FIXED TENURE FOR LOKSABHA AND STATE ASSEMBLIES
Barack Obama was elected President of United States in November 2008. The Presidential Elections in the USA take place every four years. The next election is thus due in November 2012. The law lays down even the exact date of polls, when it says that the election shall be held “on the Tuesday after the first Monday of Novemberâ€. With this phraseology of the law, the earliest possible date is November 2, and the latest November 8.
In November 2012, the first Monday falls on the 5th. So the election date in USA shall be November 6, 2012.
Can anything be said in the same way about the British elections? Ordinarily, No ! But if the new coalition that has just assumed office has its way, YES ! The next General Election in UK will take place on May 7, 2015. The new Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has already made this declaration.
***
Some months back, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had hosted a luncheon in honour of the Japanese Prime Minister. I remember that on the sidelines, I had an informal chat that day with Dr. Manmohan Singh and Shri Pranab Mukherjee. I found both of them receptive to a proposal I have been advocating for quite some time: fixed term legislatures and simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly polls. The upshot would be: no uncertainty about the date of the five-yearly Lok Sabha and Assembly elections.
In my brief chat with the two senior leaders of Government that day, I mentioned, that most European democracies have such an arrangement. Our constitution makers adopted the British pattern and invested the Executive with the authority to cut short the term of the elected legislature and hold an early election. It is gratifying that Britain itself is now considering a change.
The new coalition government that has assumed office in U.K. this month has pledged itself to changing the earlier arrangement. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s “New Politics†speech promises to undertake “big, sweeping changesâ€, and “not incremental, bit by bit.â€
Significantly, the media are viewing Clegg and the Liberal Democrats as revolutionaries.
In his proposals to reform Parliament, Clegg has advocated an elected House of Lords in which members will be elected by a proportional voting system. What is more relevant to the discussion I initiated with the Indian Prime Minister and the Leader of the Lok Sabha is a fixed term Lok Sabha and State legislatures and the elimination of uncertainty in so far as election dates are concerned. It would be worthwhile quoting Nick Clegg’s speech of 19th May. This is what he said while advocating ‘fixed-term parliaments’. He observed :
“It’s just wrong that governments can play politics with something as important as a general election; cynically picking the date to maximize their own advantage.â€
Clegg added emphatically : “So this Government has already set the date we think the next election should be : May 7, 2015. No matter who is where in the polls.â€
The Liberal leader drew attention to the criticism this proposal had invited from the Labour Party, some of whose leaders had described the fixed term parliament suggestion as outrageous. Clegg commented:
“These critics are completely missing the point; this is a new right for Parliament, additional to the existing unchanged powers of no confidence. We’re not taking away parliament’s right to throw out government; we’re taking away government’s right to throw out parliament.â€
U.K’s is a unitary constitution. Ours is federal. We have one federal legislature, the Union Parliament, and 28 State Legislatures, some of them bicameral. The provisions that provide for midway dissolution either by the President or by the Governor has resulted in a situation wherein elections are not held every five years as contemplated by our constitution makers, and as were actually held in 1952, 1957, 1962 and 1967 – that is for the first two decades after independence. After that, almost every alternate year we have been witnessing a General Election, or a mini General Election.
This is not good for the health either of our Central and State governments, or of our polity. Let us seriously rethink about it.
L.K. Advani
New Delhi
May 28, 2010
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
May 28th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Sir, once in every 12 months, a district has Lok Sabha Election or Assembly election or Panchayat Election or a Bye election. Once elections are announced, the administration stops all new development activities because it may be construed as violation of model code of conduct. Even existing development activities suffer a lot because the entire district administration is fully geared to conduct the election. In reality, the person who pays the price for such frequent elections is the common man, who is dependent on Government’s development schemes for his daily bread. Your suggestion of fixed tenure and simultaneous election will definitely definitely definitely help this common man.
