The Hindu : The politics of no-confidence

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Aug 21, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

The politics of no-confidence

WITH THE NUMBERS never stacking up, the no-confidence motion was doomed to failure even as it was moved. Given this, its success or failure must be measured not so much by the defeat of the motion (by a margin of 312 to 186) as by evaluating whether it fulfilled the political strategy of the Opposition, particularly the Congress. What led the Congress president to move such a motion in the face of certain defeat? The official reason was it was the only way to force the Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, to respond on the floor of the House to a slew of charges — to force an explanation why, under his Government, corruption has allegedly increased, why the country's defence has become jeopardised, and why parliamentary democracy has been denigrated. However, it was no accident that the no-confidence motion was moved at a time when five States were getting ready to go to the polls, with a general election not far away. For Sonia Gandhi and her Congress strategists, such a motion served the purpose of drawing the political battlelines clearly and rallying the Opposition around the Congress president, who took centrestage. Clearly, the belief here was that, in the circumstances, a losing gambit might set up the foundation for a winning endgame.

With the constituents of the National Democratic Alliance and its supporters rallying around the Prime Minister, the Congress failed to locate any chinks in the BJP's political armour. Even the hope that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) would jump ship was belied. However, Ms. Gandhi may find political comfort in the fact that the Opposition parties stood by her, particularly the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), both of which seem to be slowly shedding their reservations about the Congress and her leadership of it. The no-confidence motion also provided an opportunity for the Congress to wriggle out of the somewhat sticky situation it had created for itself over the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) issue. The party had brought the Lok Sabha to a deadlock after charging the Government with withholding the Central Vigilance Commission's (CVC) report, resulting in the PAC's inability to give its findings on the irregularities in arms purchases for the Kargil operations. The sting of this allegation was substantially reduced when it was revealed that the CVC's report did not cover the controversial contract for the purchase of coffins during the Kargil crisis. Reports that the PAC Chairman, Buta Singh, had failed to acknowledge a factual note on defence procurements submitted by the CVC did not help the Opposition's case either.

With the survival of Mr. Vajpayee never in doubt, the focus was on the debate. As things turned out, the level of the parliamentary debate was one of the lowest witnessed in recent times. With hardly any new insights surfacing on the PAC/CVC/Kargil matter, the proceedings assumed the air of a pre-election boxing match. The members of the NDA were as responsible as the Opposition for this outcome. In his reply, Mr. Vajpayee wondered why a no-confidence motion was moved when there was no chance of toppling the Government. However, this is not the first motion that has been moved to debate an issue rather than defeat a Government. In 1963, a no-confidence motion was moved specifically to discuss the fallout of the Indian debacle in the India-China conflict; it was lost by a margin of 347 to 47. Unfortunately, too much grandstanding and too little substance marked the level of debate this time.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

The politics of no-confidence

Devastating strike in Baghdad

The Advani problem

Bush and energy politics

Conflicting viewpoints sans acrimony