0.10 Dynamics behind ombudsman bill  (Page 2/3)

When political formation behind a Government is a single party, then corruption is expected to remain at certain manageable level. In the case of coalition, however, the demarcation about corruption blurs and politicians tend to go beyond the scope of party fund requirement, which in itself is huge, to accumulate personal wealth as there is a sense of isolated fiefdom. If a minister is not appointed by Prime Minister, then why should that minister be responsible or answerable to the Prime Minister? This expansion of prime ministerial powers to various heads of political parties is at the heart of matter whereby the constitutional requirement of collective responsibility is conveniently forgotten.

The warring factionalism in the electoral composition of India ensures that single party rule is impossible. Before the onset of coalition politics in India, Congress had initially desisted from coalition politics and preferred to go alone. However, erosion of national identity and rise of regional sentiments almost guaranteed the emergence of coalition politics in the foreseeable future. The preeminence of Gandhi family in post independence period and consolidation of Bhartiya Janta Party in post Indira Gandhi period had given Indian democracy two main formations, but neither of two appeared to have nation-wide appeal. In addition to smaller political formations like Communist party, the regional satrapas (leaders) have slowly gained the status of king makers with one of two main formations as the core. Examples of such regional satrapas are aplenty in Indian politics. Karunanidhi and Jayalaitha in Tamilnadu, Navin Patnaik in Orissa, Mamta Banerjee in West Bengal, Nitish Kumar and Lalu Prasad Yadav in Bihar, Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav in UP and Sharad Pawar in Maharashtra are political personalities who prefer to retain their identity independent of main political formations at national level.

As a matter of fact, Prime Minister acknowledged the compulsion of coalition politics in open and said that his advice was not heeded by the then Telecom Minister. This was the precise reason that the Prime Minister offered to the nation about his role in 2G scam. In this sense, A.Raja, Telecom Minister, was part of a separate political set up involving Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam (DMK). Since he was appointee of DMK Chief Karunanidhi, his loyalty belonged to him rather than the Prime Minister as was expected in the parliamentary democracy. Incidentally, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has also explicitly confirmed the nexus of A.Raja and DMK in its report submitted to the court.

Besides this, a bizarre kind of aberration to democratic procedure was introduced by maverick leader Lalu Prasad Yadav, Ex – Chief Minister, Bihar. When charge sheeted under the preview of fodder scam, he had to relinquish his position of Chief Minister of Bihar on technical ground. However, he invented an extraordinary arrangement of Governance by making his housewife as the Chief Minister. This outwitted even the closest of his allies besides his opponents. Now, this abrasive subversion of democratic system by a popular leader continued not for one or two years but for about a decade having a consequence that only Bihar knows.