May 28th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly Polls will have a huge benefit in saving costs, better for the economy and making the dynamics of governance more transparent to the people. Further the politicians will be forced to make up a mind to contest at the assembly or the center level. It might be desirable to amend the tenure of the Raj Sabha to be made the same as the Lok Sabha, that is, 5 years, and Raj Sabha too included in the simultaneous polls (however I do not understand the full repercussions of this change). Fixed tenure (to simply state, that is, declaring the next election date on the day the government is elected) does away with a lot of negative degrees of freedom. However the start of simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly Polls is very difficult to achieve in practice in our democracy riddled with anti-revolutionary ethos. Everybody seems to be making their own greedy short-term decisions without philosophically considering all the aspects of the repercussions in the long term.
May 28th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Sir,
Having a fixed tenure for election is like inviting curroption at central and state level and tolerating non- performaning governments for 5 years. Very good example is UPA-2. Country saw the biggest scandal ever faced after post-independence. Do we still want similar scandals to take place ?
It would, instead, be good to have fixed tenure for MLAs and MPs. This will provide room for new faces to enter into political arena. So we can see new leaders representing the people after every few years. This will give opportunities to young leaders to enter into politics both from political as well as non- political background.
Your viewpoints on electoral reforms are highly appreciated but in this country there are very few who will understand it.
Jay Kumar
May 28th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Recently there has been news around that one BSF officer was denied visa to Canada by the Canadaian Embassy citing human rights violation in J & K. On a similar ground, one IB officer too was denied Visa. No sooner the news appeared on all news channel, there has been an outrage across the country. Media played a role of provoking the whole issue and later due to media hype and MEA intervention, the two fficers got the visa.
But the so called 4th pillar of democracy didn’t come forward when US and Europe denied visa to Gujarat CM. Similarly even MEA didn’t summon the concerned Ambassadors and cautioned them on denying visa to the country’s elected leaders. Why? Recently during the German parliamentary delegates visit to Gujarat, there has been an attempt to tarnish the image of Mr. Modi. We all saw some outrage from BJP but have yet to see the real outcome.
Sir, this is one issue you must write about in one of your blogs, i.e., the nexus between media and the congress party.
May 28th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Dear Sir,
Kindly have a look at Art238(d) of the Constitution of India. It provides for the periodicity of a Panchayat. An identical provision must be incorporated by amending the Constitution for the tenure of the Parliament and of State Assemblies. The article provides the thrust for implementing your great suggestion.
With deep regards,
Rajendra Bharatiya
May 28th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Namaskar Advaniji,
Lok sabha elections should be conducted according to the voting percentage just like if x party is more than 50% share, they should rule 3 consecutive years and if y party gets more than 40% they should rule 2 consecutive years i.e if y party should cross 40 % compulsorily. If y party doesn’t get 40% share then the elections should be conducted for 4 years only. I hope this formulae will be accepted by the election comission as it is an advantage for them. This will make 90% of the people satisfy with both the governments.
CH Vidyasagar rao was the member of 12th and 13th Lok sabha in Atal bihari vajpayee sir’s term. The Telangana people are so wise when they come to the poltics they Watch the dedication of candidate towards Schemes. Vajpayee introduced so many schemes he interlinked those schemes with the state and the central. For me people like vidyasagar rao should be there in Rajya sabha.
May 29th, 2010 at 12:15 am
@jaykumar
Fixed term for parliament doesn’t mean that Parliament can’t throw out a goverment. A goverment can still be thrown out with a no-confidence motion/ cut motion..only thing will be that an election can’t be preponed as per the wishes of the ruling party. If you have read this blog carefully, you would have understood this. Regarding the German delaegation issue, it expressed regret and clearly distanced itself from the marks but media only highlighted the German delegation’s criticism and avoided showing regrets as it suited their political masters..slowly but surely, people are becoming intellignet and they can see the facts for themselves through different avenues despite attempts made by some vested interests/ media groups..
May 29th, 2010 at 8:40 am
The suggestion of Respected Advani ji on fixed tenure of Legislatures & simultaneous polls to Parliament, State Assemblies is laudable. Infact I suggest that Panchayat or local Municipality election to be held along with.
The Anti Defection Law should be amended in a way that does not allow quitting of party by the elected member without resigning within the fixed term of the legislature. This would surely help improve the polity of India.
The legislatures be given a fixed 4 to 5 years term and in case government falls or setting up is not possible due to fractured mandate, the Presidents rule be a alternate. This would help curb horse trading. It has other benefits too which I discuss next.
