The election results suggest that both the political combinations had lost public confidence long before the polls. In practice, though, they commanded huge strength in the respective state assemblies on the basis of the results in the 2006 elections, assuming power to run the government with iron fists until the end of the term. They ignored the opposition and the public criticism against reports of growing corruption, nepotism and the show of arrogance by the ruling political combine. They misused the assembly strength and misjudged the public support. They failed to see the on ground reality that the legislature strength was no longer real or legitimate in the face of changing public mood. Aren’t ruling political cliques always power-blind?

In West Bengal, the Left Front enjoyed more than two-third majority after the 2006 election. The Front leader, CPM, alone occupied some 60 per cent (175) of the total 294 assembly seats. Its nearest rival, Trinamool Congress (TMC), managed only 29 seats and the Congress party (INC) had 21 in the 2006 state Assembly election. The total LF tally was 233 seats. The assembly results allowed the Left Front and its most powerful champion, CPI (M), rule a roughshod on the public who voted them to power for the next five years until the announcement of 2011 state election.

That the Left Front lost the majority public confidence in the state even before they were midway through the lawful five-year term went totally unnoticed to them. They failed to consider the public perception and diminishing legitimacy of the government in public eye. The public ire threw them out of power in 2011 election in which the LF was literally mauled. The LF secured only 62 seats in the last election against Trinamool’s singular tally of 184. Will it be wrong to say that the LF was running practically an illegitimate government for a good part of its official five-year tenure between 2006 and 2011?

In the 2006 Tamil Nadu assembly election, DMK and its minor allies, including Congress, grabbed as many as 163 seats in the 234-member House. The Opposition – AIADMK and allies – managed only 69 seats. The DMK-combine too ruled roughshod over the public in the next five years. Their arrogant ways and corrupt practices became folklore in the state. The DMK and allies were discarded and dropped like a hot potato in the 2011 election when their number dwindled to 31 against AIADMK-combine’s 203. The result suggested that the DMK government lost its on-ground legitimacy in so far as the public support is concerned long before the 2011 assembly poll. The public opinion is not bound by any time frame. It is highly susceptible to changing events and situation. And, its swing can be felt. Only those in power can’t see or feel it in time.

Going by the results of 2011 assembly polls in two of the country’s most populous states, it may not be all that right to assume the fractured public mandate in favour of the UPA government in the 2009 parliamentary election is still valid, especially in the context of mega-political and financial corruption scandals such as 2G spectrum allocation and lavish out-of-turn Commonwealth Games expenditure involving the UPA and its promoter, INC. Despite the fact that the Congress party’s position at the Centre is rather shaky and hardly comparable to the LF’s position in West Bengal and DMK’s in Tamil Nadu after 2006 elections, Congress has been singularly steamrolling unpopular measures such as oil price decontrol, cut in farm subsidy, civilian nuclear energy cooperation pact with the USA, FDI in retail trade, objectionable corporate takeover guidelines to suit deep-pocket overseas predators, Lokpal Bill, and land acquisition bill among several others.

Take, for instance, the controversial Lokpal bill. Two snap opinion polls in the constituency of Kapil Sibal, the Congress minister from Delhi and principal proponent of the draft bill, one by Anna Hazare’s team another by a leading media house, overwhelmingly rejected the UPA document. Both the polls used large sample sizes. The tough-talking union telecom and HRD minister pooh-poohed the public opinion poll branding it an Opposition conspiracy and stuck to his guns. Sibal had earlier went public to reject the CAG report on 2G spectrum allocation as weak, faulty and untenable and claimed that the government suffered no loss. Sibal and several of his cabinet colleagues in the government hold the view that the civil society can’t dictate parliament about legislation. They forget that in a democracy, parliament owes its existence to people and the civil society, the opinion leaders. In a more perfect democracy under a less arrogant government, a national referendum would have been called for direct public approval of a bill of such importance.

In the last two years, the UPA government first daringly defended and then dumped Andimuthu Raja, Suresh Kalmadi and P J Thomas. The government was even defensive about the Congress-governed Delhi’s police mercilessly cane-charging the peaceful women and men demonstrators at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan at mid-night. Senior UPA ministers are continuously spitting fire against constitutional bodies such as the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the judiciary and the Opposition-ruled state governments. All these are adversely affecting the public approval of the UPA government.

The ruling UPA or the Congress-led combine’s respect for the Parliamentary system itself is suspect as the government, facing multiple corruption charges along with severe criticism against its inability to control inflation for three years in a row, wants to steamroll as many as 67 bills for legislation in less than 24 working days during the on-going Parliament session. Why is this government in such a hurry to push through so many bills in just one short session? Can there be any healthy debate on these bills at such a short time? Or, is it a tactic to avoid any worthwhile discussion or debate on these proposed legislations, several of which are being critical in nature?

The 67 bills sought to be put up at the monsoon session of Parliament are in two categories – one meant for introduction and the other for consideration and passing. In addition, Parliament is supposed to discuss and pass two supplementary demands – one with regard to the general budget and the other for the Railways. The bills include the ones for controversial land acquisition by the government and private bodies for projects and Lokpal, companies (amendment) bill, nuclear regulatory authority bill, the chartered accountants (amendment) bill, the prevention of money laundering (amendment) bill, the benami transaction (prohibition) bill, the mine and minerals bill, the national food security bill, and the railway property (unlawful possession) bill.

Several of the proposed legislations concern the national interest as well as those of industry and the common man. Not only they all must go through respective parliamentary select committees, but also should incorporate the views and suggestions of such committees. Parliament should be informed if any recommendation or suggestion of a concerned select committee is not accepted and not incorporated in the bill, providing solid reasons. They can’t be steamrolled. The elected representatives in the Opposition can’t be brow-beaten every time by the treasury bench. Democratic institutions can’t be shortchanged.

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen spoke of ‘assessment of democracy’ in terms of ‘public reasoning’ in his widely acclaimed treatise, The Idea of Justice. Even utilitarian thinker John Stewart Mill’s understanding of democracy advanced the idea of ‘government by discussion.’ A one-time public mandate for a specific term is not meant to do away with public reasoning by providing unlimited power to a government within the stipulated period. Nothing is more sacrosanct than the will of the people – not even constitution or parliament. The latter are not above the people. That is why ideal democracies provide for referendum, recall and mandamus to put the will of the people above government and legislature to prevent misuse of election mandate by a ruling party or political alliance. It may not be too late to debate on the desirable limits of a legislative body and government power. (IPA Service)