For Whom Do MPs Speak?

An editorial in the CPI-M's official party journal said: "It is for theCongress leadership to decide whether it wants to be seen as kowtowing to thepressures of the Bush administration or acting democratically and heeding thevoice of Parliament and the people." Heeding the voice of Parliament is allright. But of the people? The N-deal never figured in the last poll campaign.How do we know what people think of it? It is possible they might oppose it. Butdoes that not need to be tested?

Forget the N-deal. A much larger question needs consideration: how far really isthe will of Parliament indicative of popular opinion on any issue? Merelybecause MPs are elected by people, it is facile to conclude that the majorityview in Parliament represents the majority view of the public. This conclusionis facile because our Constitution is subverted, our political system isdebased, and our electoral system is perverted. The lofty principles ofdemocratic representation crumble in the dust of ground realities. Ourhonourable MPs rarely speak for the people. They speak for themselves, for theirnarrow partisan interests.

No national leader has emerged who did not participate in the freedom struggle.People’s sentimental attachments to freedom struggle personalities enabledpolitical dynasties to flourish. No national leader has emerged inpost-Independence India because the last national issue that engaged the publicmind was our freedom struggle. Leaders who participated in that struggleobtained national relevance. True, the opposition to the Emergency did become anational issue. But the Emergency was provoked by an official miscalculation. Itwas led by events, not consciously planned by political leaders.

Are there really no national issues debated and decided upon by the nation? Oris our electoral system perverted? Consider the issue of OBC job reservation. Itis perceived by both media and politicians as a powerful election issue. Infact, this issue, as declared election policy, has never delivered results. WhenVP Singh first took it up in the UP Assembly poll after demitting office as PM,he, in partnership with Laloo Yadav, was trounced by the Mulayam Singh-KanshiRam combine. The latter never made OBC reservation an election issue. The formerdid. Mulayam Singh and Kanshi Ram simply got their respective Yadav and Dalitvote banks together to win handsomely. That is what politicians have been doingwithout fanfare since the days of Pandit Nehru.

Local ground realities that dictate caste alignments are wholly different fromcaste based reservation as national policy over which media pundits swoon withemotion. If Mulayam Singh indeed signifies OBC reservation as his policy, whyhave the Kurmis and the Lodhs not joined up with him, creating instead their ownparties? Why do the Vannyars of the PMK heed Ramdoss and not blindly followKarunanidhi, who fancies himself as the champion of OBC interests? The truth isthat caste based reservation as principled national policy was propagated onlyby Lohia, VP Singh and, briefly, by Charan Singh. Lohia was never properlytested on this policy. Both VP Singh and Charan Singh failed miserably afterthey officially adopted it as election agenda.

Elections here are in fact fought solely on local issues, in 543 constituencies.No aggregate of local issues can be magically transformed into a mandate for anynational agenda. The majority view of MPs therefore does not necessarilyrepresent the majority of the electorate, since national issues have neverfigured as such in a general election. The thirty or forty odd politial partiesthat enter Parliament do observe the ritual of preparing their electionmanifestos. Do their supporters really read them? That is why, over the years,elections have degenerated into tribal battles fought on caste and communalloyalties. This is the ground reality. It could be dangerous to continueignoring it.

The electorate should not be blamed for getting divided into caste and communalgroups. Indeed, the Indian people deserve praise for displaying a dogged faithin democracy: they continue to vote in elections despite the political betrayalthey repeatedly suffer. Politicians are a class that seeks power any which way.With local issues dominating over national issues in the polls, politicians areled inevitably into whipping up sentiments related to local identity. Theseoffer the surest and swiftest way of garnering support. That is why frustratedaspirants for power in fringe societies slip into separatist movements based onethnicity or religion. That is why even mainstream regions like Maharashtra arethrowing up politicians fanning separatism for quick poll dividends.

National leaders could stop the rot. But where are national leaders? Are thereany left in India? How might they be created? In this, we could take a leaf fromAmerica. The US electoral system itself ensures that by the time a party choosesits Presidential candidate he or she becomes a national icon to be studied undera national scanner: to win nomination an aspirant must campaign across thenation and give his views on national issues. This process identifies nationalissues and creates national leaders. Who had heard of Arkansas Governor BillClinton before he got the Democratic nomination? Who had heard of Barak Obamabefore he became aspirant for the Democratic nomination? Today, all America --indeed the world -- is aware of Obama and deliberates on his enunciatedpolicies.

India needs to reappraise its political system. The main executive needs todirectly approach the electorate with his agenda and obtain a direct mandatefrom the public. That will concretize accountability. It will identify nationalpolicies. It will deliver a national mandate.

If the Constitution is interpreted as originally written, our political systemwould become Presidential without constitutional change. As suggested earlier inthese columns, the only amendment required to accomplish this would be to makethe election of the President, Parliament, and all the assemblies concurrent.And also give them fixed simultaneous terms. Such an electoral change would notin any way alter the basic structure of the Constitution. Newly elected MPs andMLAs would elect the new President. That would give the President a popularmandate as in a direct election.

Whether this or any other amendment to the present system is adopted, one thingis clear: the present system is neither democratic, nor does it deliver.