VIEWPOINT
AMITABH SHUKLA
When the people of Karnataka went
to vote on May 5, they already knew the CBI had arrested the nephew of Railway
Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal for bribery and they were aware of the damning
expose that highest posts in the railways were up for grabs by those paying the
"right money to the right people."
The people of the southern State
also knew by then that Law Minister Ashwani Kumar and the PMO had vetted and
made changes in the affidavit of the investigating agency in the infamous coal
scam, the links of which go up to the highest echelons of government, to the
doors of the Prime Minister. People knew that it was the culprit who was
changing the discourse to escape the dragnet of law.
Before May 5, not only the people
of Karnataka, but also the entire country knew how the son-in-law of the most
powerful person in the Congress and indeed the Central government-Sonia
Gandhi-had benefited from the land deals in the NCR region of Haryana with the
help of a friendly Congress-ruled State
Also, do not forget the
AgustaWestland helicopter scam which broke out early this year and the
government was seen doing precious little to bring the guilty to book. As more
scams hit the government, the helicopter scam seems to have been forgotten for
a while.
But all this and the series of
scams which began in 2009 did not deter the people from voting for the Congress
in Karnataka, a party which is at the centre of so many scams in the last four
years in its second avatar. Could this be a case of "my corruption versus
your corruption?" Were the people weighing on a scale as to who was more
corrupt, the bigger villain?
When people went out to vote for
the Karnataka Assembly polls on May 5, perception about corrupt practices and
omissions and commissions of B S Yeddyurappa were more important for them than
those of the UPA government. Their immediate concern was the issue in hand,
change of governance in the State. People saw bigger evil in the way the State
was governed in the last five years, the way scams broke out, Chief Minister
was removed, the way Reddy brothers held a sway and looted the natural
resources of the State. They saw instability and corruption and dumped the BJP
government which they thought was responsible. For them, Delhi
was too distant and in any case, there is Lok Sabha election too in which they
can teach a lesson to the government in Delhi
which Narendra Modi often says is "Delhi Sultanate."
Results of some recent Assembly
polls have shown that people have delineated local issues and the national
issues. They voted for Congress in Lok Sabha elections in UP in 2009 but
rejected it lock, stock and barrel in 2012 Assembly polls. They will teach a
lesson to the incumbent State Government if they find that their aspirations
have not been met and dump the party. They will also give an affirmative vote
to those who led the State without any controversy and were scam-free in their
tenure.
Before Karnataka, we had Assembly
elections in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh. Gujarat
was thumbs up for BJP and Narendra Modi while Himachal was thumbs down for BJP
and Prem Kumar Dhumal. In fact, in Himachal Pradesh, Dhumal's record was
largely unblemished on the corruption front while his rival Virbhadra Singh was
embroiled in a controversy and even had to resign as a Union Minister just
before the polls. But this had no effect on the outcome as the people felt that
their aspirations had not been fulfilled and they expected much more from the
BJP government in the State.
The list of states where
perceived good governance has paid is quite long and here people have voted the
incumbent governments to power. Punjab , Haryana, Delhi ,
Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Bihar , Gujarat ,
Maharashtra , Odisha, Andhra Pradesh-all have voted for
the incumbent government. Of course, elections are not fought only on issues of
corruption and governance and a host of micro factors come in the picture, but
largely perceived good governance, fulfillment of aspirations of the people do
pay.
Given the changing dynamics of
the choice of the people and the electoral behavior over a period of time, now
I feel that giving five years to an incumbent government is too long and should
be reduced so that the government of the day reflects the mood and aspirations
of the voters, so that it does not become complacent, outdated and out of tune
with what the people want. Nothing could be better if the time of elections is
reduced to four years from the five years at present.
The Constitution of the country
decided a five-year tenure a long time back-over six decades when the ground
realities were entirely different. Much water has flown down the Ganges ,
Yamuna, Brahmaputra , Narmada and
the Cauvery since then. Sticking to a five-year tenure now means that one has
to do with a government even if it is out of tune with the aspirations of the
people, out of sync with what they want, does not reflect their needs and no
longer represents their collective will.
Had the elections of Karnataka
been held a year back in May 2012, I don't think the results would have been
any different. Yeddyurappa had made a mess of it much earlier. The Congress
would still have won. Similarly, had the elections of Gujarat
been held in December 2011, the results could have been similar. The Congress
stood no chance there with a defeatist attitude and no alternative economic and
social policy. If Lok Sabha elections are held now, in May 2013, we would
actually see a government which represents the people truly, a government in
tune with the aspirations of the people. The discredited would go out and those
in tune with the aspirations of the people would get in. Whoever it is, it
would be truly representative.
United Progressive Alliance,
which is more or less only Congress as of now with most of the allies deserting
it, lost the mandate of the people much earlier and not when it entered the
fifth year. It frittered the mandate given in 2009. With one scam or the other
rocking it every week and month, it no longer represents the aspirations of the
people and their collective desire. But the people will have to do with it for
five years as that is what the Constitution mandates.
Several State governments lose
their steam sooner than the five years for which the voters elected them. They
lose their relevance and carry on for the full term as the Constitution
mandates even though they become irrelevant and lose focus much earlier.
Nothing could be a better example than the Manmohan Singh-led government.
It was time the political parties
built a consensus and changed the tenure of the State as well as the central
governments for four years instead of the five at present. When a generation
changes in ten years, the thought process and aspirations change much more
frequently, it would be anachronistic to keep the tenure of the governments at
five years.
Moreover, it would benefit all
the parties and keep them on their toes and prod them to be pro public and
motivate them to keep the aspirations of the people in mind all this while. The
debate has to begin now. (May 13, 2013)
No comments:
Post a Comment