bulbul Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 ain't it a fantastic thing? RS acting as a checkpoint to absolute majority in LS? I love the Indian system for this. Funny thing is the checkpoint by members of parties who got rejected by People through voting :cantstop:
G_B_ Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I personally also feel the rajya sabha is needed. Maybe they can expand the scope of the lok sabha on economic matters In any case bjp needs to cause defections from the RS it is a sure shot way to getting a numbers spike.
Precambrian Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Funny thing is the checkpoint by members of parties who got rejected by People through voting :cantstop: Well not really - since they represent proporationally the voting patterns of individual states, don't they? Further - it is also a safeguard against sudden sweeps by parties on account of a mania/mass wave. It also underlines that constitutional amendments etc can be done only by those who have enjoyed sustained support of the people in theory - and not those who rode a wave that was not sustainable.
bulbul Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Well not really - since they represent proporationally the voting patterns of individual states, don't they? Further - it is also a safeguard against sudden sweeps by parties on account of a mania/mass wave. It also underlines that constitutional amendments etc can be done only by those who have enjoyed sustained support of the people in theory - and not those who rode a wave that was not sustainable. Take example of UP... BSP have 13 RS seats but 0 LS seats. People rejected the party totally , but it can still call shots in RS based on old performance.
Precambrian Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Take example of UP... BSP have 13 RS seats but 0 LS seats. People rejected the party totally ' date=' but it can still call shots in RS based on old performance.[/quote'] Well, then if you take into account LS results, then it can be said that ruling SP also doesn't have people's mandate? So they should resign and fresh polls be done? That's why I am saying this is sort of a safeguard against radical changes - it allows things to cool down a little bit - maintaining status quo - so that people get enough time to decide whether the changes are really sustainable or not. See, my counterpoint would be, assume AAP got majority of votes in Delhi elections - would that mean BJP has been rejected and hence their LS MPs don't have people's mandate anymore? In 1991, against all odds, Congress formed a govt at center... It was performing poorly in the initial changes - then the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi happened - smack in middle of elections - and then what followed was a tsunami in favor of congress... was that change in hearts really "rational"? Not really. So such massive landslides needs to be kept in check.
G_B_ Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Fully agree with what Prem has to say. Any democratic system needs safeguards. Checks and balances. UK has the house of Lords. USA obviously has senate congress and the president. Even the PCCC has internal elections in such a way that one faction does not dominate based on a wave. The BSP did not win a seat. But their vote % of a lot higher than many parties with 15-16 seats.
bulbul Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Well' date=' then if you take into account LS results, then it can be said that ruling SP also doesn't have people's mandate? [b']So they should resign and fresh polls be done? That's why I am saying this is sort of a safeguard against radical changes - it allows things to cool down a little bit - maintaining status quo - so that people get enough time to decide whether the changes are really sustainable or not. See, my counterpoint would be, assume AAP got majority of votes in Delhi elections - would that mean BJP has been rejected and hence their LS MPs don't have people's mandate anymore? In 1991, against all odds, Congress formed a govt at center... It was performing poorly in the initial changes - then the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi happened - smack in middle of elections - and then what followed was a tsunami in favor of congress... was that change in hearts really "rational"? Not really. So such massive landslides needs to be kept in check. Not about resigning and going to fresh poll, people didn't gave them mandate to rule country. Few times people vote differently when both state & center goes to vote at same time. One off cases may happen [RG assassination], even in the case of AAP they were ruling party before this election and again a one off phenomenon. My issue is the objection in RS is solely because of opposition rather than genuine concern with policies or country.How to solve this issue?
bulbul Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Fully agree with what Prem has to say. Any democratic system needs safeguards. Checks and balances. UK has the house of Lords. USA obviously has senate congress and the president. Even the PCCC has internal elections in such a way that one faction does not dominate based on a wave. The BSP did not win a seat. But their vote % of a lot higher than many parties with 15-16 seats. So what we are seeing now in RS is safeguard? checks? Intention is good but functioning is not helping country.
Precambrian Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Not about resigning and going to fresh poll, people didn't gave them mandate to rule country. Few times people vote differently when both state & center goes to vote at same time. One off cases may happen [RG assassination], even in the case of AAP they were ruling party before this election and again a one off phenomenon. My issue is the objection in RS is solely because of opposition rather than genuine concern with policies or country.How to solve this issue? Exactly, such one off cases like Rajiv's assassination could change the whole picture of parliament in a matter of days - why should our constitution be vulnerable to such events in any case? Hence the RS as a check. I am not saying its the perfect check, but under current circumstances one of the better checks. Your issue is a different question altogether - quality of elected representatives. Unfortunately constitution cannot envisage for that, and relies on judgement of electorate for that. Further, from parliament's perspective you cannot have "absolute" rights or wrongs. Instead it goes by the opinion of the majority. And this is precisely why it also gives the solution in form of joint sittings to resolve deadlocks - where LS would invariably prevail over RS.
