Opinion: When Sonia Gandhi faced off with Narasimha Rao over constitutional review

The leader of the Congress party in the Lok Sabha, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, swiftly resigned from the eight-member committee headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind, tasked with exploring the feasibility of simultaneous parliamentary and state assembly elections. This aligns with the party's established stance and serves as a reminder of how the Congress party, in 1999, had chosen to boycott a constitutional review panel led by Justice M N Venkatachaliah.

Similar to the Kovind panel, which includes known Congress critic and defector Ghulam Nabi Azad, the constitution review panel formed by the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee featured PA Sangma, who had previously raised questions about Sonia Gandhi's foreign origins during a Congress Working Committee meeting.

An intriguing anecdote from 1999 related to the constitution review panel revolves around Sonia Gandhi's reaction upon learning that PV Narasimha Rao had made a submission before Justice MN Venkatachaliah's commission. Despite Rao's diminished status within the Congress Parivar after leaving the prime minister's office and relinquishing the role of Congress president in 1996, he had submitted his views to the panel. Sonia was taken aback by this, as the Congress had instructed all party leaders to boycott Justice MN Venkatachaliah's commission meetings.

However, rather than issuing a statement against Rao, Sonia dispatched Pranab Mukherjee to gauge Rao's intentions. Rao explained that he had gone to clear Indira Gandhi's name in the context of Sikkim's accession to India. He argued that it was incorrect to view Indira's decision to integrate Sikkim as a state into India as one that had violated constitutional provisions. In response, Sonia cleared him of any wrongdoing, stating that she had always held him in high regard, and her mother-in-law had also respected him greatly.

The Justice Venkatachaliah panel, however, ultimately had minimal impact. After thorough examination and numerous meetings, the constitution review panel, in March 2002, strongly recommended against disturbing the parliamentary framework. It also asserted that no major constitutional amendments were necessary. The report stated that "the necessary corrections could be achieved by ordinary legislation modifying the existing laws or, in many cases, merely by rules and executive action."

Moreover, Justice Venkatachaliah acknowledged the potential benefits of the run-off contest system, wherein a representative would need to secure 50% plus one vote for victory, as opposed to the first-past-the-post system. This was seen as a move toward a more representative democracy. The panel recommended that the Government and the Election Commission of India should thoroughly examine this issue, consult various political parties and other stakeholders, and assess the acceptability and benefits of this system.

In summary, the "First Past the Post" electoral system is one where voting occurs in constituencies, each electing a single MP or MLA. The candidate with the most votes in the constituency wins, rendering all other votes irrelevant. One criticism of this system is that it can lead to individuals being elected and parties obtaining a majority of parliamentary seats without receiving a majority of the votes.

Conversely, proportional representation allocates seats in a parliament or state assembly based on the number of votes each party receives. While various forms of proportional representation exist worldwide, the common denominator is that votes are weighted equally. This may involve the use of multi-member constituencies, where a single area elects more than one representative, with the size of the area varying according to the system.

While the United Kingdom employs the First Past the Post system, most European nations, including the European Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, London Assembly, and Scottish and Northern Irish local governments, rely on proportional representation.

The official Congress stance has been to oppose simultaneous elections and a presidential form of governance. According to the Congress, India already has one election, which is for the Lok Sabha. Thus, compelling all elections to occur simultaneously appears impractical, given the prevailing circumstances.

Such a move could also shift the country toward a unitary state, contrary to the federal state envisioned by the Constitution's founding fathers, argues Ashish Dua, AICC secretary. He and many other party leaders recommend that anyone interested in Indian politics and democracy should read Acharya JB Kripalani's 1972 article on whether stable governments are essential for democracy.

Kripalani, in his article, refuted the argument that stable governments were inherently good for democracy. He argued that while some stability was necessary for a government to fulfill its election promises, excessive stability that aimed to perpetuate itself could ultimately undermine democracy. He cautioned against a dictatorship of a party or an individual emerging from such stability.

Kripalani further asserted that democracy thrived on the possibility of change and that periodic changes in government, whether in favor of a single party or a coalition, were essential for a healthy democracy. This viewpoint challenged the notion that long-lasting stability was desirable within a democratic framework.