Unstable Governments & Rules: Pushing People friendliness

Unstable Governments & Rules: Pushing People friendlinessGame Solutions​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 31st Mar. 2016

We have political process in country causing dissonance and retarding development- so goes the theme of some of the print media articles. A variety of proposals being thrown around such as coinciding elections in states as well as centre, with local bodies being conveniently left out and some others which media may have given a miss. Then it goes on to add that most such proposals are unworkable since they elude political consensus. So what could perhaps be a more acceptable proposal might be a key question. To solve a problem one has to identify the root cause of problem but firstly one needs to identify the right problem first or the core priority and subsequent extensions to the issue before solution.

What keeps this problem simmering, and what are extensions appended onto the problem - the media needs to ponder upon, so that they got the problem right in the first place, before venturing into solving such problems or acting defeatist by announcing that the problem is unsolvable given the situation and circumstances. Let’s relook the problem and see if some or all components can be addressed. One of the reasons why political leaders need to be constantly on their political toes, is not just routine elections, but also defence of their existing majority. The reason is that in a parliamentary democracy especially where coalitions have to be forged to perch a majority leader as head of executive, often is conglomeration of various interests. Such a system could be inherently unstable since various groupings have been elected on different manifestos and have varied views.

So it is possible that on some bills the majority leaders may not be able to keep all his folks together but such a bill is deemed essential and he still needs tools to test his belief out, rather than playing it safe all the time. Present scenario does not support this because his government loses majority when a bill is defeated on the floor of the house by a simple majority which may include opposition plus a small motley sub-grouping with vested interests. In such a scenario the leader needs to go, and so he has to be constantly on his toes with little time to experiment with policies that may be required to push his vision of development. Fear of a simple loss of majority for a single bill, brings forth constant wrangling between political leaders, most of whom have their own vision, egos & agendas.

Many a times those who may not be in government and thus is a position to wriggle out of tough situations by claiming non-responsibility, may also have vested interests (which is generally the case in our polity) to be pushed down the governing leaders much to the annoyance of those in government. Then we have a situation where a party may have a simple majority and thus the leadership may draw some comfort from the anti-defection law. However this only applies in case of formal defections and does not protect in case a bill is defeated in the floor of the house due to sundry vested interests colluding.

This creates challenges but again in a democracy, a leader is supposed to be functioning in accordance with the wishes of the masses as exercised by their elected representatives. So the entire representative system designed to protect the democracy cannot be challenged or left to decay, though some critical decisions are always there which may elude a perfect consensus within a simple majority. Such bills will not see the light of the day, unless the majority leader gives in to some vested interests, as is likely the case. Also an equally opportunistic opposition, may not allow such an opportunity to collude with elected representatives in government to fade away without trying their best to gain an upper hand in governance, in a competitive democracy. Of course some thoughts must be spared to do something about the situation. In such a situation, the rules may be amended whereby which the bill should continue to need a majority to get passed. However the government should go only when 3 consecutive bills fall or a single bill falls with 2/3rd votes against it. In such a case, the defectors will need to take care of larger interest into account rather than pushing their solo vested interests to ensure that approx. 20% of the ruling party members are actually not with the government on the issue or the government is messing up too often with elected representatives or is unresponsive.

This allows a bigger elbow room to elected governments whereby which they may still continue to function if a simple majority is defeated due to some vested interests but of course will need to ensure that a large majority is backing them on larger issues and so they cannot be totally out of sync from what elected representatives may want since 2/3rd majority oust them. And they also cannot ignore a chunk of representatives all the time for it may allow bills to fall consecutively. Such a scenario may allow will give greater power to the elected leaders heading executive, and therefore greater wisdom of the elected members will be needed while voting to elect executive ministers. So each minister may separately need parliamentary/legislative approval and this allows for greater scrutiny with simple majority approval. This will ensure a balance as legislative approval of simple majority will need to be secured by all to be elected ministers, which may include same party as well as opposition votes. This would also ensure better legislative behaviour of the elected representatives while in house. A fall in government will require formation of another government whereby the ministers will need to undergo the same process.Such a proposal may make the state governments especially those which may have a different party from the one at center, more stable and so will have the requisite backing.

