DAILY QUESTIONS & MODEL ANSWERS
Q1. The anti-defection law, which was designed to prevent political defection, is currently being abused to promote it. Do you agree? Comment (250 Words)
Paper & Topic: GS II – Election-related issues
Model Answer:
Introduction:
- The term “defection” is used to describe “one party member’s abandonment of his loyalty to his political party” or, to put it another way, “when an elected official joins another party without resigning from his current party for benefits.” Politics, parties, and governments are not the only institutions affected by defection and party switching.
- In order to counteract the evil of political defections, the 52nd constitution amendment act on Anti-defection Law was passed and the 10th Schedule was inserted to the Indian Constitution in 1985. The rule’s main objective was to stop “the evil of political defections,” which could happen as a result of office benefits or other similar circumstances.
Body:
Historical context and anti-defection legislation violations:
- The High Court of Bombay at Goa ruled on February 25 that the former members of the Congress Legislature Party (CLP) in the Goa assembly who switched parties to the BJP are exempt from disqualification under paragraph 4(2) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, also known as the anti-defection law.
- This provision states that in order for a member to request an exemption from disqualification, the merger of the original political party and approval of the merger by two-thirds of the MLAs are required.
- It is abundantly evident from the phrase “such merger” that the original political party must merge before two-thirds of its members approve of such a merger.
- The HC seems to have overlooked the phrase “such merger”.Contrary to what the court has concluded, members of the legislature can agree to a merger after it has already taken place.
- The anti-desertion law aimed to stop political deserters. However, the decision of the Bombay High Court seems to assume that paragraph (4) of the 10th schedule is meant to promote defection.This decision will likely unleash a surge of defectors.
Observations required for a merger to not be viewed as a defection:
- Merger is insufficient on its own:It is made clear in the first sentence of sub-paragraph (2), “for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph,” that the merger of two political parties is insufficient to exempt a member from exclusion due to defection and to take into account this member’s claim that he joined the party with which the merger has occurred.
- Additionally, at least two-thirds of the members must concur:Such a merger needs the consent of at least two-thirds of the members.
What needs to be done:
- Intra-party democracy: The 170th Law Commission report stressed the importance of intra-party democracy by arguing that a political party cannot conduct itself democratically on the outside while conducting itself in a dictatorial manner internally.
- As a result, the parties must talk and consider the members’ perspectives. This would promote party democracy and open communication among its members.
- unbiased authorityFollowing the Election Commission’s advice, a number of commissions, including the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), have recommended that the President (in the case of MPs) or the Governor (in the case of MLAs) make the decision to disqualify a member rather than the Presiding Officer.
- Independent committee for disqualification: Justice Verma ruled in the Hollohan ruling that because the Speaker’s tenure is dependent on the ongoing support of the House majority, he does not fit the requirements for such an independent adjudicating authority.
- Additionally, a crucial element of the fundamental feature is broken by his choice to be the only arbiter in the dispute.
- Defection cases must therefore be handled by a different authority.
- Restricting the Speaker’s discretion: In accordance with a recent Supreme Court ruling, the Speaker must decide whether to disqualify a candidate three months after receiving the application. It is not within the Speaker’s discretion to do nothing.
- Important choices: Several observers believe that the law should only be applied to choices that have an effect on the stability of the government. For instance, passing the annual budget or adopting the suggested no-confidence resolutions from the Dinesh Goswami Committee.
Conclusion:
- Before the nation’s governance system becomes unstable, seditious defections must be stopped. Due to the allure of money and power, the current legal system is obviously flawed and has failed to successfully prevent defection. To help develop a democracy that is truly representative, anti-defection laws need to be rationalised.
Q2. Consider the macroeconomic implications and the justification for selling off successful Public Sector Units (PSUs). (250 Words)
Paper & Topic: GS III – Indian Economy
Model Answer:
Introduction:
- The act of a firm or government selling or liquidating a subsidiary or asset, or the process of reducing a government’s ownership in a PSU (Public Sector Undertaking), is known as disinvestment, sometimes known as divestment.
- After the privatisation of Air India, the IPO of LIC, the largest insurer in India, may signal yet another critical turning point in the country’s economic reform drive. The successful IPO of the life insurance giant will enable the speedy disinvestment of other government-owned enterprises.
Body:
Justification for selectively selling and divesting PSUs:
- financing for economic recovery: To support the economy and pay predicted increases in healthcare spending, the government is under pressure to find additional financing.
- Asset sales and disinvestment revenues will be required to cover a portion of the increase in public spending in the 2019 budget.
- minimal government The goal of optimal governance is to eliminate the need for government action in areas that are not crucial from a strategic perspective.
- Government shouldn’t operate businesses, hence the divestment is justified.
- The dynamics of competition for private players are impacted by government engagement.
- Efficiency improvement: Diversify PSU ownership to boost the efficiency of any given firm. For instance, Hindustan Zinc is the second-largest zinc-lead miner in the world and one of the top 10 silver producers in the world. It profited from the privatisation.
- More lucrative opportunities for private players: Such businesses may have more economic potential when placed in the hands of strategic investors due to a number of factors, including money infusion, technology advancement, and good management approaches.
- better use of public money Due to PSUs operating at a loss, consumers and taxpayers are ultimately responsible for covering the cost of inefficient PSU operations. The same money may be used by the government instead for programmes that genuinely help citizens.
The effect on the macroeconomy is:
- Governments have traditionally used disinvestment to achieve financial objectives rather than growth objectives.
- Disinvestment is not a process that is favoured by society because it works against the interests of people who are less fortunate on the socioeconomic spectrum.
- Over time, the divestiture policy has transformed into a method of raising money to address the fiscal imbalance, placing less emphasis on market discipline or strategic goal.
- Consumer welfare may occasionally decrease as private monopolies develop.
- Increased efficacy and output are not necessarily a result of switching from public to private ownership.
- It might lead to worker layoffs, which would cut off their source of income.
- The private sector frequently uses capital-intensive techniques that exacerbate India’s unemployment problem because it is primarily motivated by the pursuit of profit.
- Loss-making units don’t generate as much revenue.
How to Proceed:
- PSU asset monetization generates higher returns than disinvestment, which is the alternative.
- Determine the industries that the government has prioritised based on its strategic interests.
- The ability of PSU investments to provide respectable social and strategic benefits must be assessed.
- It should be a temporary programme.
- Government ownership is required for sectors having strategic value, such as defence, natural resources, and others. The government should exit non-strategic industries like lodging, soaps, travel agency, airlines, and the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages.
- The government should think about strengthening the regulatory framework that ensures efficient market conditions.
- Instead of PSUs, the government should create regulations that make it easier for new players to join the game. Additionally, the regulations should guarantee that customers’ fundamental needs are met.
- Allowing both domestic and foreign buyers to participate in open bidding for stakes.