changing government? Oh yes! Not only the economy is in a downturn, but the world is still finding on how to deal with COVID-19. It's almost a time of world crisis. 

There are multiple aspects to this conundrum, but the solution is quite simple. STABILIZATION. There is no question of destabilization if such a situation doesn't even exist. That's what is required right now for India. What's the problem in having a stable government?? Isn’t that what we have to strive for? You need a stable government for many things - implementation of policy, investment, growth, security, peace, law and order, etc. If you know your government is stable, you can actually do things. If outsiders know government is stable, they invest in your state. This is a problem which can be solved if we understand the basic nature of it.

India is in dire need of this situation. The central government is stable since the last 20 years. And, that actually reflected in development. But, what about state governments? Most countries have it and businesses love it. Irrespective of your ideology (democracy, autocracy or communism), this is what is required. Businesses invested in China not because they are concerned with Communist party, but they know that government is stable. How can you do that in India? It is the question which has to be pondered and answered. I think more research has to be done in this area to see the number of times a state government was destabilized or changed and what are its repercussions.

As much distressing it can be for people, it is equally anxious and stressing for the parties to worry constantly about their MLAs and government’s stability. The fixed tenure without destabilization gives them the scope of doing actual work. Will this become authoritarian as the leader knows he/she is in power for sure? Not necessarily. You are in power for the period you are elected. Elections become real serious business. So, a cap has to be initiated on expenditure. Criminal cases against MLAs has to be a disqualification. Enhance checks and balances within institutions to keep a constant vigil on the actions of the government. You want the government to work for 5 years. You don't want them to work in corrupted or arbitrary manner. This would also have the scope for simultaneous state and center elections.

People and Election Commission

It's truly a sad state of affairs for people, especially when you're just a mere spectator to the current happenings and much worse when you actually remember that you're the one who actually gave them power to do so. Did you really give power to squabble around parties?? Is this what you thought when you were selecting and electing a candidate? More accountability of people is required if MLA's change their party after being elected from a certain party. There is no way you can know if people voted for someone because of the 'person' or for the 'party this person adheres to'.

One option is MLAs are automatically disqualified and cannot stand for elections until a cooling period of 2 years. MLA’s should also realize the expenditure, time, effort, investment it takes to conduct an election from public exchequer. So, MLAs would think twice before switching a party and would not switch for marginal gains. Although this is a solution, there is no other better alternative. So, if that's the case, after 2 years, let the MLA win again even if they change the party. Would this be a burden on Election Commission? Yes, maybe. Additionally, if MLAs are disqualified or resigned, the number of seats for majority shouldn’t be reflected accounting for this change. The number of seats for majority should still stay the same. If the people didn’t ask MLA to resign/disqualify, why should they be affected? At least by having their constituency as part of total number of seats would show their ‘disapproval’ or ‘anger’.

It's definitely better if you truly want to reflect the wishes of people. Any MLA who changes their affiliation to a party SHOULD be disqualified. Anti-defection law is ineffective as it doesn't reflect the true wishes of the people. Disqualify MLAs and ask them to win again like the way it happened in Karnataka in 2019? Yes, the way it happened over there but after a cooling period of 2 years. At least by this way, you know the mandate of people. People would also know that in these 2 years there would be none who can voice their concerns in parliament. Would this waste time? Not necessarily, but EC should keep a cap on the expenditure as only these swing constituencies/swing MLAs become the prime importance of an election.

MLAs

Does this give a strong hold to the party? Yes, it does. MLAs think seriously before they choose a party, and a political party thinks seriously before choosing a candidate. Dear MLAs, you have to remember this. There are two kinds of people who voted for you. People who just voted because of your 'candidature', and the people who voted for you because you represent a 'particular party.' Now, the problem is these categories are not segregated as separate votes. So, when you switch a party, you are actually betraying the voters who voted for you because of your party. The people who voted for you don't mind you switching parties, but people who voted for your party would be aghast. They are betrayed.

What now?? Nothing, my dear people. Your authority ended with casting your vote. Sit back, grab popcorn, and watch as the drama unfolds until you get your power back in 5 years to cast your vote. At least, speak up then.