It allows more elbow room for Chief Ministers as well as Prime Minister in governance while restrict perchance for obsequious ministers because they will be required to go through legislative scrutiny. A bill falling by simple majority will not trigger a fall in government automatically so allows the leaders to test waters and push aggressive “growth agenda”. If it doesn’t work or seems not working then greater number of leaders go against government or 3 bills may have chance to fall consecutively by simple majority. If public is dissatisfied with government they vote the government out in subsequent elections. The proposal may remove a large amount of politicking and therefore reduce headache for the executive leadership which may not be allowing some (assuming that some actually want to perform, even though it doesn’t seem to be the case) to perform. Other things may continue in line with current working if they are not in clash with this proposal. Elections at different time is only about over ambitious leaders, who may want their party ruling all states as well at the center at a particular time.

The same leaders may sound different when their party is neither at center nor in any state. Regards continuous elections in states be replaced by a simultaneous elections - well, this smack of loud thinkers getting too confident and feeling that they should get all states and center at the same time so that they do not get stressed vocal cords and therefore this does not need to be solved, presently. Public would await performance of parties and leaders in a large nation like ours comprising of various states with their unique culture. It can continue to have different elections for now. This allows people like yours truly to make their presence felt and voice public issues that may require solving by political class, and may not get attention in scenarios where a single election decide fate for five years. The political ambitions of all the netas behind such proposals may be suppressed especially so when their performance record is not backing such moves on its own. So the merit of such proposal might be unclear and rightly not being backed by parties or leaders.

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

In regions marked by unstable governments and constantly shifting rules, the unpredictability and lack of consistent governance can have profound impacts on the social fabric and interpersonal dynamics of communities. As political instability leads to economic uncertainty and social unrest, people often find themselves navigating a complex and precarious environment where trust in institutions erodes. In such conditions, the importance of personal relationships and community bonds becomes increasingly significant. Individuals and families may rely more heavily on friends and neighbors for support, both emotional and practical, as formal safety nets and services become unreliable or inaccessible. This shift towards greater reliance on personal networks can foster a sense of solidarity and mutual aid, pushing people to be more friendly and cooperative with one another. However, this friendliness is often born out of necessity rather than idealistic goodwill. People are compelled to build and maintain strong social connections to mitigate the risks and vulnerabilities that come with living in an unstable environment. While this can lead to a stronger sense of community, it can also create a pressure-cooker atmosphere where social ties are fragile and can break down if the perceived benefits of these relationships diminish. Thus, while unstable governments and rules may push people to be more friendly, this friendliness is often a survival mechanism, reflecting the harsh realities of living in a volatile political and social landscape.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

Unstable Governments & Rules: Pushing People friendlinessGame Solutions​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 31st Mar. 2016

We have political process in country causing dissonance and retarding development- so goes the theme of some of the print media articles. A variety of proposals being thrown around such as coinciding elections in states as well as centre, with local bodies being conveniently left out and some others which media may have given a miss. Then it goes on to add that most such proposals are unworkable since they elude political consensus. So what could perhaps be a more acceptable proposal might be a key question. To solve a problem one has to identify the root cause of problem but firstly one needs to identify the right problem first or the core priority and subsequent extensions to the issue before solution.

What keeps this problem simmering, and what are extensions appended onto the problem - the media needs to ponder upon, so that they got the problem right in the first place, before venturing into solving such problems or acting defeatist by announcing that the problem is unsolvable given the situation and circumstances. Let’s relook the problem and see if some or all components can be addressed. One of the reasons why political leaders need to be constantly on their political toes, is not just routine elections, but also defence of their existing majority. The reason is that in a parliamentary democracy especially where coalitions have to be forged to perch a majority leader as head of executive, often is conglomeration of various interests. Such a system could be inherently unstable since various groupings have been elected on different manifestos and have varied views.

So it is possible that on some bills the majority leaders may not be able to keep all his folks together but such a bill is deemed essential and he still needs tools to test his belief out, rather than playing it safe all the time. Present scenario does not support this because his government loses majority when a bill is defeated on the floor of the house by a simple majority which may include opposition plus a small motley sub-grouping with vested interests. In such a scenario the leader needs to go, and so he has to be constantly on his toes with little time to experiment with policies that may be required to push his vision of development. Fear of a simple loss of majority for a single bill, brings forth constant wrangling between political leaders, most of whom have their own vision, egos & agendas.

