More than a numbers game

The polling is over. The pundits have spoken. The pollsters are hushed. Now comes the reckoning. But even while awaiting the people’s v...

The polling is over. The pundits have spoken. The pollsters are hushed. Now comes the reckoning. But even while awaiting the people’s verdict, the question being posed is what President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam must do should no one party or formation emerge with a clear majority. The magic figure of 272 has been underlined for days as though that is the touchstone by which all else must be judged. We have heard this refrain before. It spells mischief, not wisdom.

The figure 272 represents an arithmetic majority of one over the full strength of the Lok Sabha, which has 543 members. This is not an unimportant figure, though not necessarily relevant. There have not been too many occasions — maybe, not even a single day — over the past five decades of independent India’s parliamentary history when the full strength of the House has been present. A packed House, yes; an absolutely full House, very doubtful. In practical terms, therefore, ‘‘272’’ may be something of a chimera, the pursuit of which for its own sake could be a trap.

In fact, minority governments are not unknown to India. Indira Gandhi’s government after the Congress split in 1969 was in a minority but mustered issue-based support from varied quarters, mostly the Left, from time to time. Likewise, Narasimha Rao’s government in 1991 did not gain a majority for quite some time but nevertheless was able to initiate what was for India a radical economic reform process.

Story continues below this ad

The Constitution does not demand that a government command a majority of the full strength of the House but merely that it enjoy its confidence. The Council of Ministers is ‘‘collectively responsible’’ to the (Lower) House (Article 74); and ‘‘all questions in any sitting… shall be determined by a majority of votes of members present and voting other than the Speaker or the person acting as Chairman’’ (Article 100). This is subject to the quorum, which is a tenth of the total membership of the House. It is only constitutional amendments that require a majority of the total membership of the House as well as a majority of not less than two-thirds of those present and voting (Article 368).

This distinction is especially important at the time of government formation or after the fall of a government mid-term. Obstinate insistence on proof of support of a majority of the total membership of the Lok Sabha or a State Assembly can pervert the democratic process and in fact has done so on previous occasions. It encourages horse trading, the purchase of miscellaneous support from unattached members and footloose factions, and political blackmail to make up or derogate from ‘‘272’’. It is perfectly legitimate for coalition partners to insist on acceptance of certain programmatic or ideological formulations as a condition for their support. But all too often, one has seen the bargain turn on no more than what and how much Party X or Leader Y can extract in terms of power and pelf.

Already, on May 10, on the conclusion of the last round of polling, it was reported that Mulayam Singh Yadav had declared that he was graciously willing to lend his support in government formation, but only as prime minister or at least as a deputy prime minister, thank you very much. On an earlier occasion, Mamata Banerjee was willing to buttress the NDA at a point well into its tenure, provided she was made railway minister so that every new train might run through Sealdah! The JMM, among others, has traded its votes. Still earlier there have been distressing, even ugly, scenes at the Centre and in many states with party leaders running to the President or Governors with ‘‘lists’’ claiming an overall legislative majority. Therefore, any notion that the President constitutionally, ‘‘legitimately’’ and ‘‘democratically’’ must first call on that leader who can scramble together such a list of ‘‘272’’ can set off an unholy race to muster numbers in complete disregard for the democratic process.

Hence the importance of de-legitimising ‘‘272’’ as a constitutional necessity or a hallowed mantra, which it is not. The President should not be stampeded into following false precedents. He should hear out all party leaders and then form his own judgement with regard to which party or coalition should given a mandate to form a government that may command the confidence of the House. Majorities must be tested on the floor of the House, not in Rashrapati Bhavan or in Raj Bhavans.

Story continues below this ad

The argument that coalition politics has somehow changed the basic rules of the game does not hold water. It is in the larger interest of the country that all major and responsible parties eschew the ‘‘272’’ gambit even as they negotiate support in the event of a hung Parliament. Dirty tricks are not confined to any one side and all parties have by now had the sorry experience of being brought down by similar tactics. Crying foul at that stage has found few takers.

This could be a time for all parties, backed by a strong public opinion, to make a real effort to rebuild lost values. Punditry too should be put to better purpose rather than demonstrate or extol political chicanery.