Precambrian Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 So what we are seeing now in RS is safeguard? checks? Intention is good but functioning is not helping country. Don't blame the constitution for that, blame the persons and parties whom the electorate themselves elected into power in the respective states.
asterix Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Major feck up by BJP in Delhi. When they've Lt. Governor rule for 7 months, should've undertaken large scale development work in Delhi. Now Modi is saying we will do this and that...could've done a lot in Delhi in last 7 months when they allowed Kejri to consolidate...what these feckers were doing in Delhi? Should've sacked Najeeb Jung immediately and took visible action...
G_B_ Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 So what we are seeing now in RS is safeguard? checks? Intention is good but functioning is not helping country. Ordinances (a temp measure) joint sessions. Financial bills are in the realm of the Lok sabha. The current government has enough wiggle room. India is at a stage where there are enough low hanging fruit in terms of reforms which can be made. Hopefully people of india wake up by then.
Precambrian Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Ordinances (a temp measure) joint sessions. Financial bills are in the realm of the Lok sabha. The current government has enough wiggle room. India is at a stage where there are enough low hanging fruit in terms of reforms which can be made. Hopefully people of india wake up by then. precisely. I think most of the key issues India is facing - and the most urgent - are addressable quite easily by the current LS. Money bills - easy. Medium reforms - through a joint session. Of course, things like Uniform Civil conduct etc are reforms that are far reaching in terms of consequences and would obviously need the "true" mandate of people - so only logical that these get approval of both houses - thereby achieving the best consensus possible. heck man, it might take time, but democracy truly rocks more and more as I read more into it. But still I am a sucker for "benevolent dictatorship"
G_B_ Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 precisely. I think most of the key issues India is facing - and the most urgent - are addressable quite easily by the current LS. Money bills - easy. Medium reforms - through a joint session. Of course, things like Uniform Civil conduct etc are reforms that are far reaching in terms of consequences and would obviously need the "true" mandate of people - so only logical that these get approval of both houses - thereby achieving the best consensus possible. heck man, it might take time, but democracy truly rocks more and more as I read more into it. But still I am a sucker for "benevolent dictatorship" Personally i would have made Rajya Sabha elections similar to the lok sabha ones. Every 2 years 1/3 of the rajya sabha members are elected directly by the people of the state. Every 2 or 3 lok sabha seats are merged into rajya sabha seats. I have never liked the concept of indirect voting, that is where i have an issue with the rajya sabha. It leads to horse trading when parties fall short on numbers. So this implies that a party needs to sustain its popularity through the country for 5 years or so to gain majority in both houses. Effectively the Rajya Sabha would become a senate similar to the USA.There is some truth to what bulbul is sauying. BSP dont have they people's mandate for a good 2-3 years now in terms of election results.
bulbul Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Ordinances (a temp measure) joint sessions. Financial bills are in the realm of the Lok sabha. The current government has enough wiggle room. India is at a stage where there are enough low hanging fruit in terms of reforms which can be made. Hopefully people of india wake up by then. Takes lot of time and may not work in every case.
G_B_ Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 and looking at the USA there have been times when republicans in the GW Bush era have controlled the House Senate and Presidency while in the Obama era the democrats have controlled the House Senate and Presidency from 2008-2010. So every once in a while there is a moment when the stars allign for legislation to be passed in the USA. When was the last time there was a coalition in power which had a mandate in the lok sabha and rajya sabha? This does make passing legislation much much harder. Because BJP or Congress both oppose for the sake of opposing.
G_B_ Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Takes lot of time and may not work in every case. you are right. But as i said atm there is a lot of things which can be done. BJP gov has the boon of falling oil prices. Inflation is down and rate cuts should follow. Providing a natural boost to the economy. The government can also embark on a massive infrastructure building program. There is still enough which can be done in this stage of India's development.
Precambrian Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Personally i would have made Rajya Sabha elections similar to the lok sabha ones. Every 2 years 1/3 of the rajya sabha members are elected directly by the people of the state. Every 2 or 3 lok sabha seats are merged into rajya sabha seats. I have never liked the concept of indirect voting, that is where i have an issue with the rajya sabha. It leads to horse trading when parties fall short on numbers. So this implies that a party needs to sustain its popularity through the country for 5 years or so to gain majority in both houses. Effectively the Rajya Sabha would become a senate similar to the USA.There is some truth to what bulbul is sauying. BSP dont have they people's mandate for a good 2-3 years now in terms of election results. Interesting thought. Just a prob with the bolded part. I do agree BSP doesn't have the mandate - but do SP have? Well, if we are taking the indicators based on LS 2014 elections, shouldn't that be the case? I think its a mechanism to rule out massive changes not just in LS but also in state legislatures.
bulbul Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Interesting thought. Just a prob with the bolded part. I do agree BSP doesn't have the mandate - but do SP have? Well, if we are taking the indicators based on LS 2014 elections, shouldn't that be the case? I think its a mechanism to rule out massive changes not just in LS but also in state legislatures. SP at least have mandate for state level , they even won majority of by-poll for state assembly.
Recommended Posts