DEFECTIONS

AND PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY

M. C. CHAGLA

Former Union Minister

All of us who are interested in parliamentary democracy must give serious consideration to what is happening in the country today. I will confine here myself to one most important aspect of this problem, that is defection. Again the matter of conscience and issuing whips or the presidential form of government is also connected with this aspect. In my view this is a very serious, important and vital question, a question which affects the working of democracy and of parliamentary institutions.

I have looked into the recent Report on Defections which is signed by some very distinguished people, but I must confess that it strikes me as being extremely sketchy and scrappy. I am surprised that people of such distinction should not have given a little more thought to such an important subject and should not have suggested proper remedies for putting an end to defections.

France is an illustration which our country should always bear in mind. In France Ministries used to fall every six months and eight months. It was supposed to be a Ministry of very great stability if it lasted ten months or twelve months–which was hardly ever the case. Why was that? Because there were no fixed parties, because there were constant fluctuations in Parliament, because people did not adhere to any convictions or any principles. The result of that was that a dictator appeared on the scene, and the dictator was General de Gaulle who practically put an end to the old system and introduced a system where there was stability in the country.

In my opinion, crossing the floor may be the result of one or the other thing, and we must judge it accordingly. It may be the result of a change of conviction, or it may be the result of some temptation or some bribe given. If it is a change of conviction, we must consider whether crossing the floor should be allowed. If it is the result of a bribe offered or some temptation offered or some reward offered, we must consider how that should be put down.

Matter of Conscience

In my opinion, we cannot prevent people from voting against their party. If it is a matter of conscience, they will vote against their party, and they should not be prevented except in extreme cases, to which I shall presently refer. I agree that for the working of parliamentary institutions we do need parties which are more or less stable. I do not agree with the observations in this Report that there will be freezing of parties if crossing of the floor is not permitted. The so-called crossing of the floor or change of conviction should normally take place at the General Elections. It is at the General Elections that the electorate decides who should be its representative. And once these representatives are sent to Parliament and to the legislatures, by and large, there should be stability in the formation of parties or groups of the Opposition. This constant change is not desirable from the point of view of parliamentary institutions. Therefore it is incorrect to say that we will freeze the situation if we try and prevent people from crossing the floor. There is always the General Election. There is always the electorate. Let the electorate decide. But once it has decided, normally it is the duty of the member to respect the wishes of the electorate and to remain in the party to which he has been elected.

Issuing Whips

I think the members of the Congress Party–of other parties as well,–are much too strict in issuing whips. On every subject a whip is issued, thereby testing the loyalty of the member and compelling him to vote with the party, whether he believes in the particular matter which is before the House or not. I think whip should be issued very rarely, and a party should not look upon a defeat in the House necessarily as a vote of no confidence. Now, take the United States–you have the Senate; you have the House of Representatives–where the parties are perhaps not so strong as they are here or in the U.K., but nobody minds if the President is a Republican and the Democrats carry a particular measure or pass a particular resolution. Therefore, parties should not look upon every topic that comes before Parliament as something that involves a vote of confidence. It is only in matters of policy, in matters of grave importance, in matters of national emergency that a whip should be issued, the matter being looked upon as a vote of no confidence.

And even there we should permit our members if they say it is a matter of conscience to vote against us or at least abstain. We know it is the usual Practice. Take the Labour Party; a member says: I do not agree with the policy. Serious attention might be taken if he votes against the party but he is permitted to abstain if he says it is a matter of conscience. Therefore we should not be in a hurry to take disciplinary action against members of the party because as a matter of conscience they do not see eye to eye with the party and they abstain or do not vote for the party.

The other remedy suggested by this Report is that the Council of Ministers should not be as large as it is today either at the Centre or in the States. Now, I am not one of those who believe that we should have a proportion fixed with regard to the Council of Ministers. To me it seems all absurd proposal that we must have 5 per cent or 10 per cent or 15 per cent of the members of the legislature constituting the Council of Ministers.

