Shouldn’t the Chief Ministers in India be elected directly through a popular vote like the state governors in the United States? The time has come to seriously think about such a proposition, which of course will need a constitutional amendment.
After the delay in the appointment of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and the difficulty the Congress is facing in finalising its Chief Minister in Kerala, it is obvious that the Chief Minister may not necessarily be the same person people have actually voted for.
Take for example the case of Tamil Nadu. Actor Vijay was indeed and undoubtedly the choice of an overwhelming majority of people to be the Chief Minister. In the “first past the post” system, he was much ahead of his rivals; the DMK and the AIADMK-led alliances. The combined votes that were cast against him are no doubt more than the number of votes he got. In the current electoral system, he was the obvious choice of the people.
Vijay’s party TVK emerged as the single largest party with 108 assembly seats. It was 10 short of the 118 ‘simple majority’ mark. Tamil Nadu Governor RV Arlekar did not invite him to form the government. He declined Vijay’s repeated stakes to form the government until he did not provide proof of support of 118 MLAs. When he got the support, the Governor took no time in inviting him to take the oath as the Chief Minister.
The Governor was absolutely right in not accepting Vijay’s stake with 113 members. While some of the DMK and AIADMK allies and members have now extended support to Vijay, earlier both the alliances were intact. The two arch-rivals had also started negotiations for forming the government. Whether that would have been “morally” right or not is a separate story. Had they come together with more than 118 members, no one could have denied them the right to form the government.
It was this situation that Governor Arlekar obviously wanted to avoid. He has suffered a lot of unjustified criticism that he was deliberately delaying and denying Vijay his Chief Ministerial position. Moreover, it is not for the first time that the single largest party in the assembly was not invited to form the government.
There is no constitutional provision for the single largest party to be invited to form the government. The constitution is absolutely clear that only the leader who enjoys the confidence of the house, which obviously means enjoys the support of the majority of the members of the house, shall be invited to form the government.
After the Governor’s stand, which was absolutely constitutionally and legally justified, there have been demands for the “abolition of the Governor’s post”, which is derogatively termed as “colonial legacy”.
Also read: CMs losing their home turf: Not a first
Even the Sarkaria Commission did not recommend abolition of the Governor’s post, but suggested certain reforms about their appointment and functioning. The Governor indeed has an important role in a federal structure and more so in a country with a lot of diversity.
While in the case of Tamil Nadu, the delay in appointing the Chief Minister was attributed to the Governor, in Kerala, the winning UDF alliance has not been able to choose its Chief Ministerial candidate for other reasons.
The Congress being the dominant party in the ruling alliance will fill the Chief Minister’s post. Even after eight days of the declaration of the results, the party has not been able to finalise the candidate fearing rebellion and dissension.
Here, the delay has not been caused by any outside force. It is the internal contradiction and compulsions of the party.
The best way to avoid situations like in Tamil Nadu and Kerala is to have a direct election for Chief Ministers in all the states. A model can be worked out, under which the Chief Minister can be elected directly and the members of the state assemblies will be elected separately. The powers of the Chief Minister can be spelt out and properly defined. There can be proper division of power between the assembly and the Chief Minister.
This way the people will have clarity about who they are voting for to become the Chief Minister. It will also reduce dependence on national leadership of various political parties. It will also encourage and help in building up regional leadership.
There can be another option as well. In case the country is not prepared for holding direct elections for the Chief Ministers, at least the political parties can be made to announce and commit about their Chief Ministerial candidates ahead of the elections. Even when people will be voting indirectly through the MLAs, they can still have clarity as to who they are voting for to be their Chief Minister.
Under the current system, in the case of national parties, it is the sole discretion of the “national leadership”, which may be a “single person” or group of people who decide the fate of a particular state. Otherwise, constitutionally, it is the elected MLAs who are authorised to choose their leader, who will be appointed the Chief Minister.
Under the existing system, the elected MLAs pass a “one-line unanimous resolution authorising the high command” to nominate the Chief Minister. This is totally unconstitutional as it gives complete authority to a single leader to decide the fate of a state, in most cases, without bothering about the popular choice.
This must end.
Follow us
