The political crisis in the State of Karnataka where rebel MLAs belonging to the ruling BJP and some independents withdrew their support to the BS Yeddyurappa government prompting a trust vote and the subsequent disqualification of the MLAs by the Speaker comes as no surprise. Such incidents of defection and the subsequent political instability is a perennial problem being faced by elected governments at some point or the other. This is not unique to Karnataka alone but is an all India phenomenon. A replica of the Karnataka crisis was also witnessed in Nagaland a few years ago when the Opposition Congress attempted to topple the NPF led DAN government with the support of some NPF and independent MLAs who had been all along giving support to the government. Although there is an Anti-Defection Law in place to deal with such political machinations, it is quite obvious that some grey areas remain so much so that loopholes are exploited to one’s advantage. The fact that the disqualified MLAs have appealed in the High Court against the action of the Speaker is proof enough that some amount of ambiguity remains with the current law. Political parties should rise above vested interest and come together in plugging these loopholes. Otherwise, defection and political instability will continue to plague the country’s polity. It will also not spare any political party or their governments.
Coming to the role of the constitutional body or actors, it is very unfortunate that both the Speaker and the Governor have failed to live up to the expectations bestowed on them by the constitution. It is party politics and not the constitution which guides these offices. The Karnataka crisis amply demonstrates the failure of the two constitutional offices which has been misused for political ends. The Speaker for instance occupies a pivotal position in our parliamentary democracy and is looked upon as the true guardian of the traditions of parliamentary democracy. However in practice what we see is that the Speaker would rather protect the party in power rather than the constitution. In recent years we are more and more witnessing the political role of the Speaker. The politicization of the Speaker’s office has to be addressed through appropriate reform or legislation. The manner in which the trust vote was conducted in the Karnataka Assembly was clearly not acceptable. Given that the numbers game was delicately placed, a clear division of votes should have been conducted. However the Speaker showed his favoritism by going for a voice vote, which was not only undemocratic but also contentious.
Equally competing with the Speaker to fulfill the whims and fancies of its political master is the Governor. There has been criticism in the past and rightly so that the Governor acts more like the ‘agent’ of the Central government. And despite recommendation (Sarkaria Commission) to appoint non-political persons, successive governments continue to award Governorship to party men and women. Karnataka Governor H.R. Bhardwaj was till very recently a Union Minister in the first UPA government. The BJP cannot be faulted when it claims that Bhardwaj is acting more like an opposition leader in Karnataka. The haste in which he recommended Presidents Rule without even properly ‘applying his mind’ goes to show that his political inclination for a non-BJP government in Karnataka. Whatever may be the outcome of the political situation in Karnataka, it is clear that the loopholes remaining in the Anti-Defection Law needs to be cleared. The other area that demands attention is on the role and function of the Governor and Speaker. Both offices should not be used for political ends. To ensure this will require correction within the current law besides political parties adhering to certain principles of morality. Otherwise we will continue to witness horse-trading and political instability.