Praveen Shankar Kapoor
May 29th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Advani ji’s suggestion has multiple benefits.
On one hand it would bring down State Expenses incurred on poll arrangements repeatedly & on the other it would also help Political Parties cut down on campaign costs that they have to do repeatedly on Advertisement Campaigns, Travel Expenses etc. This is not a minor issue as the Bills run over to Thousands of Crores and a saving could be easily around 1000 crores.
Secondly, often we have a M.P. of one party M.L.A. or councilor of another and Public Suffers due to their POLITICAL DIFFERENCES as DEVELOPMENT WORK GETS STALLED.
Advani ji’s suggestion would take care of this too, simultaneous polls may pop up same party members reducing peoples problems.
BEST IS EVERY FIFTH YEAR MONTH OF JANUARY CAN BE FIXED POLL TIME. First 7 days for nominations, 20 days for campaign followed by elections & results on 31 January. Weather is even good all over the country that time.
Praveen Shankar Kapoor
Delhi
May 29th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Dear Mr Advani,
Firstly, Indian polity is not bipolar but owing to diversity and illiteracy, it takes people very long to recognize this. Though it does not matter much but what happens is that people like Lalu get away even after electing his incompetent wife as a Chief Minister. Almost in the similar way, barring the incompetence factor, Sonia Gandhi has chosen Manmohan Singh.
To make anything happen in India, people should have one pan-Indian alternative to congress. If that doesn’t happen, India will get into the same fractured satrap system as was there in the past. In India’s ancient to medieval history the regional factors have always emerged strong and the modern India cannot escape that. The only thing which can save the country from repeating this is one neutral movement but the chances are dim. Had your party been centrist, pan-Indian, it would have helped but it is not which is unfortunate for India and of course for its good people.
May 29th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Completely agree with you sir. A definite date for elections is a must requirement and this would save our nation from unnecessary re-elections and delays by the ruling government.
May 29th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Advaniji’s suggestion of fixed tenure of legislstures may also be seen with his earlier assertion of electing Parliament by way of proportional representation. An article was written by Advaniji in the Statesman during early part of eighties in this matter. Is it possible to republish that?
June 2nd, 2010 at 1:22 am
Advaniji’s opinion is liable to answer one question.What will happen when no party gets majority and when there is no emergence of coalition government which carry majority suppport?In such scenario, the measure suggested by Shri Advani might lead to “legally imposed government” and government without legitimacy.
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Though it does not pertain to the subject matter, I write this because others have broached other topics too. This pertains to a totally wrong description tagged on the Congress President namely ‘a person of foreign origin’. She is a foreigner, born and brought up in Italy, and currently a citizen of India, who finds no mention in Part II of the Constitution, which bears the heading ‘Citizenship’. Also, nowhere in the Constitution, I repeat nowhere, the word Indian, which denotes our identity and nationality appears. It is missing even from the title and preamble. And what our jurists of eminence have taken it to mean? That Indians have no nationality! They just have a citizenship that too will be gone if they voluntarily acquire citizenship of a foreign state. (Art9 of the Constitution) And the EC takes it and Art58(1)(a) to mean that only Indians can be debarred.Surely this is absurd. The term ‘citizen of India’, wherever appearing has the meaning given in Part II and none other.
Just because the word ‘Indian’ is missing from the Constitution does not mean that Indians do not exist. And for the same reason a disabling piece of Legislation cannot be treated as an all enabling piece of Legislation. Art58(1)(a) reads “No person shall be eligible for election as President unless, he is a citizen of India.†The language indicates it was inserted to prevent a certain category of persons from becoming President and by corollary, MP, MLA etc. And who pray tell me will not be a citizen of India in India? Can it be taken to mean anyone other than the outsiders, the foreigners?
June 2nd, 2010 at 3:15 pm
And what about the Reciprocal treatment? Since the Union of India cannot secure an Indian’s fundamental right to equality beyond its territory, it is mandatory that it extends the same courtesy to a foreigner who has become a citizen, that is being extended to an Indian in his/her original country. An Indian cannot contest even in a Municipal election in Italy! This fact was published in a letter to Editor in the daily ‘The Pioneer’ just prior to Loksabha election of 2004, written by one Mr BC Dutta.