Time to send state governors packing: We don’t need them
R Jagannathan Jan 21, 2012
Federalism is back on the national agenda, thanks to the discussion on the Lokpal Bill, the proposed Food Security Bill and various other vote-catching bills being planned by the UPA government.
A key element in the federalism debate is the appointment of partisan governors by the centre in opposition-ruled states – whether it is in Karnataka or Jharkhand or Gujarat.
The tussle between the Gujarat government and Governor Kamla Beniwal over the appointment of the Lokayukta is only the latest flashpoint. Beniwal, apparently cheesed off by Narendra Modi’s alleged delay tactics, decided to appoint the Lokayukta recommended by the Gujarat High Court Chief Justice on her own. In doing so, she did not ask for or go by the advice of the state cabinet.
If presidents can largely be elected only with the consent of the party in power, why is this idea not favoured for the appointment of governors?
In doing so, she probably crossed the line between her constitutional role as governor and her ties to the Congress party. The Supreme Court will decide on the constitutionality of her actions, since the Gujarat High Court has upheld her decision. A commonsense understanding of the governor’s role tells us that she had no business doing what she did.
The constitutional role of the governor is restricted to acting on the advice of the state cabinet. He/she has no independent executive power, except when there is no majority government in place. At best, they can ask governments to reconsider ill-advised legislation, or give them private advice on things they consider important.
Given this reality, and given the brazenness with which the Congress has used governors for partisan ends in the past, it is a good time to ask: why have governors at all? Just for ceremonial occasions or for those brief periods when a government is in the process of being formed? Or to offer sinecures for out-of-work politicians?
In fact, there is a good case for either abolishing the position of governor and/or making the governor an elected official like the president. This way, they cannot be misused indefinitely by the party in power at the centre for destabilising state governments.
If presidents can largely be elected only with the consent of the party in power, why is this idea not favoured for the appointment of governors? Why should the centre alone appoint governors without state consent?
True federalism means that governments at both the centre and states must be set up on the same basis – with the elected government holding the reins of power without an unelected governor coming in-between.
There is no need to privilege the party in power at the centre over the parties in power in the states.
In most countries with unitary or presidential forms of government – the US and UK – the states are not held to ransom by federally-appointed political superbosses. If the US does not need a super governor to control the elected one, why does India?
We need to abolish the position of state governors. The minor jobs they have to do can be done by either the president – who anyway is not overloaded with work – or another ceremonial functionary.
We don’t need a spare wheel at the state level.
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/time-to-send-state-governors-packing-we-dont-need-them-189462.html
Gubernatorial Waste
ReplyDeleteThe dangers of carrying on with copied versions, I mean the Westminster model, far removed from reality is a great danger to the society. It has produced only bureaucratic blocks without good administration, political power brokers instead of leaders, vote capturing populist pranks instead of economic and developmental programs and above all it has created the sickening quasi royal figureheads in the states called governors who are kept afloat along with their entire entourage at enormous cost to the exchequer. These figureheads are kept aloof by protocol , installed by political manipulators and treated like animated icons and above all they enjoy a dangerously unreasonable and unknowable power because it is:- a] without responsibility and accountability; b] they need to give their final assent to many vital and crucial activities; c] they need not participate in the quinquennial jubilee; d]above all they enjoy legal immunity e] tax payers money is squandered for their pageant and pomp; F] these supposedly neutered monarchs walk scot free with their unquestioned extra constitutional authority and unfortunately no intellect or politician has the gall to question this waste of exchequers money
We must know one thing that history has never forgiven any race or nation that has refused to make the decisive break or effect the necessary change. Unfortunately, now it is least possible to expect any change from the present cabinet as even the PRIME MINISTER is inducted and not elected. All the right thinking people must unite and start the process to do away with this enormous waste.we need to develop a more liberal outlook, by liberal outlook I do not mean activities that please the media opinions or that seeks an approval from US , unfortunately these two factors seem to decide even many of our policy decisions. I mean by liberal outlook what Bertrand Russel wrote " The essence of liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held,but in how they are held;instead of being held dogmatically they are held tentatively and with a conscience that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment" Are we liberal in this sense.
http://contentwriteups.blogspot.com/2010/10/gubernatorial-waste.html