Jharkhand imbroglio calls for urgent Constitutional Reform
Our constitution makers adopted a model of multiple parties competing
in elections to form governments at the center and in the states. Rules
for recognition of political parties were liberally framed, which has
promoted continuous ᮵clear fission⠬ike process of political fragmentation.
The present system has led to colossus loss of precious resources, wastage
of time, political and bureaucratic uncertainties and huge corruption
at the state level, which seems may very soon catch infection at the central
level at the peril of IndiaⳠfree society. In the sixtieth year of republic,
the issue now needs an urgent attention for political reform at the state
level and here is the way out.
United Kingdom has a unitary system of government and hence there was
no example that could really be borrowed for developing a political architecture
and structure for the state governments in India. As long as there was
a one party rule in India, the system worked fine. But, since 1967, there
have been too many unstable governments in the states, which in the light
of our latest experience in Jharkhand needs an urgent fixing.
The right political architecture for political management of Indian states
is the US model. In India, the size of the states varies vastly. Therefore,
we can start reforming the system for the smaller states (with the fixed
criteria of a certain size of population/number of MLAs/MPs or any other
criteria). Smaller states like Jharkhand, Goa, Uttrakhand, Haryana, Chattisgarh
and states in the north east, can hold state elections on US pattern,
where candidates will directly stand for the chief minstership. Each candidate
will have two deputies designated as number 1 and 2 in that order and
go to polls. If in the first round, a candidate gets 40% votes, he along
with his two deputies is through. In case no candidate gets the earmarked
percentage of votes, a second round takes place among the top three contenders
and the candidate getting the highest votes is elected.
Direct election for the highest office in the states will offer a clear
choice for the voters like in the US and other mature democracies.
Then there must be two-term limit for holding the office of the chief
minister, like in the US. Cabinet ministers similarly can hold office
for not more than ten years. After completion of two terms, chief ministers
can not enter any political office within the state. There should also
be an indirect barrier for the progenies of the chief ministers to enter
office and there should be a bar for them for 15-20 years for contesting
the office of the chief minister. Further details of the scheme can be
worked out in order to make the institution of the state government stable,
certain and corruption free.
|
