Defiant Mamata signals democracy’s strain

There is much pique in Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee’s response to the defeat of her party in the West Bengal Assembly elections, and extends an acrimonious poll campaign beyond the results. She has refused to accept defeat and step down as Chief Minister, claiming the elections were unfair and alleging conspiracy in their conduct. 

A chief minister’s refusal to resign after an electoral defeat presents an entirely new situation; this is uncharted constitutional territory. Implicit in this is a divergence between constitutional intent and democratic convention. The Constitution does not clearly demand the resignation of a defeated chief minister. The incumbent can hold office until a new chief minister is sworn in. So, Mamata’s refusal is not legally wrong, but it is democratically improper.

Legality is only the alphabet of the democratic process; its meaning reflects in actions that comply with the spirit of the mandate, expressed formally through elections, and informally through multiple ways of popular engagement and conventions.

There is no doubt where propriety lies, and if Mamata sticks to her decision, the Constitution has its ways to assert itself. Her dismissal from office and even more severe actions can be contemplated. The resulting drama will be more political than legal, and Mamata would rather flaunt herself in rebellious political colours than present herself as someone following process and procedure.

Mamata’s stance shows that politics is moving away from its known paths of assertion, resistance, and established means of remediation and relief. The democratic process is under stress in the country. Serious questions about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) procedures, which impacted elections in West Bengal at least in terms of inclusion and participation, have not been answered.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) is under a shadow; doubts exist about the judiciary’s ability to provide remedies and guidance. The government has long ceased to be fair; it has used instruments at its disposal to politically perpetuate itself and weaken the Opposition. Mamata has thrived on rebellion and drama, but her present defiance does not stem from mere personal desperation.

It also signals a crisis inflicted on Opposition parties and a larger crisis of politics as such. This does not augur well. Through her actions, Mamata may be mimicking those who seize power unfairly and refuse to quit. The symbolism is striking and unnerving. As in governance, politics has due processes; when these fail, the system comes under undue attack.