In Karnataka: Party politics vs govt mandate

We are currently witnessing an interesting spectacle in the somewhat messy politics of Karnataka. The Chief Minister has been struggling for the past several months to expand his cabinet but is unable to do so, despite the fact that under the Constitution, he alone has the power to choose his ministers, although they are formally appointed by the Governor. This raises a curious question about constitutional propriety vis-a-vis party politics.

Under the Constitution, India “shall be a Union of States” and powers are distributed between the Union and the states. These powers are specified under three separate lists. Similarly, the powers to be exercised by the three organs of State -- the legislature, the executive and the judiciary -- are also described. However, in the case of the powers of the chief functionaries of the executive, namely the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister, a certain vagueness creeps in. Their powers and functions are not clearly defined. Formally, all executive power vests in the President at the Centre and in the Governor in the states, but they act on the advice of the Council of Ministers that is responsible to the lower house of the legislature. While the PM and the CM are appointed by the President and the Governor respectively, in fact, they are elected leaders of the legislature party that comes to power and they have the power to constitute the Council of Ministers via the President and the Governor as the case may be. Beyond this constitutional provision, the status and power they enjoy forms part of unwritten convention, as under the British constitution.

In any democracy, political parties play the key role in shaping the affairs of a nation, and the ruling party exercises considerable control over the government of the day. In India, while the PM enjoys enormous power, the Chief Minister’s authority is limited by the party high command, especially in the case of a national party like the BJP or Congress. Although the BJP keeps claiming that it is highly democratic, unlike the Congress, in reality, the party bosses call the shots in many major matters. Hence, the CM has to seek their permission to expand the cabinet, select the ministers and allocate the portfolios.

In Karnataka, when the BJP seized power from the Congress-JD(S) coalition, after a protracted drama of defections in 2019, the cabinet formation took nearly a month, during which time Chief Minister Yediyurappa had to carry the entire burden of the government on his shoulders. The fact that the state suffered severe floods at the time, demanding the attention of responsible elected representatives, did not matter much to the party high command. It was busy trying to identify who should be appointed deputy chief ministers, although there is no provision for such a post in the Constitution. In any case, what was the purpose in thrusting three DCMs on a CM who never wanted them?

The delay in cabinet expansion has added fuel to the fire of the gossip about replacing Yediyurappa as Chief Minister. This has only served to generate speculation about the possible replacement. Even as the media indulge in their own versions and the party bosses keep mum on the issue, Yediyurappa himself issued a clarification that he would continue as CM for the full term. Having promised cabinet berths to defectors from other parties, he must be frustrated at the inexplicable delay in getting the green signal to induct new ministers.

What is really a matter of concern is the effect all this will have on the functioning of the ministers and, in turn, on governance. How can the CM function effectively as head of the government when he is constrained in exercising his legitimate powers? The party would do well to recall the happenings during the last tenure of the BJP in Karnataka, when it changed its chief ministers twice, damaged its own image and lost the election in 2013.

A somewhat similar story unfolded in another state ruled by Congress. The events relating to Jyotiraditya Scindia’s quitting Congress, leading to its loss of power in Madhya Pradesh, are again indicative of the highhanded manner in which the party high command treats state leaders. This is not to say that the party should have no role to play in the formation of its government in a state or its functioning. Indeed, once the government is in place, it must place trust in the state leadership; its role must be that of a friend, philosopher and guide, rather than of a school headmaster. It can intervene when things go wrong and help to set things on the right course.

In a democracy, the relationship between the party and the government could be a delicate one, unlike in authoritarian regimes like in Russia or in China, where the Communist Party of China is supreme. It may be recalled that in 1996, the supremacy of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) came to the fore when it denied Jyoti Basu the opportunity to become Prime Minister, which at a later date, Basu himself termed as a ‘historic blunder.’ Political parties in democratic polities are not bound by the provisions of the constitution and therefore enjoy greater freedom to manage their affairs. But the governments are; and they are also accountable to the people for their actions. As Babasaheb Ambedkar pointed out, a democratic executive must satisfy two conditions: One, it must be a stable executive; and two, it must be a responsible executive. Both are necessary for good governance, and it is the moral responsibility of the party leadership to ensure that these two conditions are satisfied when its government is in power.

In particular, the standing of the PM or CM among his cabinet colleagues will have a profound impact on policy processes and governance. Any situation that may lead to instability or signals a war of succession will only weaken his authority to lead. During his last year in office as British Prime Minister, it used be said of John Major that he was “in office, but not in power.” Let us hope that such a fate does not befall Yediyurappa or any other CM in India. Not just the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers must also be strong and decisive to deliver results.

(The writer is a former Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka)