News Analysis
Badle badle meri
(AAP) sarkar nazar aate hain, ghar ki…
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Great Britain has no
written constitution. The monarchical Westminster form of parliamentary
democracy there hinges on its great traditions and precedents. The British take
pride in being strict sticklers to the law, traditions and precedents. But, on
the contrary, in our form of parliamentary democracy where we claim to be
following the Westminster style, we take pride in breaking the traditions and
precedents. We do swear by the
Constitution but, at the same time, the ruling political party does everything
to tame it to realize party’s narrow political ambitions and sectarian electoral
goals in which the interest of the nation, invariably, stand isolated.
A new political outfit named
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) composed mostly of
novices in the field in just one year of its existence succeeded to catch the
imagination of the metro city of Delhi to capture 28 out of 70 seats and also to
defeat the chief minister Mrs. Sheila Dixit by a huge margin of about 26 thousand
votes. It is an unusual happening in the electoral history of India. Though BJP
emerged as the single largest party with 32 seats, four short of absolute
majority, yet it preferred not to form a government than indulge in horse-trading.
The ruling Congress stood reduced to paltry 8 seats. JD(U) won one seat and one
went to an independent.
Even a day before
declaration of results, AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal swore by his children (God,
save them!) stressing that his party would neither seek nor extend support to
either BJP or Congress. Initially, it looked as if Delhi would have to suffer
the travail of being denied a representative government with president’s rule
being imposed in the State for six months. That is why for a fortnight Delhi virtually
remained without a government as the incumbent ministry had resigned and, as per
tradition, the Lt. Government had asked Sheila government to continue till
alternative arrangement was made.
After haggling and
bargaining the Congress decided to extend ‘unconditional’ support of its
8-member group from outside to AAP government
It was the miracle of this
parliamentary democracy that a ruling party badly mauled at the hustings could
still be on the right side of power enjoying all the privileges of a ruling
party except government bungalows, red beacon lights fitted luxury cars and
staff. It provides fuse to the AAP government and luxuriates at the cost of
government without accountability.
The ‘honest’ AAP stooped
down to accept support from ‘corrupt’ Congress — the same Congress most of whose
ministers, till the declaration of election results, the party had been vowing
to throw in jail for ‘corruption’.
Finally, AAP government
with Arvind Kejriwal as chief minister took oath on December 23. It was asked
to prove majority in the house by January 3. In the process many unusual
happenings took place. Many of the great traditions and precedents got crashed
into rubble.
Since India won
independence, it had been a tradition that the senior most MLA belonging to any
party was nominated by the governor to function as pro-tem speaker to
administer oath to newly elected MLAs. When Lt. Governor nominated the senior
most MLA belonging to BJP as pro-tem speaker, the latter declined the offer.
Congress followed suit. Ultimately, an AAP MLA was nominated as pro-tem
speaker. After oath of MLAs, the pro-tem speaker used to conduct the election
of the speaker. Thereafter the Governor/Lt. Governor addressed the newly elected
assembly in which the future programmes and policies of the new government were
enunciated. It was only after that the
house ccould conduct its normal business and take up the vote of confidence. In
fact, the election of speaker itself is the virtual floor test of the strength
of the incumbent government. All this was dispensed with.
Two days before the
confidence vote Kejriwal himself said: “He has only 48 hours left with
him”. He claimed that his government may
continue or be defeated in the house, he is not bothered. He wished to fulfill
some of the promises made to the electorate. It was a political ploy and
electoral game plan. In the event of his losing the vote of confidence, he
wished to present the successor with fait accompli. If his government was
defeated, he could shout from the house top: Look my government did what it
could and should; it was defeated by vested interests because his government
took these people-friendly decisions.
It is beside the point
that many point out that neither the electricity relief is fifty percent nor
the water supply concession is as promised because about half the population
does not have electric and water connections in their houses and they are the
real aam aadmi. Congress claimed that only subsidy had been increased.
But the question arises:
Is a government which has yet to prove its majority and consequently its
legitimacy constitutionally by tradition and by law empowered to do so?
AS a rule, a vote of
confidence is moved by the chief minister or the prime minister. It is he who replies
on the conclusion of the debate and seeks approval of the house. This practice
too was dispensed with. The motion was not moved by chief minister Kejriwal but
by one of his colleagues. Both the opposition BJP and ally Congress made
certain points, sought certain clarifications and made certain allegations
during the debate. Congress declared that their support will continue as long
as the AAP government took people-friendly decisions and adopted policies which
were, in the opinion of Congress, helping the aam aadmi. The discussion was not
wound up and replied by the mover of the resolution but by the chief minister
Kejriwal. It was also for the first time that a chief minister chose to completely
ignore all the points raised and allegations made during the debate. He
preferred to keep silent on controversial issues as he felt convinced that
silence was gold in the circumstances. He forgot his pre-result brave words
that “corrupt” Congress leaders would be behind bars immediately after AAP
government took over and that a strong Lokpal shall be passed on December 29 at
Ramlila Maidan. He did vow a Lokpal within a fortnight. He did kept the hope
alive that corruption will not be tolerated at any level by any individual to
whichever party he/she may belong. But nothing new. Similar words have repeatedly
been reiterated by Congress leadership too. Then what is different?
What was starkly eloquent and
piercing the ears of the viewers was the absence of the sharpness of Kejriwal's
determination and commitment to stand by each and every word he gave to the
people.
Kejriwal made name for
coming out with specific allegations of corruption and malpractices against the
then chief minister Mrs. Sheila Dixit and her government. For the last about
one year he had been branding Congress and CM Sheila Dixit as “corrupt” and
claiming himself to be “honest” on posters pasted on the back of hundreds of
auto-rickshaws plying in Delhi. Ironically today, he is challenging the
opposition to come out with proof against Sheila government.
This reminds us of the
scene before 1989 Lok Sabha elections when in public meetings V. P. Singh used
to boldly take out a piece of paper from his pocket saying it contains the
names of those who received the Bofors kickbacks. But after he became Prime
Minister he forgot everything and that piece of paper too disappeared.
Also published in the weekly ORGANISER, weekly UDAYINDIA. ***
