Code of democracy

India's experience is that democracy works, not the code. Crime, corruption, and callousness may make the country look anarchical. But institutions invariably rise to the occasion. The strength is the sturdiness of the constitution, law courts, the Election Commission, and such other institutions. They function so fiercely independent that the will of the people comes to prevail.

The craze for power by parties and the one-point programme to retain it by hook or by crook have told upon the institutions in India over the years. Even the governance has come to be tainted. Still when the chips are down the democratic values have been found asserting themselves. Public and press opinion have chipped in.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

That examples like Goa take place is unfortunate. The Congress cut a sorry figure in the state where the governor, a former Congress chief minister of Nagaland, dismissed the elected government of the BJP. No doubt, it was an unstable government with a majority of two members. But the governor went to the extent of not only sacking the BJP chief minister but installing one from the Congress who has all the time to prove his majority when he likes.

This was a murder of democracy. However, the wave of shock that has spread throughout the country has made the Congress look sheepish. It may not have admitted its mistake. But it is trying its best to meet the criticism as far as possible. So long as institutions are healthy, things can be retrieved. A judicial review by the Supreme Court, which it introduced on its own some 10, 12 years ago, has lessened the governor's whimsical interference in states.

In fact, the governor has emerged as an arbiter to decide on who will head the government in a state. This is a great responsibility, requiring objectivity and a sense of fair play. Take elections in the three states -- Bihar, Jharkhand, and Haryana. The governor had no problem in Haryana. The majority party, the Congress, had two-thirds strength and formed the government. It is another matter that the party did not allow its legislators to register their choice freely. Once again, the Congress president was asked to nominate the leader. This meant that the members fell in line with the choice of the high command, not their own. This was unfortunate but it related to internal democracy which, in any case, was absent not only in the Congress but other political parties as well.

This very high command made a mess in Bihar when it supported the two rivals -- Laloo Prasad Yadva and Ram Vilas Paswan -- at the same time during elections. In this way, the Congress divided the Muslim vote. Otherwise, it was not possible for the BJP to have the best showing in eastern Bihar where the Muslims

dominated. In truth, the Congress wanted to cut Laloo and Paswan down to size and it expected to recreate a base of its own in the state but in the process, it frittered away the advantage the secular forces had. The party itself also suffered and won some 10 out of 243 seats.

My worry is that if the Congress does not realise its folly, it may commit the same mistake in UP where the Congress has lost its base. The BJP, far from recovered from the blows it received during the Lok

Sabha elections, got a negative advantage in Bihar. It would be worse in UP if secular forces did not unite if and when the state poll took place. The Congress' inscrutable moves can help the BJP recover. The larger question that secular forces must face is how to fight against communal elements unitedly and concertedly. But this consideration, as the recent polls show, has been pushed into background. However, secularism should not be used to cover up crime or corruption. That Laloo has done little for the state in terms of development is nothing new. Nor are his corrupt ways. Still

the Congress that has accommodated him as the Railway Minister at the Centre should have handled him differently. Instead of allowing him to allot the number of seats to his allies, the Congress and the Left should have asserted themselves to get a better deal. At least they should have put their foot down on the candidature of criminals. He could not have gone it alone.

Maybe, Paswan would have been a better bet from the very beginning. He has emerged taller. But his strategy could have been different. He should have said "nothing doing with Laloo," without dissociating himself from the party, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD). It is like throwing the baby out with the bathtub. Paswan's proposal to have a Muslim chief minister is understandable because he has announced the constitution of an all-India Muslim-Dalit front. If he is successful in doing so, he may as well change the entire India's political scene. But Paswan's choice for a Muslim chief minister looks more of a tactic. He should have made this announcement before election. His intimation to the state governor not to support the RJD complicated things unnecessarily.

Former Home Minister Buta Singh, the Bihar governor, again the Congress nominee, did not have much of an option because Paswan held the key. His 30 members could give a majority either to the Laloo-Congress combination or to the BJP-led alliance. However, the governor's role in Jharkhand is reprehensible. He should have invited the BJP-led alliance which was the largest group even though three or four members short of majority. But inviting the other combination that includes the Congress was patently wrong. Such situations, as the Supreme Court judgments have said, have to be sorted out on the floor of the house. Obviously, the governor wanted to placate the Congress-led Centre.

India has to come out with some solution to ensure that governor's discretion is not according to the telephone calls from New Delhi. Such instances of bias have come to notice in the last few years. Goa is only the recent example. The code of democracy may not be necessary but it is essential that governors follow certain norms. The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations has listed some. But no government at New Delhi has implemented them. Governors continue to take the cue from the Centre, whichever government in power. The nation should not expect anything better if politicians continued to be appointed as governors.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.