It is unbecoming fr parties to be friends to government

After elections are over, the parties that were roaring like lions during elections against each other uniting and proposing to governor to prove majority on floor of the house, it not a question to be considered at all. Because it is clear case of cheating the voter who had chosen one against the contestants that he did not like.  Whether a party can form the government or not is a question to be considered purely from the voter's point of view and reading the mandate given by the ordinary voter, the parties cannot be allowed to subvert the process of democracy by uniting with the same parties against whom they were conveying thousand reasons to people to not vote.  Even if they had not told people to not vote against a particular party, that does not mean that it gives a right to them to ally with them as long as they were CONTESTING AGAINST each other by fielding candidates in all constituencies.  By that very word CONTEST they are mandated to be either on the side of government or on the side of opposition, there is no question of anyone joining hands with other with whom they contested by fielding candidates to prove majority on the floor of house.

The corollary of the above principle is that no party other than the single largest party is eligible to form government till the assembly is dissolved and fresh mandate is sought.  It is only the single largest party, no one else that is eligible to form government and if that government is brought down by the no-confidence motion, the only consequence is elections.  No one can go with a herd of sheep to governor for head count claiming himself to be new shepherd after the rule of single largest party is brought down by a no-confidence motion for the simple reason that no other party has the mandate of the voter.

The voter while exercising his choice has ruled out certain parties to become eligible to form government.  His volition relating to this exclusion must at any cost be respected as highest principle of democracy and those parties that he consciously excluded to be part of government shall not be allowed to form the government nor be part of government.

In saying so, we are not only saying that floor test is not the yardstick to prove the majority, but also that it is not necessary for any party having the mandate of the voter to prove majority on the floor of the house because technically that party is deemed to be carrying the mandate of the voter.

The principle of majority is not a judicious principle because even at a constituency level, the winning candidate gets less than 50% of the total votes polled.  Even then he is declared the winner.  In other words, in a constituency where 400000 votes are polled the winning candidate gets 100000 votes and rest of the 6 candidates contesting gets 50000 votes each, then it is not required that he gets 50% (ie 200000) votes to be declared a winner.  Even if he gets 25% he is declared winner because no one else has got more than 25% of votes.  That means he has the mandate of people other candidates did not have.  Can the rest of the candidates bring him down during the 5-year tenure of assembly by a no-confidence motion?  Does he have to prove that he has support of 50% voters in the constituency?

The same principle is applicable for government also.  A party has the mandate if it is single largest party just like the candidate having only 100000 votes declared winner in the above example.  It need not have more than 50% of the total number of MLAs in the floor of the house, if it is single largest party it is enough if it is single largest party even if that means that it has only 25% of the total number of MLAs of the House.  Such single largest party alone is legally eligible to form government and deemed to be carrying the mandate of the voter.  To the best of my knowledge proving majority is also not a constitutional requirement, constitution never mentions anything as such about majority. 

I was asked then how it is possible for government to be stable.  There are two possibilities.  A.  the other parties may bring down the govt. by passing a no-confidence motion collectively B. even if they fear to bring down the government with a no confidence motion, the bills will be stalled by them by not allowing government to pass the bills on the floor of the house.  When a bill is not passed these other parties will create ruckus in public that government has no majority.....let them do! Even if they don’t create ruckus and project it as an excuse to bring down the government by introducing no confidence motion…all this means instability and insecurity for the ruling party not having majority on the floor of the house.  And it was said for that reason, for a stable government it is necessary that some other party’s support also needs to be taken and majority be proved on the floor of the house.

Be that as it may, let us look at the scheme of constitution once.  It may not be that constitution had not contemplated a situation (when we say India is a multiparty democracy not a bi-party democracy like USA) where no party might get majority but some party might get mandate of people as single largest party. 

