Do not fear an election, Mr Prime Minister - Opinion - DNA

Do not fear an election, Mr Prime Minister Neerja Chowdhury | Sunday, March 6, 2011

Comments | Post a comment | Share this article | Print | Email

The prime minister’s admission that compromises were inevitable in coalitions has drawn flak. It did not go down well even with his own partymen. The philosophical homilies by Janardan Dwivedi, who heads the Congress’ media department, at the start of the Budget session of Parliament, were seen to be directed at the PM and BJP leader Arun Jaitley pointing this out – that it was a “blunt” and not just a “subtle”message for Dr Manmohan Singh. Dwivedi had quoted Mahatma Gandhi’s words in 1920 that while in politics, he had fought its “vice-like grip” and not allowed political considerations to shape any of his major decisions. Politicians are adept at conveying what they want to by innuendo and the “politicalese” – the language that only politicians can interpret – that Dwivedi resorted to was lost on few. The prime minister was explaining why he had chosen to re-induct A Raja as telecom minister in 2009, despite enough information having surfaced about the DMK leader’s alleged involvement in what was by then being billed as the 2G spectrum mega scam. The reason the PM gave for his decision to take back A Raja was that “elections cannot be held every six months”. Article continues below the advertisement... Had the PM held firm on keeping him out in mid 2009, would it really have brought on an election? Would the DMK have quit the central government and brought down its own ministry in Chennai, which is supported by the Congress? Let us go back to 2004, when “tainted” ministers were inhducted into the UPA-I ministry in the face of opposition. The BJP had failed to make it an issue because it was a bad loser, opposing the Congress from day one, even disrupting the swearing-in ceremony of the ministers in 2004. Had the PM refused to take Taslimuddin or MAA Fatmi, allegedly involved in serious offences, and insisted that the RJD suggest alternative names for the ministry, would Laloo Yadav have rocked the boat and brought on another poll, after he had won so handsomely? At that time also, the PM, if the Congress grapevine was to be believed, had told colleagues that he would find it difficult to continue if he had to make these compromises. But he did continue. Admittedly, the PM is not just an individual and what is applicable to him also goes for his party. Yet, if there was one PM who could have taken a tough stand, it was Manmohan Singh. No one doubted his financial integrity. Though Sonia Gandhi nominated him, she does not have anyone better from her point of view, given Rahul Gandhi’s reluctance to take over. Singh does not have an individual political agenda and appealed to the urban middle class, though this is now dented. Sonia Gandhi is reportedly wary of other senior leaders and those who have her confidence, like AK Antony, might run into problems. Were Antony to be elevated, the Sangh Parivar can be expected to go to town that she is promoting him because he is a Christian. Coalitions – or for that matter democratic governments – do entail a give-and-take. Yet, it is one thing to be flexible on, say, seat-sharing. For instance, the Congress is currently playing hardball with the DMK on sharing of seats in Tamil Nadu for the forthcoming state elections, knowing that the Dravidian party cannot do without its support. The Congress is demanding 90 seats but may finally settle for 60. But to be forced to compromise on a matter like 2G – which has led to a presumptive loss of Rs1.76 lakh crore, according to the CAG estimate, or of Rs22,000 to Rs50,000 crore as per the figures indicated by the CBI to the Supreme Court – is quite another matter. The question then is: should a government continue at any cost? Where does the PM draw the ‘Lakshman rekha’ in a coalition? After all, the PM did take a firm stand on the Indo-US nuclear deal, putting his government in jeopardy, as the Left leaders have been quick to point out. Agreed that elections cannot be held every six months. But if the compromise required is of a kind that leads to a 2G scam, let an election take place. It might help establish new norms for governance in coalitions and show the regional parties that they cannot push beyond a point. A general election costs the country around R 17,000 crore, with around Rs 2,000 crore spent by the Election Commission and another Rs15,000 crore spent by individual candidates and parties, if you take a rough estimate of Rs30 crore per constituency. This is incidentally only 0.3% of the GDP, and the amount spent is less than even the conservative estimate of what was lost to the exchequer through 2G. This is not to make a case for frequent elections, which can lead to a paralysis in policymaking. But if an election or two, brought on by a principled stand, leads to political reform, there is no need to fear them. A cleaner government is more likely to function better, generate greater development and result in a rise in the GDP. The cost of that election will be paid a thousand times over. At the end of the day, the choice is between a dispensation that totters under pressure and a government that is effective. Neerja Chowdhury is a commentator on political and social issues