There is no principle behind it at all. We appoint the Council of Mnisters to do work. We must decide what the work is. We must decide how many Ministers we want, among whom the work should be distributed. We must decide how the work will be done efficiently. But why is it that we have such large Council of Ministers? Because nobody is thinking of work. Nobody is thinking of administration. What we are thinking all the time is how to retain certain groups and factions and each group and faction has to be represented in the ministry. That is the curse of our country today. What happened in Bihar? For one month we had Ministers without portfolios, who were drawing salaries out of the public revenue without doing a stroke of work. I have never known in the history of the world In any country where we have parliamentary institutions such a thing happening. It happens in our country and what do we do. Nothing, but shrug our shoulders. Therefore the first principle that we should lay down is that the Council of Ministers should not be large either but its number should depend upon the extent of the work, the nature of the work, the quality of the work and the ability of the Minister who is going to do the work. But no, that is not the principle. The first thing we do is, we say this group has to be represented, this caste has to be represented, this community has to be represented. Is this democracy? Is this parliamentary institution?

The other thing I would say is this. I quite agree with the Report that crossing the floor should not entail disqualification. I see a suggestion was made that if a member leaves the party on the ticket of which he had been elected he should be disqualified. I think it is an impossible suggestion. We might amend the Constitution but it would not be right. But what can be done? It is strong public opinion which should condemn the action of a member who crosses the floor not out of conviction but because he has been offered a ministership or offered some bribe or some reward.

Recalling

I am very much interested in the suggestion made about re-call. It is a highly democratic process. It may be difficult to work it but this Committee should have given some thought to it. Suppose a man is elected on the Congress ticket. The electorate had selected him because they wanted a Congressman. If he crosses the floor and joins the Communist Party or the Jana Sangh or the Swatantra Party, why should not the electorate be given the right to say, ‘We do not want this man; we want a Congressman’ or they might say, ‘Now, our views are changed; we want our representative to be Jana Sangh or Swatantra or Communists.’ Therefore I think this suggestion of recall is a suggestion which should be carefully considered. I know it is difficult: I know it might be expensive but it is democratic, and it is one of the ways of preventing defections which is what we need most.

I do want to emphasize the fact that defections may ultimately lead to the complete breakdown of parliamentary institutions. If we do not have stability of Government, how can democracy function? I know of many States where the Ministers have no time to attend to administration. Files are piling up all the time while they are busy playing politics. Let us ask ourselves this question–what does the average citizen in our country want? He wants an honest, clean administration. He is not interested in politics; he is not interested in parties. He wants, as I said, honest, clean administration. For heaven’s sake, give it to him. But no; the Ministers have no time for it. There are other things to do besides attending to administration. Therefore unless we stop this crazy game, this foolish game, this mad game of having Ministries every six months or eight months, of members crossing the floor, of defections, I think parliamentary institutions will not be able to function in this country.

Presidential Government

I have often suggested–and I know I have been criticized and condemned for it–that we must give serious thought to the question whether at least in the States we should have a presidential form of Government. The presidential form of Government is as democratic as the parliamentary form of Government. The advantage is that for five years, the President will not be constitutional President but he will be the same as the Chief Minister. The President will have his colleagues who will not be removed, who cannot be removed, and who will attend to administration during those five years. They will not have to be looking behind their back all the time to see whether there is a faction or a group supporting them. For five years we will have strong, clean administration. After all, the parliamentary form of Government is the most difficult form of Government to work. We need certain requisites. We need a strong party in Government. We need a strong alternative opposition to take over from the ruling party. England has it; some other countries have it. France tried it and failed. As I said, there is nothing wrong in considering whether the alternative of presidential system is not an improvement as far as our conditions are concerned, compared to the parliamentary form of Government. I myself think that the parliamentary form of Government is the best form and we rightly selected it, but having selected it we must work it efficiently. We must not allow this terrible corruption, this erosive factor which is eating into the vitals of our country to permit parliamentary democracy to break-down.

Back