As per constitution, when any bill has no support of the house, it does not mean that the government has no majority, it only means that the said bill has no support of the house.  The bill may be defeated but if that is projected as an excuse to bring down governments in the past it is because of lumpenization of politics not because constitution has any provision to say that once some bill introduced by the government is defeated on the floor of the house, the logical consequence is no-confidence motion.  So if political parties deliberately vote against bills introduced by government in order to destabilize the government or create a negative picture of the performance of government, it will always be in the notice of vigilant republic that it is being done deliberately.  The ruling party should be strong enough to get the message across to people that there is no reason why so many bills of government should be stalled by these parties colluding on the floor of the house other than defeating the mandate of people and create trouble.  And people also should be vigilant to realize such tendencies.  As far as process is concerned, it is perfectly democratic that a bill may be defeated on the floor of house because of lack of numbers, legislature is always superior to the government.  Only thing to be watched is whether the parties not in government are intentionally, deliberately defeating the bills to create trouble.  When such a situation is there that people have voted no party to majority and a single largest party emerged, it may be that the voter wanted a stronger check on the government by the opposition parties.  That will can be respected by the Netas to provide a stronger opposition, but cannot be used as an excuse to destabilize government.

If it is used as an excuse to destabilize government by not allowing meaningful bills also and by not allowing the business of house to function, and subsequently bringing down the government it is for public to vote back the ruling party to power.   Everyone has a role to play in a democracy, when such a situation such as this emerges but taking the help of parties that are mandated to sit in opposition is abuse of mandate of the voter. 

In Delhi also there is no reason why BJP should not form the government because it emerged as single largest party.  It is better to form government and lose on the floor of house and go to polls with people’s sympathy than going now directly. If Aam Admi Party and Congress unites to bring down government it will the BJP more than going to polls directly. 

Talwaar ko sar pe latakthe huwe sarkaar chalaav jaaye kahke log mandate dete hain voter tho nibhaanaa seekhnaa hain political parties ko respectably.  It cannot be an excuse for political parties that no one has majority and till they get majority they keep wasting public money for holding elections.  For instance people will give same hung mandate for ten times, will the parties goes to public again eleventh time also?

Voter in India is always wise we know that he may not create hung time and again.  But to rule such a wise voter, the political parties must be much more wiser. Either you create a wiser system or rule as per the mandate of voter!

Because system is made contemplating the possibilities, not by depending on the wisdom of voters.

Who will support BJP ...is it Shivasena or NCP is not a question to be asked by Media at all?  The right question to be asked by Media is, which party has guts to throw away the government formed with the mandate of people.  Hence the media, instead of asking BJP "which party's support your party will take" should ask other parties, "if BJP does not ask for support....will you vote against BJP on floor of the house collectively to bring down the democratically elected government for no reason.  

NOw the situation is such that, all the three parties, Congress, NCP and Shivsena should unite to bring down the government.  No two parties among the three have the strength to bring down the government.  So when they collude (not unite) to bring down the government HAVING THE MANDATE OF PEOPLE OF MAHARASHTRA....when the BJP tries to prove majority on the floor of the house which is a formality prescribed by the courts, the reason should not be that BJP cannot prove majority on the floor of the house that is why we bring it down.  The reason should be much more reasonable than that.  

They have to explain to people (if they collude to bring down government voting collectively against government) 1.  On what ideological basis they have united together   2.  On what issue of failure of goverment they have voted against.

If they do not explain satisfactorily these two points, people are going to give absolute majority to BJP for that mistake in the next elections when the assembly is dissolved.

Political parties must understand the read correctly the assignment given to single largest party in a "fractured mandate".  When people give a fractured verdict they have expressed two wishes :  1.  that there should be a strong opposition to government  2.  that they did not want government to rule from a "comfortable position".  They wanted the single largest party to form government but rule the state with a sword hanging on its head.

These are the inferences to be read in people's mandate in a fractured verdict.  IN a way a fractured verdict means that people have expressed NO CONFIDENCE IN ANY ONE POLITICAL PARTY.  That expression cannot be defeated by forming alliances with people mandated to make a strong opposition.  To seek comfort from this kind of mandate is cheating the public. 

This subjection to discomfort has its reasons.  If you are united, supporters of 180 MLAs have to be pleased by babus.  If you are not united, they will have to please only supporters of 120 MLAs.  That is good for public because some funds will be distributed among citizens equitably. Secondly, there is an inherent threat in this mandate.  "If you indulge in corruption like earlier governments, I give authority to other 3 parties to unite and bring down your government".  Yes!  If there is corruption, on that ground the Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena can unite and bring down BJP government any time.  To facilitate that threat to the ruling party, people have given a fractured mandate and made BJP a single largest party.

Talwaar sarpe latakte huwe raaj kiyaa jaay kahke janta janaardhan mandate deti hain tho uskaa Wisdom ko political parties samajhnaa bahut jaroori hain.