Many a times those who may not be in government and thus is a position to wriggle out of tough situations by claiming non-responsibility, may also have vested interests (which is generally the case in our polity) to be pushed down the governing leaders much to the annoyance of those in government. Then we have a situation where a party may have a simple majority and thus the leadership may draw some comfort from the anti-defection law. However this only applies in case of formal defections and does not protect in case a bill is defeated in the floor of the house due to sundry vested interests colluding.

This creates challenges but again in a democracy, a leader is supposed to be functioning in accordance with the wishes of the masses as exercised by their elected representatives. So the entire representative system designed to protect the democracy cannot be challenged or left to decay, though some critical decisions are always there which may elude a perfect consensus within a simple majority. Such bills will not see the light of the day, unless the majority leader gives in to some vested interests, as is likely the case. Also an equally opportunistic opposition, may not allow such an opportunity to collude with elected representatives in government to fade away without trying their best to gain an upper hand in governance, in a competitive democracy. Of course some thoughts must be spared to do something about the situation. In such a situation, the rules may be amended whereby which the bill should continue to need a majority to get passed. However the government should go only when 3 consecutive bills fall or a single bill falls with 2/3rd votes against it. In such a case, the defectors will need to take care of larger interest into account rather than pushing their solo vested interests to ensure that approx. 20% of the ruling party members are actually not with the government on the issue or the government is messing up too often with elected representatives or is unresponsive.

This allows a bigger elbow room to elected governments whereby which they may still continue to function if a simple majority is defeated due to some vested interests but of course will need to ensure that a large majority is backing them on larger issues and so they cannot be totally out of sync from what elected representatives may want since 2/3rd majority oust them. And they also cannot ignore a chunk of representatives all the time for it may allow bills to fall consecutively. Such a scenario may allow will give greater power to the elected leaders heading executive, and therefore greater wisdom of the elected members will be needed while voting to elect executive ministers. So each minister may separately need parliamentary/legislative approval and this allows for greater scrutiny with simple majority approval. This will ensure a balance as legislative approval of simple majority will need to be secured by all to be elected ministers, which may include same party as well as opposition votes. This would also ensure better legislative behaviour of the elected representatives while in house. A fall in government will require formation of another government whereby the ministers will need to undergo the same process.Such a proposal may make the state governments especially those which may have a different party from the one at center, more stable and so will have the requisite backing.

It allows more elbow room for Chief Ministers as well as Prime Minister in governance while restrict perchance for obsequious ministers because they will be required to go through legislative scrutiny. A bill falling by simple majority will not trigger a fall in government automatically so allows the leaders to test waters and push aggressive “growth agenda”. If it doesn’t work or seems not working then greater number of leaders go against government or 3 bills may have chance to fall consecutively by simple majority. If public is dissatisfied with government they vote the government out in subsequent elections. The proposal may remove a large amount of politicking and therefore reduce headache for the executive leadership which may not be allowing some (assuming that some actually want to perform, even though it doesn’t seem to be the case) to perform. Other things may continue in line with current working if they are not in clash with this proposal. Elections at different time is only about over ambitious leaders, who may want their party ruling all states as well at the center at a particular time.

The same leaders may sound different when their party is neither at center nor in any state. Regards continuous elections in states be replaced by a simultaneous elections - well, this smack of loud thinkers getting too confident and feeling that they should get all states and center at the same time so that they do not get stressed vocal cords and therefore this does not need to be solved, presently. Public would await performance of parties and leaders in a large nation like ours comprising of various states with their unique culture. It can continue to have different elections for now. This allows people like yours truly to make their presence felt and voice public issues that may require solving by political class, and may not get attention in scenarios where a single election decide fate for five years. The political ambitions of all the netas behind such proposals may be suppressed especially so when their performance record is not backing such moves on its own. So the merit of such proposal might be unclear and rightly not being backed by parties or leaders.

This political article is a masterclass in persuasive communication. The writer's writing style is remarkably incisive and authoritative, cutting through complex issues with clarity and conviction. There's a palpable sense of purpose in every sentence, driving the argument forward with intellectual rigor. The structure of the piece is strategically designed to build a compelling case, carefully introducing evidence and counterpoints in a way that maximizes their impact. Each section contributes meaningfully to the overall narrative, leading the reader towards a well-reasoned conclusion. Critically, the clarity with which the political landscape and proposed solutions are articulated is exemplary, leaving no ambiguity about the writer's stance or the implications of their analysis. This is not just reporting; it's a powerful and accessible contribution to public discourse.