GOVERNMENT IN LIMBO

 

50. GOVERNMENT IN LIMBO

England was shaken and shattered by the demise of Queen Victoria. Winston Churchill, who was a young man then, asked Sir William Hardcourt in sorrow: ‘What will happen now?’ Sir William said with a smile: ‘Since I am worldly wise I am telling you, nothing will happen. ’

For the first time in its democratic history when none got majority in the elections, the people of India asked themselves, ‘What will happen now?’Many felt that a minority government was a political absurdity destined to run on stilted legs.

The general assessment was that a coalition government was something like a tattered and patched up coat.

And like the chorus in a Greek drama the people asked in unison ‘What will happen now?’

We understood that what Sri William said was right. Nothing happened. Narasimha Rao became Prime Minister. People understood that a Thrishanku parliament, or a hung parliament, also was a parliament. The only thing is that a hung Prime Minister is to behave like the African King.

Once upon a time there was a King in Africa who had three wives. One was one-eyed. Another had a single leg and the third was one-armed. But the King’s family life was by and large long and joyous. Democratic countries in the world have proved many a time that a competent premier can lead the nation and the government by accepting the logic of liking what one gets if one does not get what one likes.

                                                    

European nations like Germany, France, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland, Poland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Austria, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Ireland had for a long time brought to power minority governments or coalition governments. In the mid eighties in Europe it ws only in Greece and Spain that single party governments ruled.

India having adopted the Westminster form of parliamentary democracy always turns to Britain in search of a model. Britain also has a history of minority governments and coalition governments succeeding in varying measures. In the 20^th century Britain had as many as 22 general elections. In five of them no party could get clear majority. Once a government that came to power with a slender majority soon was reduced to a minority government. Thus Britain was ruled by minority governments six times. Apart from this Britain had also occasion to have coalition governments four times.

Hence when minority or coalition governments become inevitable, they need not be seen as indicative of instability or a constitutional crisis. As constitutional expert Walter Bagehot has said a new constitution may not be fully effective in the hands of people brought up under an old constitution. The touchstone of its success depends on people and statesmen who do not have the hang up of the old constitution.

Just because the framers of our constitution could not envisage a hung parliament, it did not mean that a hung parliament by itself carried within it a constitutional crisis. There would be no difficulty to come to terms with a minority rule if a new perspective and new work culture emerged. We have seen this many a time in India.

Different nations have also found out their own solutions to the issue raised by hung parliaments. Sweden has a legislation containing specific directions regarding this. Instrument of Government, 1974. According to this it is the responsibility of the Speaker to suggest an eligible person as Prime Minister. The Speaker will suggest someone for the post of Prime Minister after discussing with different parties in the parliament. Parliament has to approve the name of the Prime Minister designate within four days. The Prime Minister designate will be deemed to have the approval of parliament if not more than fifty per cent of the total membership does not vote against him.

In Denmark and Norway where minority and coalition governments have come to stay, it is an intermediary who suggests the name of the Prime Minister. And the intermediary is chosen by the King. Normally it will be a prominent national leader who is selected as the intermediary. He will hold discussions with different political parties. After making an assessment on who will be capable of forming a stable government, he will suggest the name of an eminently suitable candidate for the Prime Ministership. In Denmark it is the intermediary who decides which all parties will be represented in the cabinet.

Denmark bears testimony to the fact that minority governments can successfully function if you have eminent leaders who can govern in national interest, above party considerations. The Venstre, a liberal party in Denmark, was in power from 1973 to 1978 though it had onbly 22 members in a parliament of 119 members.

West Germany was a nation which historically had strong and stable coalition governments. Before the Germans got unified, West Germany had only coalition governments. It had three major political parties, Social democrats, Christian Democrats and Free Democrats. All these three parties had been part of the government at some time or the other.  Unlike in Denmark or Sweden, the coalitions in Germany are formed before the elections. Before the election itself the coalition would have come to an agreement on most of the issues. The parties would have already discussed and decided as to who the ministers would be And what their portfolios would be.

Most of the coalition governments have been in power for the full term because of the mutual understanding and unanimiy of purpose. There is a very pertinent provision in the German constitution. A parliamentary motion of no confidence alone cannot remover the Prime Minister. It should also stipulate who the next Prime Minister-- Chancellor --would be.

It would not be wrong to say that is a pre-emptive move to stall the tendency to pull down a ministry in a fit of temper.

But the state of affairs in Italy, a neighbouring country, is different. It is a hard task to form a government there with a coalition of small parties. The Prime Minister designate will have to be in the good books of two or three small parties and dissidents of the bigger parties. This is the reason why Italy has the dubious distinction of having the shortest lived governments in Europe.

In Israel which has nine parties, Mapam Party(which later merged into Meretz) and Likud Party separately and jointly had formed governments. They also had the system in which Prime Ministership went by rotation for specified periods. For instance, when Mapam and Likud parties formed government in 1984 it was agreed that the prime ministership would go to Mapam for the first two years and then to Likud.

