The recent political uncertainty at the Centre threw up in its wake several suggestions to avert its frequent recurrence. Though most of them were well-intentioned, they did not evoke much enthusiasm because of their utter impracticality. Besides, some of them flew in the face of time-tested democratic principles. Lok Sabha Speaker P.A. Sangma's suggestion that the Lower House of Parliament should have a "fixed tenure" belongs to this category. His earlier call for a national government was also dismissed by almost all the political parties. Sangma has not spelt out how he thinks the aim can be achieved but, clearly enough, it cannot be without defeating the avowed objective of serving the cause of democracy itself. The fallacy of equating the health of democracy with the longevity of a Lok Sabha should be obvious to anyone who sees the logic of the system above all in a people's verdict and not in the politicians' whims and wiles.

An elected House that has violated the spirit of the verdict or cannot reflect it in representative functioning has no right to exist or extend its existence by means other than the voters' mandate. A Parliament that has sat too long for any good it has done and is called upon to go has no authority at all to try and outstay its welcome. This is more so when some of them are interested only in enjoying the perks that go with the membership of the House. To fix its tenure beyond alteration by legitimate forces and factors of parliamentary politics is to free the people's alleged representatives and the rulers in particular from all responsible functioning. A law that assures it of an untruncated term in all circumstances will only enact legislative tyranny. One is tempted to recall the move during the Emergency to prolong the life of the House to enable Indira Gandhi to rule without hindrance. True, the electoral exercise ahead does not appear to promise prospects of improved political stability unless political parties recognise the inevitability of a coalition government at the Centre and act accordingly. That, however, is no argument for a Lok Sabha that cannot assure representative governance and seeks to live beyond its grave. The people cannot be punished in this manner for electing a Parliament of this kind and composition. What the polity of national adoption recognises is their unabridgeable right to exercise their choice, and repeatedly if the conditions of political creation so require.

The impracticality of Sangma's idea could, anyway, not have been more evident. The objective cannot certainly be secured by any such simple device as a single constitutional amendment, even presuming the degree of political consensus the step will call for. The tenure of the House for even a minimum period, a meaningful part of its due term, cannot be merely dictated. Even a furtherance of the aim will not be possible without other changes, fundamental and far-reaching, not merely in the Constitution but, even more, in the political culture itself.

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.