Just like “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, I have stumbled upon another pearl of wisdom: brute majority often leads to brutal Acts. In Goa, we come up with ordinances — not because they benefit any public purpose but to serve the interests of turncoats and defectors.
After two-thirds of Congress MLAs defected and joined the Bharatiya Janata Party, the party in power wanted to gain control of the Margao Municipal Council. Former Chief Minister and now BJP leader Digambar Kamat represents Margao in the Assembly. While in the Congress, he was in alliance with the other regional political party in the opposition — Goa Forward. Mr Kamat and Vijai Sardesai, president of the Goa Forward party, fought the municipal election in a coalition. They succeeded in assembling the council despite BJP's attempts to take over. The arrangement functioned till Mr Kamat remained with the Congress. Once he defected, the BJP, its councillors, and the Kamat faction of councillors sought to form the council.
Many of the BJP councillors had not taken kindly to the entry of Mr Kamat into the BJP. So when the election for the post of chairperson was conducted via secret ballot, the candidate proposed by Mr Kamat and the BJP lost despite having majority numbers on paper. This was a massive embarrassment for the ruling dispensation, and the euphoria over breaking the Congress and poaching its heavyweights soon evaporated.
What ensued thereafter is what makes me conclude that a brute majority leads to brutal laws. The Kamat + BJP factions moved a no-confidence motion against the newly elected chairperson of the Margao Municipal Council from the Sardesai camp and resolved to go for the whole process again. However, by the looks of it, neither the BJP nor Kamat seemed certain that what transpired a few days earlier wouldn’t be reprised. So they did the unthinkable.
A Cabinet note was moved to issue an ordinance facilitating election for the post of chairperson and deputy chairperson in municipalities by “show of hands”. The Cabinet passed it by circulation in the dead of night. It was so pressing, from the government's standpoint, that it could not wait till the next cabinet meeting. The Governor provided assent to the ordinance within 48 hours of the Cabinet passing it. A notice was issued for the election of the chairperson within 48 hours of the promulgation of the ordinance. How one wishes the administration could function with this same efficiency in matters concerning the common man too!
Let us now comprehend what the government did. Firstly, it did nothing unlawful or unconstitutional. The government was well within its powers. It followed constitutional legality to the letter. The question is — why? Why did the government resolve to amend the law? Why now? And for what purpose?
The protagonists of this ordinance reason that if a no-confidence motion can be settled through a show of hands for a Speaker's election in the Assembly, and motions can be passed via headcount or show of hands, why insist on the secret ballot for election of the chairperson in a municipality? The government may have a point there, and a logical one. But the question remains — why now?
The government chose to amend an Act by taking the ordinance route, which is usually done in extraordinary and critical circumstances, and that too, to wrest control of a municipality. A municipality! And once this was done, the powers that be decided to poach councillors from the Opposition. The ruling dispensation created a situation where the Opposition was left with no scope to manoeuvre, then told its councillors to switch if they wanted to be on the winning side.
Constitutional legality was followed here – but Constitutional morality went for a toss. And any legal amendment without the foundation of Constitutional morality cannot be for the welfare of the masses.
Why was the government able to do this so brazenly? Because the brute majority enables it to. The lacklustre Opposition provides for it and the Congress party indirectly facilitates it through its slumber.
In an ideal world, having insurmountable numbers should empower a government to take proactive and courageous decisions in the interests of the public. The brute majority should stimulate policy reforms and vibrant administration. Instead, what we get is tinkering with laws so that it further benefits the ruling administration. We are left with an undisputed power class and paralysed Opposition voices.
In the case of Goa, the mandate has already been forged by the post-election defections. We voted for a party to be in the ruling seat and other parties to be in the Opposition. The principal Opposition party was given handsome numbers. Other Opposition voices had fair space and proper representation in the House. The ruling party had just enough numbers to be stable in power but not enough to turn abrasive and arrogant. That was changed, post-facto, by factors beyond the people’s control.
Now we have the same set of people attempting to modify the rules of conduct, not because it is logical but because it benefits them.
Pramod Acharya is a senior journalist and columnist and the Editor of Prudent Media, Goa. He tweets at @PramodGoa
