The Rediff Interview/ Ramaswamy Venkataraman

'I think the only solution for the present crisis is a national government'

But that is not good for the country.

No, it is not good for the country. I have a number of solutions to offer. But who will accept it (laughs) One is that the party which gets the least number of votes in the general election must be eliminated. Then, five parties will become four and four parties will become three, and in the next election, the three parties will become two.

For this solution, you must also not allow future registration of any parties. You should also provide that the party which gets the least number votes in each general election must be disbanded until the number is reduced to two parties. These are my suggestions. Some people may say that it offends Article 19 of the Constitution, the Freedom of Association.

Today, the electorate does not realise that at a general election, they are electing a government for themselves. They look upon it as an occasion to exercise patronage in favour of a particular caste, co-religionist, a neighbour and so on.

If an electorate refuses to elect a criminal, if an electorate refuses to elect a person who grasshoppers from party to party, if an electorate refuses to elect a person with a bad reputation, a corrupt man or a bad man, then politics will be cleansed. But the electorate continues to elect a person who is a criminal, continues to elect a person who has the reputation as a corrupt man.

So what is really required is the education of the electorate. They should realise that they are electing a government for themselves and they are not distributing a favour. It will take a long time to educate the electorate. We are talking about United Kingdom and Europe, but they had also gone through all these trials and tribulations for 800 years. A prime minister like Walpole said, every man has his price. From that position, they have reached maturity. Now a Walpole cannot be elected.

Now we see regional parties with a regional outlook coming to the Centre. Is it because a party like the Congress which has a national perspective has deteriorated that people are voting for regional parties at the Centre?

As I said earlier, the electorate must feel that they must have a strong Centre. Today, the electorate is feeling that more power should be given to the state, from there to the panchayat and so on. So long as this attitude stays, it will be very difficult to have a strong Centre.

The electorate must be able to synthesise these two ideas. Decentralisation with a strong Centre to defend the country, manage foreign affairs, manage the currency, manage the economy through planning is needed. In other matters like education, health etc, the states should have more power. Even politicians are not clear about this. Either they swing to one side or to the other.

What we conceived at the time of framing the Constitution was a centralised federalism, a federalism in which the Centre is strong. That is not realised by our people.

You said you are a pessimist and foresee a fresh election. Suppose no single party gets a majority, will this not be repeated?

You should go on holding elections.

Till the electorate understands?

Yes, till the electorate understands. If a general election is called in three months time, politicians will have to go to the electorate again. People will ask, 'We voted for you only three months back. Why do you come back?' Then, the parties will have to explain that they did not vote for a majority to a single party, and then nobody could form a government.

Soon after the election, when we had a hung Parliament, you spoke about a national government as an alternative. Why is it that no politician is interested in this?

Because everybody wants to be prime minister when we can have only one prime Minister. I think the only solution for the present crisis is a national government. You cannot say that one party is untouchable. What has happened today is that some people say the BJP is untouchable while to some others the Left Front is untouchable. The result is we break into groups.

On the other hand, the crisis is such that it calls for a great deal of abnegation on the part of politicians. They should sink all their differences and come together. It can be done in one way. Informally, the Speaker can call the members of Parliament and ask them to elect a leader by a single transferable vote, or ask them to vote for whomsoever they want to.

And if nobody gets 51 per cent of the votes, we can have a run-off between the first two top candidates so that one of them will be chosen. He may become the prime minister and he can approach the President with an offer to form a government.

How will he pick up the ministers?

I will come to that. Like the Public Accounts Committee or the Estimates Committee which are elected on proportional representation, the Council of Ministers can be elected in the same manner. That is, in proportion to the strength of the party in the House. If this is done, the prime minister will have the authority to allot the portfolios. Nobody can dictate to him.

Decisions in the council of ministers will be taken by a majority of the ministers. If they try this experiment for a year or two, and when the situation becomes normal or when people think it is time to seek a mandate from the people, they can agree among themselves and ask for the dissolution of the House.

Can we afford to have elections at such short intervals?

Elections are the only way of educating the electorate

But elections are a very costly affair and we are a poor country.

Democracy is costly.

Tell us what you think of this interview