The last three decades of the 20^th century saw twelve general elections in Canada. Six out of them had hung parliaments. The average life of the minority governments there was two years. Canada is a nation which has proved many times it is not necessary to have majority to form a good government. One can understand how foolish it is to consider coalition governments as synonymous with instability when one sees that during sixteen years out of forty Australia had only coalition governments.

Let us come back to Britain. Britain has had minority, coalition and national governments in turn. David Butler, the constitutional authority, points out in his book ‘Governing Without a Majority’ that in the 20^th century Britain had single party rule only for 48 years.

The most remarkable coalition government in Britain was the national government under Sir Winston Churchill. A J P Taylor had made this assessment of that government which ruled Britain from, 1940 to 1945. The government which Winston Churchill formed on May 10,1940 was not a mere coalition government. It was the only truly national government in British history. This coalition which could act as a strong government during the Second World War could not continue after the war. In the election after the war, Labour Party under Clement Atlee came to power in Britain .

In 1974 Edward Heath and later Harold Wilson headed minority governments. In 1977 the Labour Party chief Callaghan formed the government on the basis of a clear understanding with Liberal Party chief, Steele. According to the Callaghan-Steele agreement the government was bound to discuss policy matters with the Liberal Party. They also formed a six member forum to discuss issues. It goes without saying that this helped a great deal to make exchange of views much easy. When it was necessary to have important policy matters, it was usual to have high level talks at the Callaghan-Stele level.

When you approach the subject of a hung parliament you have to change your preconceived notions about government. This change will be reflected in the context and work culture of the democratic institutions. The concept about the post of the Prime Minister will also undergo basic changes. The Prime Minister in a single party government will be the supreme authority. Sometimes it would go up to the level of the: Prime Minister being infallible. But in a coalition, the Prime Minister cannot assume infallible authority. He can rule only according to the consensus of the coalition parties.

Prime Minister of a minority government cannot take important decisions ignoring the cabinet. The Prime Minister may not be able to exercise his special executive privileges even in deciding as to who the ministers would be, what the port6folios would be and how a re-shuffle should be.

Even the concept of collective responsibility of the cabinet may get watered down. Especially, the coalition ministers may not hesitate to make public details of cabinet discussions to some extent if they feel that certain controversial decisions may adversely affect their image or the image of their party.

The possibility of a hung parliament getting stronger is a good sign. It is easier to force the party’s policies on parliament when it has a brute majority. In a hung parliament, however, one can have a legislation only if there is consensus on all the major issues. Just remember that in 1974-79 the Labour government in Britain had to face defeat in parliament on many issues. David Butler categorically stated that a government that did not have majority would have to yield to the will of parliament as never before.

The problem will get more complicated when the same department has ministers and state ministers belonging to different parties. At least some ministers will hesitate to take responsibility for all the decisions. Specially, one cannot deny the possibility that the democratic convention of ministers taking the responsibility for official acts performed by the bureaucrats may be ignored at least on some occasions. It is possible that departmental politics and search for scapegoats may increase.

Changes in the work culture of the opposition in a hung parliament will become inevitable. The opposition parties who have decided to support the government will be in a dilemma as one having difficulty to injest the food as it is sweet or throw it up as it is sour. They may have to give up the style where they would oppose the government in totality or based on issues and evolve a style which would be based on consensus, persuasion and compromise.

All the issues which a hung parliament raises cannot be fully met through legislation or official procedures. Many a time the approach should be that the issues would be faced as and when they come up. Somehow the Indian constitution has not incorporated any provision envisaging the possibility of a hung parliament. Now that hung parliaments and coalition ministries have become realities we should think in terms of suitable amendments to the constitution.

Some of the suggestions which can be considered are:

1. A provision should be made in law for the appointment of an intermediary, as in the case of countries like Sweden, Denmark and Italy, to suggest a person for Prime Ministership on the basis of consensus.

2,. As in Norway, there should be a provision in the constitution that once a parliament has been constituted it can be prorogued only after its full term. Such a provision could help the government to go forward on the basis of consensus and compromise.

3. As in the erstwhile West Germany it should be stipulated that once parliament expresses its lack of confidence in a government it should also specify who the next Prime Minister should be.

4. Before assuming power, the coalition partners should come to an understanding among themselves on important national issues and make their stand public. This would help to prevent the tendency of the coalition parties to pull down the government on trivial issues. ,

5. When the parties who are almost equal in strength join together to form government, the Prime Ministership should be divided between them for specific periods, as is done in Israel.

6. Except such important matters like Budget or the address of the President, even if the votes turn against the government on other matters, this should not be treated as a no confidence vote.

7 Implement electoral reforms. Once you accept hung parliament and coalitions as political realities, it is better to adopt the concept of proportional representation.

Accepting the French and the Japanese models also deserve consideration. In France only such candidates can become members of legislature who have got more than fifty per cent of the votes polled. In Japan fifty per cent of the seats are filled through elections and the remainder is filled by parties in proportion to the votes they polled.

What makes democracy dynamic is its ability to rise to the occasion to untie the untimely knots that have been put up to restrain it. We may consider hung parliament as an unexpected blessing in disguise if we learn from the lessons of history and make amends in consonance with our tradition and culture.