Behind the mess in Jharkhand

Then, the UPA took office despite having only 33 seats (against the NDA's 36) in the 81-member Assembly. This was widely seen abuse of the Governor's powers. The UPA was badly mauled by the fiasco.

Actually, neither alliance won the election. In fact, the NDA's vote declined from 36.8 percent last year to just 27.4 percent -- fully 10 percentage points lower than the Congress-Jharkhand Mukti Morcha-RJDS-Left's total (37.6 percent).

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Despite this, the NDA staked its claim -- because it was confident of inducing defections, buying MLAs, and spiriting them away.

Such tactics are hardly democratic. But rather than let the NDA discredit itself, the UPA began competing with it. Sections of the media, sympathetic to the BJP or manipulated by it, helped the NDA's image-building.

In reality, there were no heroes in Jharkhand. Everyone played a questionable role, exposing weaknesses in institutional arrangements.

One villain was Governor Syed Sibtey Razi. For mysterious reasons, he favoured Mr Shibu Soren over Mr Arjun Munda. He could have credibly argued that discretionary power is available to him under the Constitution but backed his judgement with evidence. He didn't, and granted a long interval to Mr Soren to prove his majority.

Meanwhile, caretaker Chief Minister Munda bribed and rounded up MLAs like Enos Ekka, Harinarayan Rai and Madhu Kora. Senior BJP leaders Ravishankar Prasad and Rajnath Singh "managed" them.

Thus began the 41 MLAs' odyssey-under-duress to West Bengal, Orissa, Delhi and Jaipur. No MLA was allowed to use the telephone, or even to go to the toilet on his own. Such was their "free choice"!

Clearly, the NDA beat the UPA at a well-planned, elaborate, multi-state operation involving backroom manoeuvres, kidnapping, and force. This was a grotesque parody of democracy.

Democracy isn't just about winning elections or mustering majorities. It's also about accountable political parties, which respect their members' choices of candidates, honour the popular mandate, and follow conventions of decency -- for example, of not conjuring artificial majorities through bribery.

What happened in Jharkhand was not democratic. Going by the Westminster convention -- that a ruling party which loses elections should not be the first to be invited to form the government even in a hung Parliament -- Mr Munda shouldn't have staked his claim. But horse-trading was allowed to catapult him into power.

Pro tem Speaker Pradeep Balmuchu didn't honestly implement the Supreme Court's directive. He used disorder as an excuse to adjourn the Assembly.

Mercifully, the Centre, at last, asked Mr Soren to resign. But it must take some responsibility for going along with the Governor's decision to swear-in Mr Soren.

No less unheroic was the BJP. It paranoically evoked the Emergency, but indulged in horse-trading and coercion while claiming democratic virtue.

Neither the BJP-Jana Sangh nor NDA has been better than the Congress as regards abusing the Governor's office. Mr Sunder Singh Bhandari wanted Ms Rabri Devi dismissed in Bihar in 1999 on bogus grounds. He was overruled by President Narayanan. In 2000, Governor Vinod Pandey swore in Mr Nitish Kumar who patently lacked majority support and quit.

The Jana Sangh led the campaign in 1977 to dismiss all Congress-ruled state governments.

For the BJP, democracy and the Constitution are mere instruments. It wanted to alter the core of the Constitution by ushering in a highly centralised presidential system.

The worst aspect of Jharkhand is the role of the President and the Supreme Court. Under the Constitution, the President has no function in appointing Chief Ministers. The Governor alone matters.

Yet, President Kalam repeatedly received BJP delegations. He asked Mr Razi to advance the floor-test. This was beyond his authority. His office didn't once counter the false report that he received the NDA's 41 MLAs.

No less unfortunate were the Supreme Court's pronouncements. While hearing Mr Munda's petition, it said: "If [his] averments ... are correct, then the action of the Governor ... is a fraud on the Constitution." The "if" is all-important. The Court shouldn't have made this indictment without determining on merits that the allegations were indeed true.

Worse, the Court intruded into the Assembly's domain. It ordered a confidence vote on March 11, dictated the agenda, and said the proceedings must be videographed and the results "announced by the pro tem Speaker faithfully and truthfully."

First, this seriously interferes with the autonomy of legislatures. Articles 122 and 212 are explicit: courts have no jurisdiction over legislature proceedings.

Article 212 reads: "(1) The validity of any proceedings in the legislature of a state shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. (2) No officer or member or the Legislature [empowered to regulate procedure] "

shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers..."

Second, the Court prejudges the Governor's and the pro tem Speaker's guilt. And third, it imposed the Speaker's function on the latter, although he has just one task: electing the Speaker.

This blurs demarcations between executive, judiciary and legislature. Separation of powers is a pillar of India's democracy.

Countless Governors have failed democracy by dismissing governments -- more than 100 times so far. We must expect more balance, moderation and wisdom from the highest judiciary. At stake is India's Constitutional democracy.

We must have a clear, unambiguous resolution of the issues raised by the Court's intervention. This won't precipitate a "confrontation" with the judiciary. On the contrary, a Presidential reference will clarify matters and help ensure that the BJP-NDA cannot exploit the Court's pronouncements as licence for its irresponsible politics.

Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.