Commandeering of Government: Strongman Has Had His Way

It’s a sign of the times. Witness the silence of the Election Commission (EC) towards a demand of a civil society organisation, Vote for Democracy, to investigate why the difference between the ‘approximate votes polled’ data shared by the EC on polling days at around 8 pm and the final voter turnout is 4.65 crore. These votes are estimated to have made the difference in BJP’s favour in as many as 79 parliament seats decided on low margins, principally in Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra.

The VfD claims this surge in votes upped vote numbers significantly – by more than 12%, 11% and 8%, respectively in these states, raising questions in their wake about whether the recent Lok Sabha election was commandeered in strongman style.

Suspicions are strengthened by the way events have unfolded since the results came in, leading to the formation of a government whose intrinsic character leaves room for questioning.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) emerged as the single largest party, but under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi it lost the big majority it had held. It is to be underlined that the newly elected BJP MPs were afforded no opportunity to elect their leader afresh after the election since a meeting of the BJP parliamentary party was not called, expressly denying them their privilege to formally elect their leader. Convention and parliamentary practice mandated such a meeting.

If the BJP parliamentary party was permitted to meet, questions may well have arisen about Modi’s misguided leadership that had led to a rout in the largest two states – UP and Maharashtra. It is possible that a leader other than Modi may have emerged at the meeting of the parliamentary party had it been held. Speculation is rife about possible names.

A claim to form government cannot be entertained if the elected MPs of the largest party or combine have not formally elected a leader, for it needs to be demonstrated that the individual staking claim can command a majority in the House. In the absence of the leader’s election, the president has no basis on which to assess the claim and then accept or reject it. But Modi and his cohorts did away with established parliamentary norms.

They marched to Rashtrapati Bhavan after presuming to have support and the president proceeded to appoint him as prime minister. Significantly, she omitted to direct him to test his strength on the floor of the Lok Sabha by a given date, thus giving him a carte blanche.

This is where we are today. The budget currently under discussion in both Houses has been presented by a dispensation that has officially not tested its strength on the floor of Lok Sabha, which is a time-honoured convention, and no less than a requirement in a coalition situation as no single party claims to command majority support in the House.

It is suggested by some that the ruling bloc was able to get its Speaker elected by a voice vote, and this is indication that it has a majority. This is a superficial justification for the ‘takeover’ which was in violation of settled convention and practice. In a parliamentary democracy, conventions have constitutional force. What this so-called mode of proving a majority in lieu of holding a meeting of the parliamentary party does is to deny equal opportunity to all in the governing bloc to take a shot at the top job.

But it does infinitely more. It leads the president into the blind alley of making an arbitrary choice of prime minister. When arbitrariness triumphs over settled principles of parliamentary democracy, the signal is that every institution is a plaything of the strongman. In that case elections become meaningless.

The EC stands compromised already by virtue of the nominated status of its commissioners. It is not an independent body, as the Constitution requires.

And now it would appear that the presidency too has been overawed. This begs the question of whether the president now is in a position to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution and the law of India. This is the oath she takes upon assuming office.