Another election debate

M.S. Gill's suggestion that the Constitution be amended to provide for the imposition of President's rule once Assembly elections in the States are announced, evokes protests from political parties.

V.VENKATESAN
in New Delhi

MORE than two months ahead of the Assembly elections in three States and Delhi scheduled for November, a controversy has arisen over Chief Election Commissioner Dr. M.S. Gill's suggestion that Article 356 of the Constitution be amended to provide for the imposition of President's rule in those States where Assembly elections are announced.

Gill said that in presenting his view his intention was to initiate a debate on the issue in the interest of ensuring that elections to State Assemblies were free and fair. A constitutional amendment on the lines he had suggested would make the Election Commission's task easier, he added. He said that it was his wish that the Chief Ministers of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Mizoram and Delhi, which would go to the polls in November, would step down from office voluntarily and set a healthy precedent. (Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram have Congress(I) governments; Rajasthan and Delhi have Bharatiya Janata Party governments.)

Explaining the rationale for his suggestion, Gill told Frontline that at various times and in virtually every State Opposition parties had alleged that the ruling party had misused the official machinery for electoral gain (see interview). A level playing-field could be created if "the Governor takes over," he said. Under the "close watch of the Commission," the Governor would be able to ensure free and fair elections, he said. President's rule, he added, "would be far better and neutral than any ... political government..."

Election Commissioner G.V.G. Krishnamurthy defended the proposal and also Gill's right to air his opinion on the subject. He cited the example of Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Greece, where he claimed neutral administrations under non-political persons had assumed office after elections were announced.

Gill, however, conceded that he did not expect the four Chief Ministers to act on his suggestion and resign. "I can see now that they are certainly not likely to do it," he told Frontline. However, he said, his "dramatising" the matter had had the effect of focussing national attention on an important constitutional issue.

Gill's supporters argue that by relinquishing office at the very end of the term of the Assembly, ruling parties could escape the "disadvantages of incumbency". In addition, say his supporters, Chief Ministers and Ministers would have more time for their campaign if they were free from the responsibilities of governance during the campaign period.

GILL'S proposal, however, evoked sharp responses from all national political parties. BJP spokesperson K.L. Sharma said that the suggestion was impractical. Rather than making off-the-cuff remarks, the CEC, he said, should convene an all-party meeting to discuss the issue of electoral reforms. Congress(I) spokesperson Ajit Jogi said that the CEC's proposal, if implemented, would alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

SANDEEP SAXENA
M.S. Gill.

Communist Party of India national secretary D. Raja said that he appreciated the intention behind the CEC's proposal insofar as it was aimed to ensure the neutrality of the administration during the polls. However, he felt that the presumption that President's rule would ensure free and fair polls was ill-founded. Governors, he said, generally tended to toe the line of the party that ruled at the Centre. Raja urged the Commission and the Government to introduce comprehensive electoral reforms rather than suggest piecemeal changes. "The CEC's proposal needs to be discussed and considered before a decision is taken," he said.

Prakash Karat, member of the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), said that he did not find the CEC's proposal realistic. Ensuring free and fair elections was a matter of genuine concern, he conceded, but the solution, in his view, did not lie in asking a popularly elected government to leave office at the time of elections. Besides, he warned, the imposition of President's rule was no guarantee of a neutral administration. Only the implementation of a comprehensive package of electoral reforms could guarantee it, he said.

Karat also disagreed with the view that if the appointment of Governors was broad-based on the lines of the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner, it could ensure that impartial persons were appointed to gubernatorial positions. "Does the CEC suggest that only bureaucrats can become Governors, and no political person can be appointed?" he asked.

IN addition to his controversial suggestion in respect of Assembly elections, Gill said that he had "a solution" to the problem of ensuring the neutrality of State administrations during Lok Sabha elections. Intriguingly, however, he has not said what the solution is; he has only said that he will reveal it "at the appropriate time".

Gill said that he supported Vice-President Krishan Kant's view favouring an electoral system similar to that in France, which provided for a two-phase election, with a run-off election between the top two candidates at the end of the first round. According to Gill, it would not be expensive and would additionally ensure that all parties, be they national or regional, reach out to a larger India, so as to secure the required 51 per cent of votes in every constituency. Parties' ideological platforms would have to be restructured, and Parliament would become truly representative of national priorities, Gill said. There would in addition be fewer hung Parliaments, he said.

In the light of allegations from some States of corrupt practices during the recent Rajya Sabha elections, the CEC said that the process of elections to the Upper House had to be reformed by providing for an "open vote". He regretted that the Government was considering a proposal to lower the minimum age for contesting elections to Assemblies and the Lok Sabha from 25 to 21 years, and to Legislative Councils and the Rajya Sabha from 30 to 25 years. The Commission favoured the retention of the present age-limits.

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar