Events & Issues

New Delhi, 2 June 2014

Free From Coalition Dharma

NEED TO LOOK BEYOND POLITICS

By Dr S Saraswathi

(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)

Prime Minister Narendra Modi fortunately is so far not a victim of all-round pressures in forming his ministry as his predecessor, Manmohan Singh, who had to listen to a host of pre-poll and post-poll allies. However, he too may have faced friendly pressures, compulsions of long-time party interests and immediate political imperatives, and conventional practices. While selecting the team of Ministers who would provide good governance which he promised, he also had to meet the aspirations of the plural society which require balancing of different interests. Prolonged discussions and consultations have gone into the framing of the ministry.

The ruling party cannot hide behind the mysterious coalition dharma that haunted the previous Government or put the blame on lack of necessary parliamentary support for any failure to fulfil its promises.  Those who raised expectations of the people from the Government are expected to address them promptly with sincerity.

The euphoria of winning 2014 election has not yet subsided and the excitement of the grand swearing-in ceremony of the new ministry has not lessened. But, the great expectations from the new ministry cannot be ignored for long. Apart from perceptions and promises of the campaigning period, the clear majority won by a single party adds to the responsibility of the present Government.

Expectations are not only from within the country. Even foreign countries, particularly our neighbours, look forward to promoting better ties and fruitful cooperation. And, one hopes that the participation of the SAARC leaders at the swearing-in ceremony would make a good beginning.   

On the home front, Modi has got his Council of Ministers in place. Till now 45 members, of which 24 are Cabinet Ministers, 10 Ministers of State with independent charge, and 12 Ministers of State. More are to be inducted soon.   

The first principle of the Cabinet system is its collective responsibility for acts of commission and omission. This responsibility is of two kinds – legal and political. Every Minister is individually responsible for any act done by him/her and can be taken to a court of law. He can be removed by the Prime Minister. In Britain, every Minister – whether a Cabinet minister or not – is answerable individually to the House of Commons for all his public acts.  Any Minister(s) may be sent out of office by censure of the House of Commons.

The Cabinet is collectively responsible for the policy of the government.  Once a policy is decided, it becomes the policy of the government and not of any particular Minister. Differences should be sorted out in the Cabinet meetings and should not be discussed in public meetings or through the media.  There can be only one policy of the Government.  And, there is no question of remaining neutral for a Cabinet member. Collective responsibility is the crux of parliamentary democracy.

Maladministration, if any, is ascribed to the ministry as a whole and not to any particular Minister. But, in practice, in Britain, collective responsibility is not strictly applied. A Cabinet may or may not own responsibility for decisions of a particular Minister.

In India, in the early 1950s, C D Deshmukh resigned from the Cabinet on issues regarding States’ Reorganization; Finance Minister, John Mathai left the Cabinet over the question of setting up of the Planning Commission; and K M Munshi resigned from the Cabinet in 1958 on the question of nationalization and development of public sector enterprises.

Such principled stand got diluted in the course of years and practically disappeared in recent coalition governments in India. Smaller parties in the coalition have supported Government policy at the time of voting though they actually voiced different opinions at times. It is a conflict in fixing individual and collective responsibility that is an important issue in the 2G scam complicated by coalition politics.

The convention of collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers can be traced to the days of the British Prime Minister, Robert Walpole who told the House of Commons that the ministry should be collectively responsible to Parliament. He resigned when he was defeated in voting in Parliament in 1742.  The convention was firmly established by the Reform Act of 1832.

The doctrine of collective responsibility of the Cabinet, though a central feature of Cabinet government in Britain, became unworkable in certain issues in the 1970s. The issues related to Britain’s relations with Europe. Differences within the Cabinet members led to a new doctrine of “agreement to differ” among the members. It facilitated continuance of the government along with differences within. The contingency was not due to any coalition compulsions, but due to the seriousness of issues that divided politicians and even members of the same political party. Single-party governments also needed this provision.

The New Zealand Cabinet Manual is the primary source of information on constitutional arrangements for the executive. It is the authoritative guide for the executive, but not an unchanging or unchangeable document. It has undergone many changes made by different governments. The Manual needs to be approved by every new government taking office. 

The Manual is the guide for Cabinet procedure – guide to the procedure for decision-making by ministries. Matters to be submitted to the Cabinet are listed in the Manual.

Whatever Constitutions prescribe or conventions allow, the Cabinet system in all countries do suffer from some internal problems taking away its overarching power. “Kitchen Cabinet” is the term coined by opponents of American President Andrew Jackson to the group of unofficial advisers to the US Cabinet. In Britain, the same term was used to describe Harold Wilson’s inner circle of advisers in the 1960s and1970s.

The task of the government is growing in extent and complexity. Many issues have to be discussed in smaller groups. Within the wall of secrecy of the Cabinet, further secrecy may be needed to discuss issues coming for Cabinet approval. An inner circle within the Cabinet has become necessary in many parliamentary democracies.

In practice, such inner circles have come to be constituted not strictly with Cabinet members, but have included others also and even people outside politics. Several eminent persons such as C D Deshmukh, S P Mukherji, B R Ambedkar, John Mathai, VKRV Rao, and TA Pai have occupied such inner circle. The group of trusted members forming a close clique for Indira Gandhi was referred to as “kitchen Cabinet” in journalistic language. Some critics pointed to the National Advisory Council of the UPA government as a kind of kitchen Cabinet.

Such inner circles should comprise knowledgeable persons in various fields to guide the Cabinet. They become necessary since choice of Ministers cannot always go by any qualification and expertise. Ministerial berths are after all political posts. However, ministerial responsibility cannot be diluted.

Therefore, we have to accept the actual ground situation that representative system of Government needs the help of “experts” to achieve good governance. The expertise available in the permanent civil service and the vast bureaucratic set up have to be strengthened further by acquiring the services of specially talented people in various fields. There is no dearth of such people in the country. What is needed is to look beyond politics. A government free from the fetters of coalition politics should be able to fulfil the great expectations among the masses. ---INFA                                                            

(Copyright, India News and  Feature Alliance)