:: P.C. Alexander

PM must be the only power centre in Delhi

By P.C. Alexander

May 20 : elections 2009 have thrown up several valuable lessons which, if acted upon, can help our country establish a clean and healthy democracy as well as provide good governance. A few suggestions are presented below in the hope that they will receive due attention of those who have been given the mandate for governance.

The first is the primacy of the Prime Minister in all matters of governance. A constant refrain in the criticism levelled against Dr Manmohan Singh has been that he does not have all the powers of a Prime Minister. Parliamentary democracy has evolved over the last three-four decades into a prime ministerial system of governance in all the countries which have adopted this system. But critics of Dr Singh’s style of administration say that he does not function as a Prime Minister in the full sense. This is not good for the prestige and effectiveness of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and now is a good time to correct the perception.

The circumstances in which Dr Singh was appointed Prime Minister may explain part of the charge against him. Congress president Mrs Sonia Gandhi was expected to be sworn in as the Prime Minister but she instead announced that Dr Singh will be the Prime Minister. Dr Singh himself is reported to have been taken by surprise by this as he was least prepared for the job in 2004. Though he had served as finance minister for five years in P.V. Narasimha Rao’s Cabinet, he was new to politics, particularly party politics.

An anecdote illustrating Dr Singh’s attitude to political office will be useful in this context. I recall here his reaction when, on behalf of Narasimha Rao, I woke him up at 5 am on June 20, 1991, to convey the message that his name was being finalised for the post of Union finance minister. I thought that he would accept the offer straightaway. Instead he very coolly asked two questions. The first being what my personal advice about it was. I told him that I was strongly in favour of his accepting the offer. He then surprised me with his second question. It was whether Rao would stand by him even if some Cabinet colleagues or party leaders were to oppose his proposals and plans as finance minister. I assured him that he would have Rao’s full support and trust. On hearing this he reflected for a couple of minutes and said he would gladly accept the post. And went ahead to introduce comprehensive economic reforms without fear of any opposition from within the party.

Dr Singh is no longer the novice he was in 1991. With five years of experience as finance minister, five years as the Leader of the Opposition and another five years as the Prime Minister of a coalition government, he has had enough exposure to both the good and the ugly side of Indian politics. In fact, as the Prime Minister of India it is his duty to protect other ministers who may find themselves under attack in Parliament or outside. People are now looking forward to seeing the end of criticism that the Prime Minister only acts according to the advice of another power centre.

At the prime ministerial level, in a parliamentary democracy, there is room and need for only one power centre and that is the Prime Minister himself.

In this connection a suggestion which is rapidly emerging about the danger of the Prime Minister being influenced by another power centre deserves special attention. This danger has become a common subject of discussion after the active role played by Rahul Gandhi in election campaigns. Being a decent and gentlemanly type of politician, Mr Gandhi may not himself like to become another power centre in Delhi. But the culture of sycophancy is so strong in Delhi’s political circles that unless deliberate efforts are made to prevent such a possibility, we may see one emerging in spite of Mr Gandhi’s own aversion to it. Observers from the world outside politics have been impressed by Mr Gandhi’s smooth transformation into a mature and shrewd leader in a very short period. Taking into account his young age and potential, it will be best for the sake of good governance if he is inducted into the council of ministers rather than to use him in an organisation where the scope for getting trained for higher responsibilities is limited.

Another lesson from this election is the danger of money-power subverting the system of free elections. There have been several reports in the media about the lavish use of money by rich candidates to influence voters. One reputed journal reported that some rich candidates spent over Rs 50 crores in their respective constituencies to buy votes. Some scenes of politicians handing out cash in return for votes appeared on TV channels also. It is most surprising that very little has been done by the authorities to proceed against those who used money so blatantly to buy votes. Incidentally, the number of millionaires contesting elections in 2009 was the highest ever. If this trend remains unchecked, elections in the future may be determined by the cash a candidate gives rather than the confidence s/he can earn from the electorate on merit.

A final observation about the campaign in election 2009 is the very limited attention that had been paid to the astounding revelation that India tops the list of depositors of slush money in Swiss banks. According to information available from Swiss Bankers Association, deposits by Indians in Swiss banks are over $1,456 billion. The Bharatiya Janata Party’s L.K. Advani tried to focus attention on this but the subject was never seriously debated. If this is an indication of the level of tolerance towards corruption in our country, then it is a very serious threat to the future of our young democracy.